Punjab Hc Refuses To Stay Poll Code

Punjab and Haryana High Court yesterday refused to stay the model code of conduct which became effective from December 30 last when the Election Commission (EC) announced the date for assembly polls in Punjab.

A division bench consisting of Chief Justice K Sreedharan and Justice Swatantar Kumar gave this ruling on a writ filed by former legislator Harbans Singh Jalan seeking quashing of the ECs orders in this regard.

The bench, directed the concerned parties, and counsel for the commission to file their detailed replies whether the model code of conduct became effective from the date of election schedule announcement or after the notification of the election process in the state.

M L Sareen, appearing on behalf of the commission, in the beginning of the argument submitted that Sections five and seven of the model code of conduct evolved by various political parties became effective in the state after the announcement of election schedule.

However, the Chief Justice asked Sareen whether the model code of conduct became effective if election schedule was announced six months before the actual notification of the polls.

Under the garb of the model code of conduct, can the commission take over the state administrative machinery immediately after the announcement of election schedule or can it enforce its

will and dictates after notification of elections, the Chief Justice asked.

Sareen said that the commission had not been doing that and the ban was only on announcements of fresh welfare schemes and new development programmes which could be announced to influence the voters. All other welfare programmes and schemes could continue unhindered, Sareen submitted.

He said that it was the state bureaucracy which had been interpreting the code of conduct because of the fear of the commission.

He said that the commission used its powers only enshrined under Article 324 of Constitution to hold free and fair elections in the state.

The Chief Justice directed all concerned to file their reply before January 20 and adjourned the case till then.