JUDGMENT Brijesh Kumar, J.
1. This petition has been filed by Kunwar Raghuraj Pratap Singh alias Raja Bhaiya with the prayer that a direction be issued to the Chief Election Commissioner of India, summoning the records and the order dated 9-2-1998 by which directions have been given for the petitioner to withdraw from the district of Pratapgarh. There is also a prayer for quashing of the direction or order of the Chief Election Commissioner. Yet another prayer is that the opposite parties be directed not to interfere in any manner, with the right of the petitioner to visit Pratapgarh or any other place of his choice pending elections or in connection with the discharge of his obligations as Minister of U.P. Government.
2. We have heard the learned counsel, for the petitioner as well as the counsel for the Union of India and the State of U.P. A short counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Chief Election Commissioner of India. An application for implement has also been moved on behalf of one Rajkumari Ratna Singh. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant Rajkumari Ratna Singh as well.
Sri R.N. Trivedi, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner has been directed to keep away from district Pratapgarh without there being any order to that effect by any authority including the Election Commission. It has also been submitted that even if there is any such restriction, it is beyond the scope of Article 324(1) of the Constitution, which docs not empower the Election Commission to extern a person without complying with the provisions of law and in violation of his fundamental rights regarding freedom of movement, which also amounts to curtailment of liberty of petitioner. It is further submitted that even though the Election Commission is possessed of wide powers under Article 324 of the Constitution to ensure and fair conduct of poll, yet there are limitations to the exercise of said powers. It is not unlimited. The contention is that the Election Commission is entitled to issue directions where there is no law operating in the field. Where the law is already existing, it would not be open for the Commission to issue directions, more particularly, which may run contrary to the existing laws as this would affect the Rule of Law.
3. In the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, their case is that the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh jointly submitted a report dated 4-2-1998 to the Principal Secretary. Home, U.P. Government mentioning involvement of the petitioner in serious cases and the recurrence of similar behaviour may disturb peaceful conduct of election. Since the Election Commission of India is under obligation to conduct free and fair poll, it sent a communication dated 6-2-1998 through the Deputy Election Commissioner to Chief Secretary, U.P. Government enquiring about the steps contemplated to ensure that such incidents do not recur in future. It is further stated that on 11-2-1998, taking into consideration the stock of the situation, the Chief Election Commissioner "orally advised" the State Government to ensure that the petitioner moves out of district Pratapgarh. According to the case taken up in the short counter affidavit, the District Magistrate apprised the petitioner of the concern of the Election Commission about his presence in district Pratapgarh, upon which the petitioner assured the District Magistrate that he would leave Pratapgarh on 9-2-1998. The Election Commission also sent to communication dated 10-2-1998 to the State Government saying that discriminatory treatment should not be meted out to the persons belonging to different political parties and some incidents have been indicated where the Government had taken steps by arresting the persons involved in criminal activities even though they themselves were the candidates but the same action is not being taken in other cases. All persons should be dealt with, with even hands. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, it is again stated that while the Chief Election Commissioner was on tour to Lucknow on 7th and 8th Feb. 1998, he "orally advised" the State Government to ensure that till the polling is over, the petitioner should not be present in Pratapgarh constituency. It may be mentioned here that the petitioner belongs to a constituency in Pratapgarh which falls in the Parliament Constituency of Rajkumari Ratna Singh who has applied for being impleaded as one of the opposite parties to the petition. The petitioner is a Minister in the State Government and belongs to Bhartiya Janata Party.
4. We again find it reiterated in para 11 of the affidavit that the Election Commission was of the considered view that in the interest of free and fair elections in Pratapgarh Parliamentary Constituency, the petitioner should not be physically present till the polling is over and in that connection, "oral directions" had been given to the State Government by the Chief Election Commissioner in Lucknow. U is also averred in para 11 of the counter affidavit that the Commission expected the State Government to "Operationalise" the Commission's direction through issuance of appropriate orders.
5. From the facts as stated in the counter affidavit, one thing, which clearly come out, is that the Commission or the State Government passed no orders for externment of the petitioner from district Pratapgarh. All that is there is the 'oral advice' by the Commission to the State Government as mentioned in paras 6 and 10 of the counter affidavit, which was later on described as 'oral direction' in para 11 of the counter affidavit.
6. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that such oral 'advice' or direction' as alleged is not envisaged in exercise of powers under Article 324 of the Constitution. So far as the scope of powers under Article 324 of the Constitution is concerned, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission has submitted that the Commission has ample powers to ensure free, and fair poll and in that connection, it can issue any such direction which may be necessary to achieve the purpose. He has placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in AIR 1986 SC 111, Kanhiya Lal Omar v. R.K. Trivedi. Our attention has been more particularly drawn to paras 16 and 17 of the report. The matter related to the provisions contained in the Symbols Order with the contention that they were not traceable to the provisions of the Act or the Rules. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if that, be so, the power of the Commission under Article 324(1) of the Constitution which is plenary in character can encompass all such provisions. Para 16 of the report, reads as follows :
"16. Even if for any reason, it is held that any of the provisions contained in the Symbols Order are not traceable to the Act or the Rules, the power of the Commission under Article 324(1) of the Constitution which is plenary in character can encompass all such provisions. Article 324 of the Constitution operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation and the word 'Superintendence', 'direction' and 'control' as well as 'conduct of all elections' are the broadest terms which would include the power to make all such provisions'. See Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (1978) 2 SCR 272 : AIR 1978 SC 851 and A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai ; (1984) 3 SCR 74: AIR 1984 SC 921."
7. In para 16 of the above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, another decision reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 Mohinder Sing Gill v. Chief Election Commr. New Delhi has also been referred to. This case has been relied upon by the learned counsel for both the parties. Learned counsel for the Commission has particularly drawn our attention to para 37 indicating two questions posed by the Hon'ble Court for decision i.e. as to what, in its comprehensive connotation, does the 'conduct' of elections mean or, for that matter, the 'superintendence, direction and control' of election ? and the other, where the provision is silent about hearing before acting, is it permissible to import into Article 324(1) an obligation to act in accord with natural justice? The precise answers are contained in para 38 of the report which reads as follows:
"38. Article 324, which we have set out earlier, is a plenary provisions vesting the whole responsibility for national and State elections and, therefore, the necessary powers to discharge that function. It is true that Article 324 has to be read in the light of the constitutional scheme and the 1950 Act and the 1951 Act. Sri Rao is right to the extent he insists that if competent legislation is enacted as visualised in Article 327 the Commission cannot shake himself free from the enacted prescriptions. After all, as Mathew, J. has observed in Indira Gandhi, AIR 1975 SC 2299 :
"In the opinion of some of the judges constituting the majority in Bharati's case AIR 1973 SC 1461 (supra), rule of law is a basic structure of the Constitution apart from democracy.
The rule of law postulates the pervasiveness of the spirit of law throughout the whole range of Government in the sense of excluding arbitrary official action in any sphere." (p. 523 of SCR ): (at p. 2384 of AIR).
And the supremacy of valid law over the Commission argues itself. No one is an imperium in imperio in our constitutional order. It is reasonable to Hold that the Commissioner cannot defy the law armed by Article 324. Likewise, his functions are subject to the norms of fairness and he cannot act arbitrarily. Unchecked power is alien to our system."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court above, no one is an imperium in imperio in our constitutional order. He further points out that as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it would be unreasonable to hold that the Commissioner can exercised powers beyond the law. His functions are subject to the norms of fairness. Unchecked power is alien to our system.
9. A reference then has been made to para 91 of the report. A part of para 91 of the report may be beneficially quoted below :
"2 (a) The Constitution contemplated a free and fair election and vests comprehensive responsibilities of superintendence, direction and control of the conduct of elections in the Election Commission. This responsibility may cover powers, duties, and functions of many sorts, administrative or other, depending on the circumstances.
(b) Two limitations at least are laid on its plenary character in the exercise thereof. Firstly, when Parliament or any State Legislature has made valid law relating to or in connection with elections, the Commission, shall act in conformity with, not in violation of, such provisions but where such law is silent, Article 324 is a reservoir of power to act for the avowed purpose of, not divorced from, pushing forward a free and fair election with expedition. Secondly, the Commission shall be responsible to the rule of law, act bona fide and be amenable to the norms of natural justice in so far as conformance to such cannon can reasonably and realistically be required of it as fairplay-in-action in a most important area of the constitutional order, viz., elections. Fairness does import an obligation to see that no wrongdoer candidate benefits by his own wrong. To put the matter beyond doubt, natural justice enlivens and applies to the specific case of order for total repoll, although not in full panoply but in flexible practicability. Whether it has been complied with is left open for the Tribunal's adjudication."
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to para 114 of the report which emphasizes that it is necessary that Chief Election Commissioner must pass an appropriate order on receipt of the report, It is again submitted that oral 'advice' or 'direction' is not envisaged.
