R-7

CNLU GENERAL INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION – 2021-22.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF SILAND

W.P. NO…………../2021

Madhur Dey (PETITIONER)

v.

Election Commission of Gazipur and Ors. (RESPONDENT)

PETETITION INVOKED UNDER ARTCLE 226 of CONSTITUTION OF GAZIPUR

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BL JUSTICE AND LORDSHIP’S COMPANION JUSTICES OF

HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF GAZIPUR.

0|Page
MEMORIAL FOR RESPONDENT
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... 2

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................... 3

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................................... 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 6

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ............................................................................................................ 8

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .................................................................................................... 9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ...................................................................................................... 10

I. THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE HON’BLE

COURT. .................................................................................................................................... 10

1. THE PETITIONER DOES NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE LOCUS STANDI IN THE
INSTANT CASE. ................................................................................................................. 10

2. ELECTION RELATED MATTERS NOT MAINTAINABLE THROUGH WRIT

PETITION............................................................................................................................. 11

II. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION ON MARCH 5TH HAS
MERIT. ..................................................................................................................................... 13

1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION FALLS WITHIN

SECTION 11 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, [HEREINAFTER BE
CALLED “RP ACT”] 1951 AND REASONED WITH PUBLIC MANDATE. ................. 14

III. Section 11 of Representation of People Act is Constitutional. ........................................... 17

1. THE POWER OF CONDONING THE DISQUALIFICATION IS BASED ON

INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA ......................................................................................... 18

PRAYER ....................................................................................................................................... 19

1|Page
 LIST OF ABBRIVIATIONS

AIR All India Reporter

Anr. Another

Art. Article

Bom. Bombay

Co. Company

Cri. Criminal

CriLJ Criminal Law Journal

Ed. Edition

Hon’ble Honourable

SC Supreme Court

SCC Supreme Court Cases

Corp. Corporation

Sec. Section

RP Act Representation of People Act

v. Versus

Const. Constitution

CM Chief Minister

J. Justice

2|Page
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan, 2005 AIR (SC) 3202............................................................................. 11

D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom,(2017) 9 SCC 478: (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 833:2017 SCC
OnLine SC 1095. ........................................................................................................................ 9
Dharti Pakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. K.R. Narayanan, (1997) 8 SCC 766: AIR (1998) SC 1462.
................................................................................................................................................... 12
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 1996 SC 1810 : (1996) 4 SCC
104............................................................................................................................................. 15
Food Corpn. of India v. Pala Ram, (2008) 14 SCC 32. ................................................................ 12
Meghraj Kothari vs Delimitation Commission & Ors, 1967 AIR 669. ........................................ 13
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405: AIR 1978 SC 851.
Paragraph 91. ............................................................................................................................ 11
Narinder Singh v Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Anr., (2019) SCC OnLine P&H
486............................................................................................................................................. 14
S.K Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1983) 4 SCC 194: AIR 1983 SC 988. .............................................. 9

STATUTES

INDIA CONST. art. 191, § 2. ....................................................................................................... 15

INDIA CONST. part XV, art. 324-329......................................................................................... 15
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, § 11, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India). ............... 13
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, § 3 (c), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India). ............ 14

OTHER AUTHORITIES

M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 1221(Web edition Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa
Publications, Nagpur, 2016) ..................................................................................................... 18
Mandamus according to Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 15th Edition, 2009. ....................................... 11

3|Page
Election Commission of India, https://eci.gov.in/files/file/10777-commissions-order-dated-
29092019-regarding-application-of-shri-prem-singh-tamang-under-section-11-of-the-
representation-of-the-people-act-1951/

4|Page
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The respondents humbly submits to the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble High Court of Siland in
pursuance of Article 226 of the Constitution of Gazipur upon the response of petition filed by
Madhur Dey against the Election Commission.

