NEW DELHI, 26 August — A Supreme Court hearing today on the Election Commission’s order on Gujarat is a futile exercise that is unlikely to help the government hold early elections in the state, say experts here.
The matter is before a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice B.N. Kirpal. The court has already issued notices to the Attorney General Soli Sorabjee and Solicitor General Harish Salve.
However, constitutional and legal pundits contend that by the time the court gives its verdict on the government plea to hold polls to Gujarat’s 182-seat assembly by October, the six-month period from the previous assembly session would have expired anyway.
"It is a futile exercise and only a face saving device for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)," said Supreme Court advocate P.P. Rao.
"By the time the court gives its opinion, there may not be enough time to hold elections in Gujarat even if the court upholds the government’s view against the Election Commission," Rao said.
The government referred to the Supreme Court the Election Commission’s order rejecting early polls in Gujarat, stating it could lead to a constitutional crisis if the polls were not held within six months of the previous assembly session.
It also questioned the autonomous poll body’s authority to recommend president’s rule in the state. President’s rule would become inevitable if elections are not held within the six-month period.
Though the term of the assembly ends in February, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi quit in July, forcing the assembly’s dissolution and seeking early elections. But the poll panel rejected the demand, contending that the communally charged state was yet to recover from the February-May communal violence that claimed over 1,000 lives and displaced tens and thousands rendering the electoral rolls inaccurate.
The BJP, which rules the state, however, insists that Gujarat is ready for free and fair polls, raising fears that it wants to exploit a Hindu-Muslim divide.
Rao opined that the court was unlikely to accept the government’s argument.
"The order of the Election Commission is based on very strong foundations and also earlier decisions of the Supreme Court," he said.
Constitutional expert Rajeev Dhawan said the presidential reference was an abuse of power by the BJP and an attempt to pressurize the commission.
"Once the commission has conceded the rule of holding elections within six months of the previous assembly, there was really no conflict to resolved.
"The reference to presidential rule could have been resolved by a discussion between the government and the commission," Dhawan said.
He felt that the Supreme Court would be in no hurry to pronounce judgment and would like to hear all parties involved.
The poll panel’s counsel K.K. Venugopal declined comment on the issue.
Noted constitutional expert Shanti Bhushan said while the exercise could prove futile for the government, it would serve the larger purpose of removing all doubts or speculations on the jurisdiction of the commission.
"It will achieve a purpose — it will settle many doubts raised by the government in its propaganda against the Election Commission," Bhushan said.
