Why in news?
- The Delhi High Court quashes presidential notification disqualifying 20 AAP MLAs on EC's recommendation.
- Click here to know more on EC's disqualification.
What is the Court's verdict?
- Earlier the High Court refused to stay the disqualification notification.
- But it restrained the ECI from taking any “precipitate measures” such as announcing dates for bypolls to fill the vacancies.
- The Court has now said the Election Commission recommendation in the office-of-profit case was “bad in law”.
- It said the principles of natural justice had been violated by the EC.
- This is because of EC's failure to give the MLAs an oral hearing or opportunity to address their argument on merits.
What are the directives?
- The High Court thus directed the EC to hear the arguments afresh by giving the MLAs a proper hearing.
- It also directed the EC to decide the “all important and seminal issue” of what is meant by “office-of-profit in government”.
- This is the first time in over 20 years that the Commission’s opinion in an office-of-profit case has been set aside by a court.
What is the CEC's recusal issue?
- Earlier, one of the then Commissioners, O.P. Rawat had recused himself from the reference proceedings.
- He decided to stay away from the proceedings after the Delhi CM questioned his independence in dealing with the case.
- Rawat later agreed to rejoin the reference proceedings without informing the AAP.
- The Delhi High Court questioned the EC of not informing on the rejoining or withdrawal of recusal by Rawat to the AAP.
- As informing it would have affected the response of the petitioners.
What is the Court's observation?
- The Bench observed that no one could act in a judicial capacity if the previous conduct gives grounds for believing that She/he cannot act with an open mind and impartially.
- The broad principle is that the person trying a case must act fairly as well as the acts should be above suspicion of unfairness or bias.
- These observations are relevant on the question of rejoining of Mr. Rawat after recusal.
- In this context, the Court rightly accepts the petitioners' view that they were kept in dark.
- In all, there have been errors and lapses which make the EC's decision questionable.
Source: The Hindu
