• About
  • Contcat Us
Monday, March 20, 2023
Justice Bench
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums
No Result
View All Result
justice bench
No Result
View All Result
Home News

Representation of People Act | Reexamination of the 48-hour campaign silence rule prior to election day is necessary; Gauhati High Court

By Justuce Bench by By Justuce Bench
June 28, 2022
in News
Reading Time: 5 mins read
0
0
Representation of People Act | Reexamination of the 48-hour campaign silence rule prior to election day is necessary; Gauhati High Court

Representation of People Act | Reexamination of the 48-hour campaign silence rule prior to election day is necessary; Gauhati High Court

0
SHARES
4
VIEWS

In the recent case of Dr. Himanta Biswa Sarma v. Election Commission of India and Others, the Gauhati High Court bench of Justice Rumi Kumari Phukan made the suggestion that Section 126 of the Representation of People (RP) Act, which prohibits campaigning and the publication of campaign material 48 hours prior to election day, be reexamined in light of the expansion of the digital arena and the fact that elections are held in multiple phases.

In this regard, the court ruled that when it comes to elections organised in several phases, there must be consideration of any violations of the 48-hour “silent time” of the model code of conduct (MCC).

“In the context of changing social scenario as well as the expansion of electronic/digital arena where the Election Commission itself has declared election in phased manner in certain constituencies, it is perhaps the high-time to re-visit the provision enunciated in the Section 126 of RP Act which was enacted far back in the year 1951,” 

The Court Held

A 2019 case against Himanta Biswa Sarma, who is currently Assam’s chief minister, was dismissed by a single court because to suspected violations of Section 126 of the model code of conduct, which imposes a two-year prison sentence.

READ ALSO

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

Sarma had moved the High Court to have the precedents and the entirety of the Kamrup(M) Chief Judicial Magistrate’s proceedings set aside (CJM).

The channel that aired Sarma’s interview the day before a portion of the State was set to cast ballots in the 2019 general elections was the target of the original complaint, which was made by another chief electoral officer of the State. Sarma was at the time an MLA.

The officer himself was listed as the only witness in the plaint, which asked for recognition under RP Act’s Section 126(1)(b) [show to the public any electoral matter by means of cinematograph, television, or other similar apparatus].

Even if the complainant did not appear in person before the CJM court in the future, the Magistrate on January 10 of this year gave notice to the Election Commission of India. The CJM on February 11 determined that a case had been established on the surface of the records, took cognizance, and summoned Sarma and the other defendants.

When Sarma failed to show up, the CJM fined him 2,000 and ordered him to appear in three weeks on February 25.

Senior Advocate Devajit Saikia, the counsel for Sarma, claimed that the trial court had not used its judgement and kept up with the jurisprudence on Section 126. It was emphasised that neither documents nor the initial request for them were made at the time the plaint was filed. Nearly three years after the alleged offence, the CJM continued to investigate the matter without the help of the initial complainant.

It was further argued that the restriction imposed by Section 126(b) of the Representation of the People Act only applied to polling places during the 48 hours leading up to the hour set for the polls to close for any election in such polling places.

Saikia asserted that the petitioner’s interview in the current case was broadcast on television in Guwahati, where there was no voting site scheduled to open within 48 hours as required by Section 126(1). (b).

It was argued that the proceedings are unlawful, irregular, and biassed because the plaint was allegedly filed at the request of Congress leaders. It was also mentioned that Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the Congress, was granted leniency in a case involving a violation of the dress code in 2017 and was the subject of this leniency.

In addition, it was alleged that the original complaint and ECI employees had concealed the position of the election authority in its response to Rahul Gandhi in the 2017 case. Concerns about Section 126’s enforceability in the digital era were highlighted in that response.

Following consideration of the reasons, the Court ruled that the CJM’s order exceeded its authority because the original complainant chose not to pursue the matter, making the complaint subject to dismissal for non-prosecution.

“Being an officer of justice delivery system, no one can conduct the affairs of the prosecution as an inquiry officer. As the original complainant did not pursue the matter nor produced the relevant documents, as directed, such a complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution u/s.203 CrPC and/or other relevant orders as to whether complainant has been able to make out a prima facie case for proceeding etc. But a court of law is never assigned to undertake an inquiry to pursue the matter with the higher authority as has been revealed from various orders of the court,” 

The Court Held

As a result, the High Court determined that all of the CJM’s instructions were seriously invalid. The judge talked about how the Magistrate didn’t base his decisions on the appearance of the initial complainant before him or any proof.

The decision relies on a testimony made by Dr. SY Quraishi, a former election commissioner for India. The court decided to impose fine on Sarma in the absence of willful negligence on his behalf.

