Sudheer Srivastava vs Election Commissioner and Others

M.S. Liberhan, C.J.—The objections raised by the Office need not be gone into as we are deciding the writ petition on merits.

This is a Public Interest Litigation based on apprehensions and assumptions and not on relevant facts.

This writ petition has been filed on the basis of some statements, alleged to have been made by the Commissioner of Police, Purana Haveli, Hyderabad, published in Deccan Chronicle on 17-9-1999, that the police as a measure of preventive arrest, picked up 3733 persons. It is contended that the persons, alleged to have been arrested as a preventive measure, were denied the , fundamental right of right to vote in the Parliamentary and Assembly elections that were held in four phases in the State.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is no provision either in the Cr.P.C. or in the Police Manual for preventive arrest. No person, alleged to have been arrested, is named. Nothing is shown in the writ petition as to how the alleged arrest can be termed as "preventive arrest", what was done to the persons, alleged to have been arrested, and whether they have a right to vote. Nothing has been disclosed in the writ petition about the conduct and character of the persons alleged to have been arrested, whether they are mischief-mongers, bomb hurlers, threat-holders, black-marketeers, booth capturers, political scoundrels or are persons of bad character. Every paragraph in the writ petition discloses the apprehensions of a totally inexperienced young man that a right to vote being a fundamental right, was deprived to 3733 persons, who are alleged to have been arrested as a preventive measure. Nothing has been shown whether the persons alleged to have been arrested are at all voters in those Parliamentary and Assembly Constituencies, to which elections were held in four phases or are paratroopers from where and with what object.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt to request the Court to direct the respondents to record the FIR and commence investigation. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents is unconstitutional, and as such, the Court should extend its arm in delivering justice, does not call for registering the writ petition and issuing an order, muchless a writ of mandamus, as no cause of action is disclosed in the writ petition.

This is an adventurous litigation, which the petitioner has undertaken. Judicial restraint demands not to write more as the petitioner is a young lawyer.

We find no force in the writ petition, and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.