Case Note & Summary
The appeals before the Supreme Court arose from two High Court judgments that had quashed orders requisitioning employees of public sector entities for election duty. The Election Commission of India, as appellant, challenged the Patna High Court judgment dated 21.5.1993 and the Rajasthan High Court judgment dated 7.11.1989. The core dispute concerned the interpretation of clause (6) of Article 324 of the Constitution and the powers of District Election Officers under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The District Election Officer cum District Magistrate, Patna, by letter dated 22.9.1991, requested the Chief General Manager of State Bank of India, Patna, to supply a complete list of officers and staff for appointment as Presiding Officers, Polling Officers, and Patrolling-Ballot Box Collecting Officers in the forthcoming mid-term Parliamentary election and Assembly bye-election, 1991. Subsequently, on 30.10.1991 and 1.11.1991, orders were issued appointing and deputing some employees of State Bank of India for elections to Barh Parliamentary Constituency and Pali Assembly constituency scheduled for 16.11.1991. The State Bank of India Staff Association Local Head Office filed a writ petition, CWJC No. 7815 of 1991, in the High Court of Patna, praying for quashing these communications on the ground that the District Election Officer had no authority to requisition the services of bank employees. While the writ petition was pending, in May 1993, similar appointment letters for the 35-Patna Parliamentary Constituency were issued, and the writ petition was amended to challenge those as well. The Patna High Court, by the impugned judgment, held that the District Election Officer had no power under Section 26 of the 1951 Act to requisition the services of State Bank of India employees, as the bank was not a local authority within the meaning of Section 159 of the 1951 Act. The High Court quashed the orders and issued a writ of mandamus commanding the Election Commission of India not to requisition the services of State Bank of India employees in exercise of its power under Section 26. The Rajasthan High Court had earlier quashed a similar requisition of Life Insurance Corporation employees, leading to Civil Appeal No. 4611 of 1989. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that Article 324 vests superintendence, direction, control, and conduct of elections in the Election Commission; clause (6) of Article 324 permits the President or Governor to make staff available when requested; Article 327 enables Parliament to legislate on election matters; and Section 26 of the 1951 Act, unlike Section 21, does not restrict Presiding Officers to government servants or local authority employees. The respondents countered that clause (6) only contemplates government staff and that Parliament, by enacting Section 159, extended the obligation to local authorities; they argued that if the Election Commission could requisition any person's services, it would become an imperium in imperio, which was negatived in Digvijay Mote v. Union of India. The Court examined the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions and noted the distinction between Section 21 and Section 26, but the provided excerpt ends without recording the final operative order.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Elections - Superintendence, direction and control - Constitution of India, Article 324(1) and (6) - The Election Commission has power of superintendence, direction and control of preparation of electoral rolls and conduct of elections to Parliament and State Legislatures; on request by the Election Commission, the President or Governor of a State must make available such staff as may be necessary for discharge of those functions (Paras 2-6).
B) Election Law - Staff Requisition - Local Authority Obligation - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 159 - Every local authority in a State shall, when requested by a Regional Commissioner or the Chief Electoral Officer, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for election work; State Bank of India was held by the High Court not to be a local authority under this section (Paras 5, 10, 15).
C) Election Law - Appointment of Presiding Officer - Section 26 versus Section 21 - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 21 and 26 - Under Section 21, Returning Officer and Assistant Returning Officer are expected to be government officers or employees of a local authority, whereas under Section 26 a Presiding Officer for a polling station could be anyone, not necessarily a government servant or local authority employee; this distinction was emphasized by the appellant (Para 14).
D) Constitutional Law - Election Commission Powers - Imperium in Imperio Argument - Constitution of India, Article 324(6) - The respondents contended that if the Election Commission could requisition services of any person, it would become an imperium in imperio, a proposition said to have been expressly negatived in Digvijay Mote v. Union of India (Paras 16-17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the District Election Officer has power under Article 324(6) of the Constitution read with Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to requisition services of employees of State Bank of India for election duty, when State Bank of India is not a local authority under Section 159 of the 1951 Act, and whether 'such staff' in Article 324(6) includes employees of statutory corporations.
Law Points
- Article 324 vests superintendence
- direction and control of elections in Election Commission
- President/Governor shall when requested make available such staff as necessary
- such staff must be employees of Central or State Government
- Section 159 obliges every local authority to make staff available for election work
- Section 26 does not restrict Presiding Officer to government servant or local authority employee unlike Section 21
- State Bank of India not a local authority under Section 159 as held by High Court
- rules also speak of non-government servants.