Article 226 of the Constitution:

“(1) Notwithstanding anything in Article 32 every High Court shall have powers, throughout the
territories in relation to which it exercise jurisdiction, to issue to any person or authority, including
in appropriate cases, any Government, within those territories directions, orders or writs, including
writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibitions, quo warranto and certiorari, or any
of them, for the enforcement of any of the rights conferred by Part III and for any other purpose

(2) The power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government,
authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to
the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such
power, notwithstanding that the seat of such Government or authority or the residence of such
person is not within those territories”

5|Page
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Asad khalid a popular leader of the state Siland situated in the Republic of Gazipur. He started his
political journey as a student of Kajo National University and became the rambunctious leader to
the forefront during the decline of communist regime in,1990.

For the very first time he was elected as the youth wing leader of Sil Jibo party from Kazo district
of the Siland state in year 1999. In year 2001 he got elected for the 2nd term as the legislature of
the Siland State Assembly and was nominated by Rohindey (CM of Siland from Sil Jibo Party).
And when the 3rd time he was elected he has given the ministry of agriculture in year 2011.

In 2013 the Rohindey’s government lost he floor test on the charge of corruption. All the person
who were involved in the corruption. They were tried by the end of 2015 through special
prosecution committee to investigate the allegation of corruption.

Rohindey held guilty on the ground of embezzlement in public procurement tenders. And Asad
khalid also held guilty for acted without due diligence and sentences 1 year of imprisonment u/s
13(1) (d) (iii) on 23rd December 2015. Asad Khalid went to Kajo jail he challenged the order
before the High court of Siland and the appeal got dismissed on 02nd January 2016. He then made
Special leave Petition to the Supreme court of Gazipur and same got admitted on 22 nd January
2016 and his sentence was suspended with immediate effect. on 23rd August 2017, his Special
Leave petition got dismissed by Supreme Court of Republic of Gazipur. And he was ordered to
complete his remaining sentence.

He after completing his sentence of 1 year released on 25th July 2018. And he severed all the ties
with the Ronhindey’s party because of the Ronhindey’s deception made him the gullible victim of
harsh law. He formed his own party named as “Jan Kalyan Morcha” for 2019 election, but due to
his former conviction he didn’t qualify to contest 2019 election.The party “Jan Kalyan Morcha”
secured 54% votes and 87% seats in 2019 poll under leadership of Asad Khalid and he became the
leader of the single largest party of the Siland state and taken oath as the youngest CM on 11 th
October 2019.

On 29th February he preferred an application under Section 11 of Representation of people Act

1951 to the Election Commission of Republic of Gazipur. Which was allowed on 05th march 2020
6|Page
and his period of disqualification was condoned to exactly 1 year 7 months 12 days on the basis
of the historic mandate of 54%votes and 87% seats in the election and also due to the provision
under he was convicted got repealed by the republic of Gazipur in 2018.

On the next day of Election Commission’s order an MLA from JKM resigned and by-election was
held on April 7th, in which Asad Khalid won against Madhur Dey, and continued his term as the
CM of Siland.

After election Madhur Dey the opponent of Asad from Kazo District constituency and filed a writ
petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Siland contending three prayers (i) Section 11 of RP,
Act is violative of Article 14 (ii) issuance of Certiorari against the Election Commission’s March
5th order and (iii) prayed for Mandamus directing re-elections to the Kazo-district’s assembly and
questioned on the eligibility of Asad Khalid.

7|Page
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

– ISSUE I –

WHETHER THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE HON’BLE

HIGH COURT OR NOT?

– ISSUE II –
WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION ON MARCH 5TH
HAS MERIT?

– ISSUE III –
WHETHER SECTION 11 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT IS VIOLATIVE OF
ARTICLE 14 OR NOT?

8|Page
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I: THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

HON’BLE HIGH COURT.

The instant writ petition is not maintainable before the Hon’ble HC as the petitioner has no locus
standi in this case because neither any constitutional rights nor any statutory rights of the petitioner
violated. The petitioner also challenged the election of Asad Khalid, as election matters can’t be
entertained under writ petition, the petitioner should take recourse of election matters for
challenging the election of his rival.

