E-Paper
No power to ban caste-based rallies during non-election period: ECI to Allahabad HC
ECI filed its response before the Lucknow bench of Allahabad HC in reply to a petition filed by advocate Moti Lal Yadav in 2013 seeking directives from the court to the ECI to derecognise such political parties that held caste-based rallies
Prefer HTon Google
The Election Commission of India (ECI) has submitted before the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court that it has no jurisdiction to ban caste-based rallies of political parties organised during non-election period and nor does it have the power to ban such parties from contesting subsequent elections.
The ECI filed its response before the high court on February 16 in reply to a petition filed by advocate Moti Lal Yadav. Yadav had filed the petition in 2013 seeking directives from the court to the ECI to derecognise such political parties that held caste-based rallies.
Hearing the plea that year, the high court had issued notices to the ECI and political parties. The court had also issued interim directions to the ECI to ban all such caste-based rallies in Uttar Pradesh. However, after the ECI failed to file reply till November 2022, the high court issued a fresh notice to the poll panel.
The ECI filed its reply on February 16 this year. In the affidavit submitted before the court, the poll panel has submitted that “it has no jurisdiction to restrict the convening of meetings and rallies on caste lines by political parties during non-election period and to ban them from contesting subsequent election.”
The ECI also submitted before the court that its model code of conduct has set of rules to prohibit campaigning or seeking votes on the basis of caste, creed or religion. However, these rules can only be enforced during the election period and not during non-election period.
The petitioner had also made political parties, including the BJP, the SP, the BSP and the Congress, and both the state and the central governments respondents. The ECI also submitted before the court that the petition was misconceived and legally not maintainable.
