Lawfully yours: By Retired Justice K Chandru | Judges must treat poll petitions differently from normal civil suits for faster resolution

Judges must treat poll petitions differently from normal civil suits for faster resolution

What is the practical use of a court verdict declaring an election invalid a decade after the poll, especially when the five year assembly term ended long ago? The candidate who was not genuinely elected enjoyed power, salary, and privileges for a full term. Is there any legal provision to recover these benefits from them and return them to the public exchequer, or do they get to keep everything? With judges themselves warning that these delays make a mockery of justice, why do election petitions drag on for so long, and how can the system ensure a faster resolution so that voters are not cheated?

— S Rajaguru, Mylapore

Justice delayed is not just justice denied. As noted by the Chief Justice of India, it is also justice buried. Although the law prescribes six months to hear election petitions, this timeline is rarely met. These petitions are supposed to be heard on a day-to-day basis. However, courts routinely treat them like standard civil suits instead. People who express astonishment now over the Appavu election case — where two more elections in 2021 and 2026 are already over — may be unaware that the 2009 parliamentary election petition relating to P Chidambaram in the Sivagangai constituency is yet to be finalised. In our country, while law and legal procedures are made in good faith, the lack of quick disposal defeats the very object of those laws. This is true of all branches of law. The answer lies not just in increasing the number of judges but in appointing competent judges who will render decisions on time.

Police bid to block social media accounts will only trigger greater public resistance

Can a government legally ban or block a social media account merely for mocking or satirising the ruling party? Do you think the provisions used against the ‘Cockroach Janata Party’ account were legitimate? Is political satire considered defamation, and can defamation be used as grounds to block an account? Do you think due process was followed in this particular case?

— K Manikandan, Korattur, Chennai

Any power to regulate a process is likely to be abused. The power to block internet accounts is slowly being taken over by the police, who exercise it to please the party in power at the Centre or in the states. Even an innocent exercise to protest crucial issues turns into a subversive activity. Instead of allowing dissent to express itself, trying to suppress it only results in greater resistance. Pre-censorship of newspapers was attempted during 1975-76, but it did not succeed because such censored news was spread through secret publications. In this era of the information revolution, I don’t think the government can succeed in blocking any news.