"Autocratisation, defiance of SC order:" Andhra Pradesh HC quashes Election Commission decision to hold local body polls without 4 weeks MCC

The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Friday quashed the State Election Commission's (SEC) decision cut short the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) period to less than four weeks for the conduct of earlier deferred local body polls. .The High Court also strongly criticised the poll body for misinterpreting the Supreme Court direction of March 2020 in this regard, stating that the SEC's decision to cut short the MCC period was in violation of the Supreme Court order. ." Even a common man who can read, write and understand the English language can easily find out the direction issued by the Supreme Court in the order. But, here the State Election Commissioner, who worked as Chief Secretary to the State being a senior most retired IAS Officer, could not understand the simple direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in right perspective, which creates doubt as to her suitability and fitness to the post of Election Commissioner," the Court said. .The Court also said that such actions by SEC are what leads to the State losing its democratic qualities and becoming an autocracy or authoritarian regime..Therefore, Justice M Satyanarayana Murthy directed the SEC to issue a fresh notification to resume the election process for the Mandal Praja Parishads Territorial Constituencies (MPTCs) and Zilla Praja Parishads Territorial Constituencies (ZPTCs) while re-imposing the MCC in strict adherence with the Supreme Court's directions..The Supreme Court had in March 2020 declined to interfere with the SEC's decision to postpone the local body elections on account of the COVID-19 situation. .No reason to interfere with EC decision to defer local body polls in Andhra Pradesh due to Coronavirus: Supreme Court.While disposing of the matter, the top Court had directed that when the election process is resumed, the SEC "shall impose the MCC four weeks before the notified date of polling.".The Court slammed the SEC for misinterpreting this direction to mean that the MCC can be imposed for a maximum period of four weeks. .The Court proceeded to remark that SEC's actions go against democratic qualities.."Such act of respondent No.1 (SEC) can be described as democratic backsliding, it is also known as autocratization and de-democratization. It is a gradual decline in the quality of democracy and the opposite of democratization, which may result in the State losing its democratic qualities, becoming an autocracy or authoritarian regime. Democratic decline is caused by the state-led weakening of political institutions that sustain the democratic system, such as the peaceful transition of power or electoral systems," the High Court said. .Democratic decline is caused by the state-led weakening of political institutions that sustain the democratic system, such as the peaceful transition of power or electoral systems.Andhra Pradesh High Court .The Judge further observed that one reason for democratic backsliding is strategic harassment and manipulation during elections. He went on to add that the present case is a fine example of the same.."This form of backsliding is done in such a way that the elections do not appear to be rigged and rarely involves any apparent violations of the law, making it difficult for the Election observer to observe these misconducts. As such, the act of the respondents is nothing but democratic backsliding. … The present situation is fine example of democratic backsliding," the order stated..The SEC notification in question, dated April 1, 2021, had notified the date of local body polling as April 8. .This led to the notification being challenged in the High Court by the Janasena Party and Varla Ramaiah of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). .The petitioners argued that the four weeks' MCC period directed by the Supreme Court has been cut down by the SEC in its April 2021 notification, in order to scuttle the level playing field for contesting political parties. .It was additionally asserted by Ramaiah that the same polls were postponed last year amid rampant efforts by the ruling YSR Congress Party to prevent other political parties from filing their nominations. .The SEC, on its part, submitted that the Supreme Court had only specified that on resumption of the election process, the MCC to be imposed should be a maximum of four weeks. Allegations of impropriety made against the SEC by the petitioners were also denied. .The Court, however, rejected the SEC's stance, terming the same as a lame excuse. ."The first respondent (SEC) being the Constitutional Authority at the State Level has to respect the order of the Highest Constitutional Court, but in utter disregard issued notification impugned, depriving the party candidates to campaign, which is not free and fair process of election, on the lame excuse of the understanding of the State Election Commission," the Court said. .Justice Murthy observed that the Supreme Court was clear in its direction that the MCC should be imposed by the SEC for four week period before the date of polls. The SEC's misreading that it can reduce the four-week period cannot be accepted by any stretch of imagination, he said. .The SEC took a decision to resume the local body polls in a hasty manner dishounouring the Supreme Court's order and showing scant respect for the same, the Judge added. .This, in turn, disabled political candidates from taking part in the elections effectively and scuttled the level playing field, the Court went on to observe. .The Court, therefore, quashed the April 1 notification, finding the same to be an intentional violation of the Supreme Court's March 18, 2020, direction. .However, the Court declined a prayer to start the election process itself afresh from the stage of nominations, in view of the huge expenditure already incurred by the State so far to conduct the elections. .The Court, therefore, confined itself to directing the following:"The first respondent (SEC) is directed to issue notification afresh resuming the election process for MPTCs and ZPTCs from where it was stopped, re-imposing Model Code of Conduct strictly adhering to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in W.P. (Civil) No.437 of 2020.".In the course of the order, the Court also emphasised that the bar to interference by courts in electoral matters under Article 243-O of the Constitution of India is not absolute. ."The Court can interfere with the election process when the State Election Commissioner did not act in accordance with law ... this Court can interfere with the election process when the State Election Commission acted in violation of the constitutional provisions or any statutory provisions," the Court explained..Advocates V Venugopala Rao and Vedula Venkataramana appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate CV Mohan Reddy appeared for the SEC and Advocate General S Sriram appeared for the State. .[Read the Order]