ISSUE II: THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION ON MARCH 5 TH

HAS MERIT.

The order passed by the Election Commission on 5th of March has merit, as it was passed under
statutory mechanism i,e., by section 11 of Representation of People Act, 1951. The Election
mission has used its power reasonably and cautiously only in the interest of general public in order
to uphold and in respect of the people’s mandate. The Election Commission also provides for
reasons for removing of disqualification. And the order passed by the Election Commission was
based on the precedents.

ISSUE III: SECTION 11 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT IS NOT VIOLATIVE

OF ARTICLE 14.

Section 11 of RP Act is not violative of Article 14, as the power conferred upon the Election
Commission is in order to carry out the Election process fair, smooth, impartial without any
pressure. Election Commission is itself a constitutional body and this is the reason why it has some
discretionary power Article 14 of Constitution of Gazipur has the concept of Intelligible differentia
i.e., reasonable classification.

9|Page
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. THE INSTANT WRIT PETITION IS NOT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE

HON’BLE COURT.
It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the instant matter is not maintainable
under article 226 of Constitution of Gazipur, the petition has no locus standi in the instant case
[1], and Election related matters not maintainable through writ petition [2].

1. THE PETITIONER DOES NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE

LOCUS STANDI IN THE INSTANT CASE.
A petitioner, whose any of the right has been violated or threatened to be violated has
a locus standi under Article 226 of Gazipur Constitution to appear before court. The
person acting bonafide has sufficient interest in filing writ petitions under Article 226
of the Constitution.

In the instant case there is no such bonafide intention of the petitioner to file the writ
petition and also no any right of the petitioner have been violated 1 by the respondents.
Petitioner has taken part in the election process so they are not able to challenge 2 that
his right has been violated.

Thus, the power under article 226 of the Constitution can be exercised not only for the
enforcement of fundamental rights but for any other rights as well it is contended by
the petitioner that section 11 of the Representation of People Act,1951 is violative of
article 143 of Constitution of Gazipur but it is not so.

That, it is contended by the respondent, clearly the petitioners have participated in the
by-election to contest for the seat but they lose against the Asad khalid. We can say
that section 11 of the Representation of People act 1951 is not violative of Article 14
of Gazipur Constitution as petitioner get opportunity to participate in the election. .

1
S.K Bhatia v. State of U.P., (1983) 4 SCC 194: AIR 1983 SC 988.
2
D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom,(2017) 9 SCC 478: (2017) 2 SCC (L&S) 833:2017 SCC OnLine SC 1095.
3
¶10 of the moot proposition.

10 | P a g e
 It is clear in the facts of the case that the petitioner is having malafide intention to file
the writ petition against the Election Commission of India due to the fact that they are
not able to win the by-election. So, they came here to challenge the order of the Election
Commission of Gazipur dated 05-03-2020 to fulfill their grudge against the Respondent
rather than challenging the poll result.

2. ELECTION RELATED MATTERS NOT MAINTAINABLE

THROUGH WRIT PETITION.
Matters related to Election are dealt by election petition as per Article 329(2) of
constitution of Gazipur. No election to either House of legislature shall be called in
question except by an election presented petition presented to the Election Commission
of India”4

2.1 PETITIONER HAVE MALAFIDE INTENTION TO FILE

THE WRIT PETITION
That, in this instant case the petitioner tries “to kill two birds with one stone”.
Firstly, it tries to show that they are filing writ petition before the Hon’ble Court
against the order of the Election Commission and subsequently, they asked the
relief of “writ of mandamus directing re-election to the Kazo district in light of
Asad khalid ineligibility to be chosen as a legislator”5 It clearly shows the malafide
intention of the petitioner as one side he is challenging the Election Commission’s
order on the other hand he is challenging the election of Asad Khalid for which he
must file election petition and not writ petition.
Writ of Mandamus is issued when there is the legal right of petitioner or
infringement of such right due to non-performance of duty by the public authority,
or there is no other effective alternative legal remedy available to the petitioner.6
Mandamus is a high prerogative writ of a most extensive remedial in nature. It is
used principally for public purposes, and to enforce performance of public duties.
It enforces, however, some private rights when they are withheld by public

4
Instructions II (i) moot proposition.
5
Supra note 3.
6
Mandamus according to Wharton’s Law Lexicon, 15th Edition, 2009.

