Article 324 in Constitution of India

Loading case document...

Please wait

324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

(1)The superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President held under this Constitution shall be vested in a Commission (referred to in this Constitution as the Election Commission).

(2)The Election Commission shall consist of the Chief Election Commissioner and such number of other Election Commissioners, if any, as the President may from time to time fix and the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner and other Election Commissioners shall, subject to the provisions of any law made in that behalf by Parliament, be made by the President.

(3)When any other Election Commissioner is so appointed the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the Chairman of the Election Commission.

(4)Before each general election to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of each State, and before the first general election and thereafter before each biennial election to the Legislative Council of each State having such Council, the President may also appoint after consultation with the Election Commission such Regional Commissioners as he may consider necessary to assist the Election Commission in the performance of the functions conferred on the Commission by clause (1).

(5)Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament, the conditions of service and tenure of office of the Election Commissioners and the Regional Commissioners shall be such as the President may by rule determine:Provided that the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court and the conditions of service of the Chief Election Commissioner shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment:Provided further that any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner.

(6)The President, or the Governor of a State, shall, when so requested by the Election Commission, make available to the Election Commission or to a Regional Commissioner such staff as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions conferred on the Election Commission by clause (1).[Editorial comment- The Constitution (Nineteenth Amendment) Act, 1966, nullified the tribunals in India and instead gave the authority to the High Court to hear the trial of election petitions. The abolition of tribunals and the restoring of their powers to the High Court proved to be a turning point in the matters having a connection with elections in India. This made the High Court superior and their hold stronger. It also amended Article 324, subclause (1) and accordingly the Election Commission is given the authority to supervise, direct, and oversee elections.The Representation of the People Act of 1951 was also modified and it rendered the electoral tribunals’ appointment and authority null and void. A special provision concerning the ability to appoint election tribunals for the adjudication of uncertainties and issues coming out of or concerning elections to Parliament and the Legislatures of States was eliminated.]

Article 324 in Constitution of India

324. Superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in an Election Commission

(3)When any other Election Commissioner is so appointed the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as the Chairman of the Election Commission.

AI Summary

It appears there's missing information. The prompt provides a case title "Article 324 in Constitution of India," the court as "Constitution Article," and the date as "26 January 1950." However, there's no case content provided. I need the actual text or a summary of a specific case related to Article 324 to create a proper legal summary.

However, I can provide a general outline of how a summary of a hypothetical case concerning Article 324 of the Indian Constitution would look, assuming the case involves a dispute about the Election Commission's powers:

Short Summary

This case concerns the scope of the Election Commission of India's (ECI) powers under Article 324 of the Constitution. The Court held that the ECI possesses broad powers to ensure free and fair elections, including powers not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, provided they are exercised reasonably and consistent with other constitutional provisions and laws.

Facts

[Assume the facts involve a situation where the ECI took a certain action, such as postponing an election, ordering a re-poll, or disqualifying a candidate, and this action was challenged.] For example: Due to widespread violence and allegations of booth capturing during a recent election in State X, the ECI ordered a re-poll in 50 constituencies. A political party, Party A, challenged this decision, arguing that the ECI lacked the power to order a re-poll on such a large scale.

Issues

Whether the ECI has the power under Article 324 to order a re-poll in multiple constituencies based on allegations of widespread irregularities.
Whether the ECI's powers under Article 324 are limited to those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution or whether they extend to implied powers necessary to ensure free and fair elections.
Whether the ECI's actions in this case were arbitrary or unreasonable.

Petitioner's Arguments (Party A)

Party A argued that Article 324 only grants the ECI supervisory powers and does not explicitly authorize the ECI to order a re-poll on such a massive scale. They contended that the ECI's actions were disproportionate and violated the principles of democracy by disenfranchising voters. They also argued that the ECI should have relied on other remedies available under the law.

Respondent's Arguments (Election Commission of India)

The ECI argued that Article 324 grants it broad powers to ensure free and fair elections, including the power to order a re-poll when necessary to rectify irregularities. It contended that the violence and booth capturing compromised the integrity of the election, justifying the re-poll. The ECI asserted that its actions were reasonable and necessary to uphold the democratic process.

Court's Reasoning

The Court held that Article 324 is a plenary provision that vests the ECI with broad powers to oversee and conduct elections. The Court recognized that the ECI's powers are not limited to those explicitly mentioned in the Constitution but extend to all powers necessary to ensure free and fair elections. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and held that the ECI's decision to order a re-poll was justified given the circumstances. The Court found that the ECI had acted reasonably and in good faith.

Conclusion

The Court upheld the ECI's decision to order a re-poll. The petition filed by Party A was dismissed. The Court reiterated the importance of the ECI's independence and its role in safeguarding the democratic process.

Important Note: This is a hypothetical example. A real case summary would require the actual facts, arguments, and reasoning from the specific case. Please provide the case content for a more accurate summary.