“The Magistrate has totally failed to discharge its judicial discretion while conducting a proceeding. The conduct of a judicial officer must be above the personal whims and traits and every order should be founded on cogent and reasonable grounds, which is not reflected in the present case. It is said ‘justice should not only be done but also seen to be done’,“

The Court Held

In light of the foregoing, the Court revoked the CJM’s order and quashed the case against Sarma.  

Standing Counsel Advocates P Baruah and A Sarma appeared on behalf of the Election Commission and its employees. R. Dubey, an advocate, appeared on behalf of the State Election Commission. For the initial complainant, advocate AI Ali was present.

Read Order

Dr_Himanta_Biswa_Sarma_vs_ECI_and_orsDownload
Tags: election commission of Indiagauhati high courthimanta biswaRepresentation of People ActSection 126Silence Period
ShareTweetSendShare

Related Posts

calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

February 24, 2023
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

February 24, 2023
pocso act
News

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

February 23, 2023
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

February 13, 2023
Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.
News

Justice Hima Kohli stated that Artificial Intelligence cannot replace the role of a judge or a lawyer, but it can handle cases such as traffic violations and cheque bounces.

February 13, 2023
Central Government notifies appointment of Justice Sonia G Gokani as Chief Justice of Gujarat High Court
News

The appointment of Justice Sonia G. Gokani as the Chief Justice of the Gujarat High Court has been announced by the central government.

February 13, 2023
google news
google news

POPULAR NEWS

Justices DY Chandrachud, AS Bopanna, and Bela M. Trivedi,

Execution of Document not to be considered based on Admission of Sign on Document Rules Supreme Court

May 12, 2022
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

June 4, 2022
La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino'z - know more

La Milano Pizzeria restrained  from representing previous association with La Pino’z – know more

May 20, 2022
Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

Why does Sequoia Capital terminate connections with Sandeep Kapoors Algo Legal? threats of ED searches, arm-twisting, and more

June 6, 2022
jug jugg jeeyo

Copyright infringement | Jugjugg Jeeyo movie stay refused by Ranchi court

June 25, 2022

Tags

advocate Algo Legal Allahabad HC Allahabad High Court Anil Deshmukh anticipatory bail Appointment of Judges bail Bombay high court calcutta high court central government cji Collegium Collegium Recommendations defamation delhi high court divorce Enforcement Directorate gauhati high court Gujarat High court Gyanvapi Mosque high court judges IPR Judicial Appointments justice bench karnataka high court kerala high court latest judgements law ministry legal news madras high court murder patna high court pil pocso act Rouse Avenue Court Sequoia Capital study material supreme court Supreme Court Collegium supreme court of india UAPA Union Law Ministry Uttar Pradesh varanasi court

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
calcutta hc
News

The Calcutta High Court in India recently refused to quash a criminal case involving charges under Section 377 and allegations...

Read more

Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

by By Justuce Bench
February 24, 2023
0
Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media
News

The Bengaluru court issued a temporary injunction against IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil and 59 media companies from broadcasting defamatory...

Read more

SC – Touching a finger to a vagina does not constitute “insertion” for the purposes of attracting charges of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

by By Justuce Bench
February 23, 2023
0
pocso act
News

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal against a Kerala High Court decision which had ruled that poking one's...

Read more

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.

by By Justuce Bench
February 13, 2023
0
The Gujarat High Court has rejected a request by the wife of Sanjiv Bhatt, stating that police protection is not a guaranteed right.
News

The Gujarat High Court has rejected a petition filed by Shweta Bhatt, wife of former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt who...

Read more

About

Justice Bench is one of the fastest growing news legal portal in India, for latest Latest Legal News india, Supreme Court judgement updates, High Courts Judgments updates,Law Firms News in india, Law School News, Latest Legal News india visit us.

Follow us

google news
google news

Recent Posts

  • The Calcutta High Court has ruled that any form of penetration, even if it is minimal, during forced anal sex is considered an offense under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

Popular News

  • DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADVOCATE AND LAWYER

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A LAWYER?

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Allahabad HC rules Daughter has the right to demand maintenance from father

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • [Gyanvapi Mosque] Plea to quash FIR Lucknow University professor refused – know more

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • Bengaluru court has banned the spread of defamatory content about IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri in a lawsuit against Roopa Moudgil and the media

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0
  • On custody of a surrogate child born before Surrogacy Act of 2021 the Allahabad High Court has sought a response from Centre

    0 shares
    Share 0 Tweet 0

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Online Internship
  • Forums

© 2022 JusticeBench  |  Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use

Welcome Back!

Sign In with Google
OR

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Sign Up with Google
OR

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In