Election Commission taking steps for safety, HC shoots down DMK man's plea for temporary office

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea filed by a DMK candidate from Aravakurichi challenging the rejection of permission to set up a temporary party office, upholding the safety-driven guidelines issued by the Election Commission of India.

During election periods, politicos usually set up temporary party offices. However, the Election introduced an additional stipulation requiring such offices to be established only in permanent structures.

Representative for R Elango, the Aravakurichi (Karur) candidate, Muthukumarapandian had applied for permission to erect a tarpaulin shed for use as a party office. The request was shot down on April 5, citing the absence of a permanent structure at the proposed site.

Muthukumaraparthiban then filed a petition before the High Court contesting the rejection, which came up for hearing before a division bench of Chief Justice SA Dharmadhikari and Justice G Arul Murugan. Senior counsel NR Elango, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the temporary office was intended only for election-related work for about 20 days. He argued that the EC's order would impede the effective conduct of election work and sought the court's intervention.

Niranjan Rajagopalan, representing the poll body, submitted that several issues had arisen earlier due to the establishment of a large number of temporary sheds, some of which were misused. Following prior directions, many such sheds had been closed, and a recent untoward incident in the Karur district had prompted the EC to adopt precautionary measures to ensure the safety of partymen and the public.

The Bench noted that EC had taken into account ground realities, including past incidents in Karur where several lives were lost, and that the Commission was taking all steps to ensure safety and the fair conduct of elections.

The bench also pointed out that even in 2024, several temporary sheds had been closed following court directions as they were allegedly used for activities that undermined electoral integrity.

The court noted that the petitioner's request to set up a tarpaulin shed had been rejected as it was not an approved building and could pose risks when visited by large numbers of party workers and the public.

Observing that the Commission's measures were taken in the overall interest of safety and could not be termed arbitrary or irrational, the Bench said that a candidate contesting elections ought to identify a safe and secure location for a party office.

Holding that there were no grounds to interfere with the Commission's directive, the court dismissed the petition.