11 | P a g e
 officers.”7 It is used for enforcement of various rights of the public or to compel the
public statutory authorities to discharge their duties and to act within the bounds. It
may be used to do justice when there is wrongful exercise of power or a refusal to
perform duties.8 In the instant case, the Election Commissioner has performed its
duty and there is no wrongful exercise of its power under the RP Act 1951, so the
writ of mandamus can’t be enforced against it by the petitioner.
That, in the instant case no rights of petitioner has been violated by respondents,
petitioner has participated in the election which held democratically and he got
defeated9. It shows that petitioner has used his Fundamental right under Article 14
to contest election, it clearly shows that his fundamental right or any right is not
violated by the respondents. So, the petitioner can’t invoke the Writ of mandamus
in the present case.
It will be a fair inference from the provisions of the Representation of the People
Act to state that the act provides for only one remedy, that remedy being by an
election petition to be presented after the election is over, and there is no remedy
provided at any intermediate stage10. But the petitioner filed the writ petition rather
than filing an election petition.
It is reiterated by the V.R. Krishna Iyer, J. that “Article 329(b) is a blanket ban on
litigative challenges to electoral steps taken by the Election Commission and its
Officers for carrying forward the process of election to its culmination in the formal
declaration of the result”11.
Further, he states that “the Constitution contemplates a free and fair election and
vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of
the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover
powers, duties and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on
the circumstances”.
Two limitations are laid by V.R. Krishna Iyer, J in Mohinder Singh Gill case:

7
Ibid.
8
Binny Ltd. v. Sadasivan, 2005 AIR (SC) 3202.
9
Supra note 3.
10
Ibid.
11
Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405: AIR 1978 SC 851. Paragraph 91.

12 | P a g e
 Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to elections, and
the Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions
and where such law is silent then Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the
avowed purpose for a free and fair election with expedition.
The Commission shall be responsible to the rule of law, act bona fide and be
amenable to the norms of natural justice and ensure fairness of elections. Fairness
does import an obligation to see that no wrong-doer candidate benefits by his own
wrong. There is a flexible practicability of the rules of natural justice.
In Dharti Pakar Madan Lal Agrawal case, it is held by apex court that election cum
writ petition is not maintainable12. Although there is no clear mentioning of the
election petition in the instant case, it basically deals with the election matter.
Further, in the instant case there is no surety about the relief sought by petitioner in
the present petition, there are disputed questions of fact in the present petition so,
the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of Indian Constitution.13

II. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION ON MARCH

5TH HAS MERIT.

It is humbly contended before this Hon'ble Court that the order that was passed by the Election
Commission condoning the disqualification period of Asad Khalid has merit as, the order
passed by the Election Commission falls within section 11 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 and reasoned with public mandate [1]. The order of the Election Commission has
merit and it is reasonable and justified [2].

12
Dharti Pakar Madan Lal Agrawal v. K.R. Narayanan, (1997) 8 SCC 766: AIR (1998) SC 1462.
13
Food Corpn. of India v. Pala Ram, (2008) 14 SCC 32.

13 | P a g e
 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ELECTION COMMISSION
FALLS WITHIN SECTION 11 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF
THE PEOPLE ACT, [HEREINAFTER BE CALLED “RP ACT”]
1951 AND REASONED WITH PUBLIC MANDATE.
The Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification or
reduce the period of any such disqualification.14 The necessary statutory provision required
for removal of the disqualification period is the “record of reasons”.15

1.2 ALL REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 11 OF RP, ACT IS

FULFILLED.
In the instant case the election commission in order to condone disqualification
reasoned that the offence for which Asad Khalid was convicted, repealed by
parliament of Gazipur in 201816 and the Sil people demonstrated their faith in him
as his party got a historic mandate in the 2019 legislative assembly poll by winning
54% of total vote and 87% of total seats of Siland legislative assembly.17

Thus, the Election Commission exercised its power with all justifiable reasons
within the constitutional and statutory framework.