11. Another case relied upon is reported in AIR 1972 SC 187 (Sadiq Ali v. The Election Commission of India. A reference to para 38 has been particularly made. It, however, relates to the powers of the Commission to issue directions under Article 324(1) of the Constitution. It has been held that it does soon its own behalf and not as the delegatee of some other authority. The nature of the power and the limitation in exercise of powers has well been discussed in the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referred to above.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to a decision reported in (1995) Supp (2) SCC 13 : (AIR 1995 SC 1078), Election Commission of India v. State Bank of India Staff Association. Our attention has been drawn more particularly to para 23 : (of Supp SCC): (Para 21 of AIR) of the report, which may be beneficially quoted below :
"23. Article 324 does not enable the Election Commission to exercise untrammelled powers. The Election Commission must trace its power either to the Constitution or the law made under Article 327 or Article 328. Otherwise as was held by this Court in Digvijay Mote case (1993 AIR SCW 2895) (in which one of us, Mohan, J. was a party) it would become an imperium in impcrio which no one is under our constitutional order."
13. Another decision which has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is reported in (1993) 4 SCC 175 : (1993 AIR SCW . 2895), Digvijay Mote v. Union of India. In para 6 of the report, it has been observed that elections are essential in every democracy and undoubtedly such elections have to be free and fair. The Election Commission is the authority which has to ensure free and fair poll and is vested with powers under Article 324(1) to issue appropriate directions in that regard. In para 9, it has been observed that the power of Election Commission is not unbridled. Judicial review is still permissible. We further find that it has been held and observed in para 12 that the functions of the Election Commissioner are subject to the norms of fairness and he cannot act arbitrarily. Unconnected powers are aline to our system. It is further observed that the powers under Article 324 have to be exercised in keeping with the guide lines of the Rule of Law. Article 324 operates in areas left unoccupied by legislation.
14. From what has been discussed above it is amply clear that the powers vested in the Election Commission under Article 324(1) of the Constitution are plenary in nature. The Commission is vested with very wide powers. The exercise of the powers however, is not without check. The power has to be exercised with legal circumspection. It is rather more to supplement in the grey areas where no law or legislation is existing and it is necessary to issue directions or pass orders to ensure free and fair poll. The power is complementary and supplemental. It cannot be exercised contrary to the provisions of law, nor should it violate existing laws. Judicial review of the order and the action is also permissible. As observed in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill (AIR 1978 SC 851) (supra), the exercise of power may not be such that an authority becomes imperium in imperio. In the light of the law as indicated above, we may examine the facts of the present case.
15. There is no dispute on the facts that no written order or direction has been issued by the Election Commission or the State Government for externment of the petitioner from district Pratapgarh. It is an "oral advice" of the Commission which has later on been described as "oral direction". We have already observed that oral 'direction' in such matters which tends to curtail rights and liberty of citizens is not envisaged in exercise of powers under Article 324. From a perusal of the short counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Commission, it is quite clear that the Commission itself feels that on the advice or oral direction of the Commission, the State Government should have passed appropriate order so as to "operationalise" the direction. The averment made to that effect in para 11 of the counter affidavit may be quoted as below :
"The Commission expects the Slate Government of Uttar Pradesh to operationalise the Commission's direction through issuance of appropriate orders."
16. Thus on the own showing of the Commission, it was necessary for the State Government to pass order to give effect to the advice tendered by the Commission which was otherwise non-operational. Where law is existing, it is the appropriate authority, namely, the State Government or any other authority, which has to issue appropriate orders in pursuance of the direction of the Election Commission.
17. It has been submitted that implementation of the oral 'advice' of the Commission would be against the existing provisions of law. It is submitted, and we feel rightly, that the rights of the petitioner as available under the Constitution and under ordinary law as well are curtailed and affected by the impugned action. Every citizen has a right of free movement throughout the territory of India. It is one of the fundamental rights. If that is to be curbed or restricted, it has to be in accordance with the law as existing and not otherwise even though on the advice of the Election Commission. It is further submitted that it also affects the liberty of the petitioner. Hence procedure of law has to be followed.
18. On behalf of the opposite parties, it is sought to be argued that no right or fundamental right is absolute. Such rights can always be restricted and regulated. It is true, but the reasonable restrictions have to be placed by making law and once such law exists, the rights cannot be restricted ignoring the law. It is nobody's case , at least it has not been argued before us that there is no existing law under which the present situation could not be meted out by the State Government; on the other hand, as observed earlier, according to the Commission itself, on its oral 'advice' it expected the State Government to pass appropriate orders.
19. A perusal of the short counter affidavit indicates that the State Government has not acted up to the expectation of the Election Commission. According to it, much was desired to be done, but the State Government conveniently ignored to do so, so much so that the Commission had to write to the State Government that it should act even handedly in dealing with the persons similarly situated, to which ever party they may belong to.
