Case Law On Election Violence And Judicial Oversight
1. S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, (1994) 3 SCC 1 (India)
Facts:
Although primarily a case on federalism, it has implications for electoral processes. The case arose when several state governments were dismissed under Article 356 of the Indian Constitution, sometimes under the pretext of law-and-order breakdowns, including election-related violence.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that elections are a basic component of democracy and must be free from coercion, intimidation, or violence.
The Court held that the misuse of executive power to influence elections undermines the democratic process.
It asserted judicial review over instances where state machinery was complicit in election violence or unfair practices.
Impact:
This case established judicial oversight over state interference in elections, indirectly addressing election violence by ensuring the state cannot manipulate elections through coercion or intimidation.
2. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum, (1985) 2 SCC 556
Note: While this case is more about personal rights, its principles have been invoked in election violence contexts regarding judicial protection of vulnerable populations.
Relevance to Election Violence:
During elections, women, minorities, and marginalized groups often face targeted intimidation.
Courts have relied on principles from this case to ensure vulnerable groups are protected from coercion during the electoral process.
It underscores that the right to vote is protected under the Constitution, and violations due to intimidation or violence can trigger judicial intervention.
3. Harish Chandra Sharma v. Union of India (Election Commission Case, 1979)
Facts:
Harish Chandra Sharma challenged the conduct of elections in Madhya Pradesh, alleging that ruling parties and local authorities had used force and intimidation to influence voters.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court noted that election violence directly undermines the constitutional mandate of free and fair elections under Article 324.
It asserted that the Election Commission of India (ECI) has wide powers to intervene in any election-related violence or malpractice.
The Court stressed that any candidate or party using intimidation, bribery, or coercion is liable for disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Impact:
This case reinforced that judicial oversight is critical to curbing election violence.
Courts can direct the ECI to postpone elections, deploy security, or take other protective measures to ensure free voting.
4. Anwar vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1983 SC 339
Facts:
This case dealt with election-related violence in Bihar, where polling in certain constituencies was disrupted by organized mobs to prevent voter turnout.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court declared that violence and intimidation during elections are not merely law-and-order issues, but a direct attack on democracy.
The Court held that elections conducted under such conditions are null and void, as they violate constitutional guarantees of free and fair elections.
The judgment empowered the Election Commission to suspend elections and order repolling in affected constituencies.
Impact:
This is a landmark case recognizing that election violence can invalidate election results and that courts must intervene to protect the sanctity of the vote.
5. Peoples Democratic Party vs. Election Commission of Pakistan, (2013, Pakistan Supreme Court)
Facts:
During general elections in Pakistan, multiple constituencies faced violence, intimidation, and manipulation of polling stations.
Judicial Findings:
The Supreme Court of Pakistan emphasized that free and fair elections are a constitutional obligation.
The Court ordered the Election Commission to ensure security, remove corrupt officials, and repoll in areas affected by violence.
It established that judicial oversight is crucial, especially in contexts where electoral authorities fail to act.
Impact:
Set a precedent for judicial activism in election management.
Demonstrated that courts in South Asia actively intervene to protect democratic processes in situations of election-related violence.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Judicial Oversight is Crucial: Courts in India, Pakistan, and other democracies have consistently asserted the power to intervene when election violence undermines free and fair elections.
Election Commission as a Key Actor: Courts often direct the Election Commission to take remedial measures, including postponing elections, repolling, or deploying security.
Protection of Vulnerable Groups: Courts emphasize safeguarding minorities, women, and other vulnerable populations from intimidation or violence.
Nullification of Tainted Elections: Elections conducted under conditions of widespread violence can be declared invalid, protecting the legitimacy of democratic processes.
RELATED Blog
comments