The exercise of power under Section 11 of RP Act. 1951 by Election Commission

has legislative backing, where order issued or made by any other authority, be
published in the Gazette of India if it relates to an election to, or membership.18
Publication in the Gazette of India of the order contained in the Representation of
the People Act, 1950, it will be noted from the above that it was the intention of
the, legislature that every such order after publication is to have the force of law'
and not to be made the subject matter of controversy in any court.19

14
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, § 11, No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India).
15
Ibid.
16
¶ 9, Moot proposition.
17
Ibid.
18
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, § 3 (c), No. 43, Acts of Parliament, 1951 (India).
19
Meghraj Kothari vs Delimitation Commission & Ors, 1967 AIR 669.

14 | P a g e
 1.2 PUBLIC MANDATE HAS GREAT VALUE IN
DEMOCRACY.

Public mandate is the backbone of any democracy. Democracy is a government in

which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all through their freely
elected representatives and it is solely based on the concept of majority rules20.

In the instant case the majority is in favour of Asad khalid so the concept of
democracy ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ is in the favour of Asad
Khalid and since, Asad Khalid was not qualified to contest the election due to his
disqualification from the previous conviction.

Thus, there is sufficient ground for the reduction of the period of disqualification.
The election commission is authorised to remove or reduce such disqualification21
under Section 11 of RP Act, 1951.

Democracy is “Of the people, by the people, for the people” and if people want him
to be CM as his party get historic mandate through democratic and impartial
election and secondly the Election Commission is also justified in reducing the
disqualification period. Thus, the order of EC is within statutory provisions and
reasoned with public mandate has merit.

1.3 THE ORDER OF THE ELECTION COMMISSION HAS

MERIT AS IT IS REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED.

The Election Commission while issuing the condoning order acted only in its
jurisdiction and thus it never used its power arbitrarily. As a constitutional body22
it has powers to use its statutory rights and power conferred upon it through
Constitution itself or through any statutes passed by parliament.

20
Alain Touraine, What is democracy, UNESCO, en.unesco.org.
21
Narinder Singh v Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Anr., (2019) SCC OnLine P&H 486.
22
INDIA CONST. part XV, art. 324-329.

15 | P a g e
 In this instant case as Asad Khalid was convicted after that he finished
imprisonment of 1 year and disqualified for contesting elections within the
meaning article 191(1) (e) of Constitution, however, Asad attracted his
disqualification under section 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. But as a matter of fact, that section is repealed by the Parliament. Further
under Sec11 of RP, Act empowers the Election Commission that it can be condone
the disqualification period of any person barred from contesting elections.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that “the opinion of the Election
Commission is a sine –qua - non for the President/Governor to give a decision on
the question whether a member of a House has incurred a disqualification”23
regarding disqualification under article 191 (1).24

1.4 THE DECISION IS WELL REASONED AND AS PER THE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

The Election Commission provides the reason why it removed the disqualification
period, while doing so it did not violating article 14 or any other constitutional
provisions. Further its order is based on Section 11 of RP Act, 1951.

1.5 THE ELECTION COMMISSIONER’S ORDER IS BASED

ON PRECEDENTS.

Election Commission of Gazipur by invoking its power under section 11 of RP Act,

1951 used this power only 3rd time including this case, and all the time this power
has been used by the commission in its utmost precautions, after following all
constitutional mechanisms, and in order to keep the mandate of the people in
consideration25.

