AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        I have had the privilege of reading the full text of the historic judgement of Justice Ibrahim Kalifulla setting aside the Corporation elections in 99 wards out of a total of 155 wards in the Chennai Corporation area. He has expressed his anguish over the manner in which the Corporation elections were conducted by the State Election Commission (SEC) under its Commissioner Chandrasekaran. He has also indicted the Director General of Police, the Commissioner of Police and the Additional Commissioner of Police for their gross dereliction of duty relating to the maintenance of absolute Law and Order, public peace and tranquillity, on the day of elections on 13 October, 2006. After reading his judgement, only the following poignant observations of Justice Felix Frankfurter in Watts vs Indiana, (338, US Supreme Court 49, 52-1949) come to my mind: 'There is torture of mind as well as body; the will is as much affected by fear as by force. And there comes a point where this court should not be ignorant as Judges of what we know as men.' I have no doubt whatsoever that these great observations are totally meaningful and relevant to the present case.

        I am paraphrasing below the main points that weighed with the Court in setting aside the election in 99 wards:

        a) In a democracy elections must be conducted honestly, decently and independently without any fear or favour. Then only all the eligible voters will be able to cast their votes without being governed by fear. The State Election Commission is a statutory authority which has been created only for this purpose - the conduct of free and fair elections to the local bodies in Tamilnadu. The Supreme Court has already declared that whenever and wherever countless members of the public are subjected to a phenomenon or process of planned injustice, no court of law can remain aloof without endeavouring to intervene in the matter to render appropriate justice. In extraordinary situations calling for extraordinary remedies, it becomes necessary even to by-pass established procedures and to examine the case under article 226 of the Constitution to render instantaneous justice.

        b) Almost all the English and language (vernacular) newspapers have published detailed accounts of the lawlessness, chaos and confusion that prevailed in all the Election Booths in the 99 wards in question, apart from providing graphic photographs to show how the ballot papers were misused and how they lay scattered on the ground in the election booths like smithereens after a terrorist bomb attack. Keeping in view the lawless incidents on the day of election and also keeping in view the directions given in the past by the Supreme Court taking note of the detailed coverage in the Press, it will be quite in order for this Court as well to take note of the coverage of elections in the Press.

        c) Though it was disputed that DMK men alone were responsible for all the incidents of lawlessness leading to the misuse of ballot papers, yet what has to be noted is that the SEC, the DGP, the Commissioner of Police and the Additional Commissioner of Police have not disputed the patently obvious fact that thousands of ballot papers lay scattered on the ground in most of the election booths on the day of election.

        d) The State Election Commission has not been able to give detailed account of the ballot papers that were forcibly snatched from the hands of election staff on the day of election. Nor has the Election Commission been in a position to dispute the fact that thousands of ballot papers lay strewn on the ground on election day. The SEC has not furnished any explanation as to how the ballot papers, which should have been under the control of election staff in the election booths, found their way in to the hands of individual members of the public in bunches and how and why they lay scattered on many public roads near the polling booths.

        e) In the only sketchy explanation furnished by the Commissioner of Chennai Corporation relating to the missing ballot papers, there is no indication whatsoever regarding the exact or even approximate number of ballot papers that were snatched and misused on election day.

        f) Either through the State Election Commission or directly, more than 90 complaints were received by the City Police Commissioner and the Additional Police Commissioner. There were mainly three kinds of complaints. One related to the fact of violence in the election booths; the second related to the snatching of ballot papers through intimidation and violence; and the third related to the casting of bogus votes. In the reply furnished to the Court by the Commissioner of Police, no details were available relating to the maintainability or otherwise of the complaints. The Commissioner of Police has also failed to furnish details relating to the number of captured booths, the number of bogus votes cast and other details. There is lot of substance in the arguments of the petitioners who are seeking the countermanding of elections that these acts of violence, intimidation, booth capture, snatching of ballot papers and casting of bogus votes were not isolated incidents in far removed areas and that they all formed part of a pre-planned, organized and streamlined game plan to rig the local body elections in Chennai.

        g) Untrue and contradictory statements have been made by the Commissioner of Police in her affidavits dated 15 October, 2006 and 9 November, 2006. In her statement dated 15 October, 2006 the Commissioner of Police had stated that in respect of 3295 booths no complaints of snatching of ballot papers. Only in respect of 17 booths, allegations regarding some irregularities were made and consequently re-poll was ordered in those 17 booths. She has also stated that the reports in the press were unfounded and exaggerated. Whereas in her affidavit dated 9 November, 2006 the Commissioner of Police has stated that eight complaints were received regarding forceful entry of anti-social elements into the polling booths. Only in one ward 19 polling booths were captured and bogus votes were cast. These contradictory statements lend substance to the strong complaint of the petitioners that the Commissioner of police and the Additional Commissioner of Police remained neutral between the fire-brigade and the fire on the day of election.

        h) Instead of carefully assessing the situation in the light of the known facts and taking immediate action in the manner and measure required to maintain absolute law and order in order to ensure a free and fair poll, it is not clear as to why the Commissioner of Police and the Additional Commissioner of Police chose the path of masterly inactivity. If in actual fact there were not so many complaints, then the question that becomes relevant is as to why the Commissioner of Police did not deploy the required number of police personnel to ensure the smooth conduct of elections?

        i) The reports furnished to the Court by the SEC, the Police Commissioner and the Additional Police Commissioner do not endeavour to explain the true situation relating to the status on ground in the affected election booths on election day.

        j) The State Election Commission and its Commissioner have failed in the due discharge of their allotted duties to ensure a free and fair election and thus they are accountable under the law for the lapse. It is also inexplicable as to how he could say that he ordered re-poll in 27 booths as directed by the Court, when no such orders were issued by the Court. Probably for the SEC, only its own opinions and pre-conceived notions are more important than known and acceptable facts.

        k) The Director General of Police also failed to provide the right type of leadership to the Police Force on the day of election.

        The helpless myriad millions of Chennai would like to pay their grateful tribute to the great Judge, the Justice Ibrahim Kalifullah in the words of New York Times felicitating Justice Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965): 'History will find greatness in him as a Justice, not because of the results he reached but because of his attitude towards the process of decision. His guiding lights were detachment, rigorous integrity in dealing with the facts of a case, refusal to resort to unworthy means, no matter how noble the end, and dedication to the Court as an Institution. He taught us the lesson that there is importance in the process'.