20. So far as the State Government is concerned, it has been submitted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel that in the recent cases registered against the petitioner, since there were cross-reports, the matter has been handed over to the C.I.D. for investigation so as to ascertain the truth of the counter versions. It has also been submitted that the State will ensure that free and fair poll takes place in the district of Paragraph and in that connection, it has been submitted that steps have already been taken and whatever more is necessary, that too would be done. We find that the State Government, instead of passing any order on the oral 'advice' or 'direction' of the Election Commission, only communicated the concern of the Commission to the petitioner through the District Magistrate as is averred in the short counter affidavit. Beyond that, it did nothing. On being enquired by the Commission about the compliance of the direction, the State Government informed the Commission that it has been communicated to the petitioner and he had told the District Magistrate that he would withdraw from district Pratapgarh. The reason for not passing any appropriate order on the oral advice of the Commission has not been indicated except that the matter has been handed over to C.I.D. for investigation to ascertain the truth regarding the incident.
21. On the application for impleadment moved by Rajkumari Ratna Singh, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently urged that it was necessary to implead her as one of the opposite parties for the reason that she is one of the candidates from the Constituency concerned and it is her election which may be affected. It is also submitted that it is the incident pertaining to her, which has been referred to in the petition and gave rise to 'advice' by the Commission. We considered the request made on behalf of the applicant for her impleadment. We feel that primarily this is a question between the petitioner and the Election Commission whose 'advice' has been operationalised against the petitioner. On what material the advice is based would not entitled the applicant to be impleaded as a party in the petition, nor for the reason that the material considered also pertained to her. The validity of the order or direction of the Commission or the State Government is to be examined and not the matter relating to any person. However, looking to all facts and circumstances of the case, we granted hearing to the applicant.
22. Learned counsel for the applicant Ratna Singh urged about the plenary nature of powers vested in the Election Commission to issue directions. We, however, do not feel it necessary again to deal with that aspect of the matter since we have already dealt with the same in the preceding paras. It has then been submitted that there has been total inaction on the part of the State Government in not passing appropriate orders in pursuance of the 'advice' or 'direction' issued by the Election Commission. It has further been submitted that there are a number of cases pending against the petitioner. Some antecedents of the petitioner have also been mentioned during the course of the arguments and the submission which has been advanced is that since the petitioner is a part of the Government being a Minister in the State Ministry, the Government avoided to pass appropriate orders. Be that as it may, dissatisfaction in that regard has also been expressed by the Election Commission in its affidavit. It would be, however, not improve the position. Any action or direction of the Election Commission or the State | Government has to conform to the Rule of Law. Howsoever, wide the scope of the plenary powers of the Election Commission may be and howsoever the purpose may be laudable, the direction issued and action taken should only be in conformity with the existing law and not in derogation thereof. We have already observed that for such drastic orders by which rights of a citizen are affected and curtailed amounting to externment from an area, the existing laws must be resorted to and complied with. No action on the basis of "oral advice" or "oral direction" alone is envisaged under Article 324(1) of the Constitution. Even the provisions of law which the Parliament or the State Legislature is authorised to make under Article 327 or 328 of the Constitution, would be subject to other provisions of the Constitution. No direction ignoring the provisions of the Constitution or any other law as existing can be issued. If such power is conferred on any authority to extern any person on the basis of 'oral advice' it would have every potential to endanger the Rule of Law. There would be no written record or oral advice or direction. The direction will contain no reasons. There would be nothing which could be communicated or informed to the affected person. He would only be in dark about the reason for the action taken against him. It also violates the principle of fair play and natural justice as well. Law for externment as well as law for preventive detentions are very much existing, but the opportunity of hearing is not shunned under any of the laws. The action of the nature as found in the present case on the oral direction is not envisaged in our scheme of governance which provides for adherence to Rule of Law. In the above circumstances, in the absence of any order by the State Government or any written direction by the Election Commission, it cannot be said that any valid restriction is imposed against the petitioner, restricting his entry into the district of Pratapgarh.
23. We would, however, very much like to observe that looking to the fact that the petitioner is a Minister in the State Government, he may in the present set of circumstances where partiality is being alleged against the Government towards him, he may himself consider the advisability to visit Pratapgarh of his own volition. True, this observation has no legal binding upon petitioner. It is left to his option to consider this aspect of the matter.
24. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that even if the petitioner visits the district Pratapgarh till the polling is over, he would, in advance, furnish his programme to the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh. We feel that it requires no comment from us.
25. In view of the discussion held above, we allow the writ petition holding that there is no valid restriction imposed on the basis of "oral advice" or "oral direction" of the Commission, without any order of the Government, restraining the petitioner from entering into the district of Pratapgarh.
26. There would, however, be no order as to costs.