23
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy, AIR 1996 SC 1810 : (1996) 4 SCC 104.
24
INDIA CONST. art. 191, § 2.
25
Election Commission of India, https://eci.gov.in/files/file/10777-commissions-order-dated-29092019-regarding-
application-of-shri-prem-singh-tamang-under-section-11-of-the-representation-of-the-people-act-1951/ (last visited
Sep 3, 2021).

16 | P a g e
 More importantly, never ever the decisions taken by Election Commission in true
respect of mandate is challenged before any Court in Independent Gazipur. In this
instant case Asad Khalid never gave an application for removal of his qualification
before the assembly election neither the Election Commission used its power before
the assembly election. Without being a candidate in the assembly election Asad
Khalid’s party created the historic mandate. And he took the oath as the CM without
being member of assembly26 of Siland.

Thus condoning to remain as CM decision is within the ambit of the Election

Commission. It passed its order after fulfilling all the requirements made under
section 11 of RP, Act, 1951 and it is not an arbitrary practice of power and it is in
the respect of the mandate. Thus it is in the public interest.

Conclusively the election was conducted democratically through all the legal and
valid processes, so Asad’s election is valid and the ineligibility of the candidate and
whosoever elected through democratic process can be challenged only through an
election petition before the Election Commission of India27.

III. SECTION 11 OF REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT IS

CONSTITUTIONAL.

Section 11 of the RP Act 1951 is constitutionally valid as the discretionary power to the Election
Commission is reasonable and reasonableness is the one of the most important aspect of the right
to equality and thus the power of condoning the disqualification is based on intelligible differentia
[1]

26
INDIA CONSTI. art. 164
27
Moot proposition Instructions.

17 | P a g e
 1. THE POWER OF CONDONING THE DISQUALIFICATION IS
BASED ON INTELLIGIBLE DIFFERENTIA

Article 14 forbids class legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification of
persons, objects and transactions by the Legislature for the purpose of achieving specific
ends. One of the criteria of this reasonable classification.

The expression intelligible differentia signifies difference capable of being understood,

which should be reasonable and not arbitrary. The basis of such differential or classification
and the object of the act are two distinct things. It is necessary that there must be a
reasonable nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the act which makes
the classification. It is only when there is no reasonable basis for a classification, the same
will be declared as discriminatory.28

The Election Commission is a constitutional and Independent body, in order to conduct

fair and impartial elections, it needs to have extraordinary power such that it could not be
compelled to work under the powerful leaders or any other institutions.

The laws related to decide the eligibility of a candidate participating in the election and
eligibility of the voters no doubt rests with the parliament29 but all enforcing power and
other matters related to elections except making laws lies with the Election Commission
during or just before the election as besides Part XV of the constitution the RPA, 1951
empowers it to exercise its power in order to conduct free and fair elections.

Like other constitutional bodies it also has some extraordinary power to deal with some
extraordinary cases as the instant case is. Asad Khalid the victim of his innocence, who
was working under the confidence of his leader.30 But at the same time he got an
overwhelming mandate when he participated after serving imprisonment. And in
democracy, public mandate always needs to be taken care of, as it is the base of the

28
M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, 1221(Web edition Lexis-Nexis Butterworth Wadhwa Publications, Nagpur,
2016)
29
INDIA CONST. art 327 & art 328.
30
¶ 7 moot proposition.

18 | P a g e
 democracy, and so the instant case is and in such a situation invoking such power can’t be
said to be arbitrary or violative of article 14.

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the light of the legal precedents and principles cited; and

in light of the provisions of the Constitution and other statutes applied and arguments advanced;

It is most humbly pleaded before the Hon’ble Court that this Court adjudges and declare that:

1. The Writ Petition is not Maintainable before the Hon'ble Court, and the same is liable to be
dismissed.

2. Pass the order withholding the order of the Election Commission, dated 5th March 2020 are
justifiable and have merit.

3. Upheld constitutionality of Section 11 of the Representation of People Act is Constitution.

And pass any other order, direction, or relief that it may deem fit in the best interests of justice,
fairness, equity and good conscience.

ALL OF WHICH IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT

Sd/ -

19 | P a g e