Hindustan Times: Chandigarh: Friday,
May 27, 2016.
The Shiromani
Akali Dal (SAD) on Wednesday got a six-week breather in a Delhi high court case
about de-listing it as political party over contesting the gurdwara elections
as well. The hearing was adjourned for the second week of July after the
vacations.
The Election
Commission of India (ECI) submitted documents related to the 2010
public-interest petition by right to information (RTI) activist Balwant Singh
Khera of the Socialist Party (India) for de-registering the SAD under the
People’s Representation Act. He argued that under the law as amended in 1989,
only a secular party could contest the parliamentary or assembly elections.
On Tuesday,
the Delhi high court bench of justice Pradeep Nandrajog and justice Mukta Gupta
heard the arguments, in which the SAD submitted that it was very much secular
in character and contesting the gurdwara elections “under the statute”. The
defence counsel stated further that the SAD remained secular even when
contesting the gurdwara polls.
The
petitioner had accused the SAD of committing a fraud by concealing from the ECI
its constitution under which it had fought the elections to religious
institutions Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) and Delhi Sikh
Gurdwara Management Committee (DSGMC). The court observed that it would examine
some specific questions, including whether the decision to register a political
party was “legislative” or “quasi-judicial”. “It would be necessary to take a
view on whether the court should interfere or not,” petitioner’s counsel Indira
Unninayar told HT over telephone after Wednesday’s hearing.
Unninayar had
cited a Supreme Court judgment in the Congress versus the Institute for Social
Welfare (AIR 2002 SC 2158) where the decision to register a party was
considered a quasi-judicial matter. She said the verdict had also mentioned
three exceptions where the ECI could have the power to de-register a party, one
of them being where it has signed up by fraud. The court observed it would be
important to examine how the SAD could claim to be secular before the ECI and
religious in its own constitution.
Earlier, the
SAD counsel had argued that the ECI decision to register a party was
“statutory” and not open to court’s interference.
However the
petitioner’s counsel said it was a ‘quasi-judicial matter’ that the court could
review.