Case Details
Civil Appeal No.6026 of 1993 and Civil Appeal No.4611 of 1989
A.M. Ahmadi, S. Mohan, N.P. Singh
1995 AIR 1078, 1995 SCC Supl. (2) 13, JT 1995 (2) 61, 1995 SCALE (1)466
S. Murlidhar, Dushyant Dave
Election Commission of India
State Bank of India Staff Association Local Head Office
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions filed in High Courts challenging orders of District Election Officers requisitioning employees of State Bank of India and Life Insurance Corporation for election duty; appeals before Supreme Court against High Court judgments quashing such requisitions.
Remedy Sought
The State Bank of India Staff Association sought quashing of letters/orders requisitioning bank employees for election duty and a writ of mandamus restraining the Election Commission from requisitioning the services of State Bank of India employees under Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Filing Reason
District Election Officer, Patna issued a letter dated 22.9.1991 requesting a list of officers and staff from State Bank of India for election duty, followed by appointment/deputation orders dated 30.10.1991 and 1.11.1991; the bank employees challenged these as being without authority.
Previous Decisions
Patna High Court by judgment dated 21.5.1993 held District Election Officer had no power under Section 26 of the 1951 Act and State Bank of India was not a local authority under Section 159; quashed the orders and issued mandamus. Rajasthan High Court by judgment dated 7.11.1989 quashed a similar requisition of Life Insurance Corporation employees.
Issues
Whether Article 324(6) of the Constitution empowers the Election Commission to requisition services of employees of public sector banks or statutory corporations, or only government staff.
Whether Section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 permits a District Election Officer to appoint any person, including bank employees, as Presiding Officer or Polling Officer.
Whether State Bank of India is a local authority within the meaning of Section 159 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether recognizing a power to requisition any person's services would make the Election Commission an imperium in imperio.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant: Under Article 324, superintendence, direction, control and conduct of all elections vest in the Election Commission, requiring large number of officers; clause (6) of Article 324 provides for President/Governor to make staff available; Article 327 enables Parliament to enact laws; Sections 13A, 13CC, 28A deeming provisions and Section 26 permit Presiding Officer to be anyone not necessarily government servant or local authority employee; reliance placed on K.P. Roy v D. Rules, District Magistrate, Howrah and Civil Appeal No.4611 of 1989.
Respondents: Clause (6) of Article 324 must be read literally, request must be made to President/Governor and only government staff can be provided; Parliament may extend obligation to others by law, hence Section 29 of 1950 Act and Section 159 of 1951 Act cover local authorities; Section 26 does not imply power to requisition services from any person; granting such power would make Election Commission an imperium in imperio, negatived in Digvijay Mote v. Union of India.
Judgment Excerpts
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).
Every local authority in a State shall, when so requested by a Regional Commissioner appointed under clause (4) of article 324 or the Chief Electoral Officer of the State, make available to any returning officer such staff as may be necessary for the performance of any duties in connection with an election.
Under Section 26, a Presiding Officer for polling station could be anyone, not necessarily a Government servant or an employee of a local authority. This is an important distinction.
If the power, as contended by the appellant, is granted to the Election Commission, it will become an imperium in inperio.
Procedural History
The District Election Officer cum District Magistrate, Patna, by letter dated 22.9.1991, requested the Chief General Manager of State Bank of India, Patna, to send a complete list of officers and staff for appointment as Presiding Officers, Polling Officers, and Patrolling-Ballot Box Collecting Officers for the mid-term Parliamentary election and Assembly bye-election, 1991. On 30.10.1991 and 1.11.1991, orders were issued appointing and deputing some employees of State Bank of India for elections to Barh Parliamentary Constituency and Pali Assembly constituency to be held on 16.11.1991. The State Bank of India Staff Association Local Head Office filed CWJC No. 7815 of 1991 in the High Court of Patna challenging these communications. While the writ petition was pending, in May 1993 similar letters of appointment for 35-Patna Parliamentary Constituency were issued, and the writ petition was amended to include a challenge to those letters. The Patna High Court, by judgment dated 21.5.1993, held that the District Election Officer had no power under Section 26 of the 1951 Act to requisition the services of State Bank of India employees and that State Bank of India was not a local authority under Section 159; it quashed the orders and issued a writ of mandamus restraining the Election Commission. The Rajasthan High Court, by judgment dated 7.11.1989, had quashed a similar order requisitioning services of Life Insurance Corporation employees; Civil Appeal No.4611 of 1989 is against that judgment. Civil Appeal No.6026 of 1993 is against the Patna High Court judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 324(1), Article 324(4), Article 324(6), Article 327
- Representation of the People Act, 1950: Section 13A, Section 13CC, Section 29
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 21, Section 26, Section 28A, Section 159
