Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978)
Quick Summary
CASE_TITLE: Mohinder Singh v. Chief Election Commissioner (AIR 1978 SC 853)
PUBLISH_DATE: 25 Oct 2025 | AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi | LOCATION: India
The Supreme Court said courts should not stop or disturb an election while it is going on. Article 329(b) blocks such challenges. A re-poll order made by the Election Commission (EC) cannot be attacked mid-process. The right path is an election petition after results. Even so, the EC must act fairly and follow natural justice under Article 324.
Issues
- Does Article 329(b) bar court challenges before the election finishes?
- Can a High Court under Article 226 review an EC order for a full re-poll during the election?
- Are EC powers under Article 324 bound by natural justice?
Rules
- Article 329(b): No court can “call in question” an election before results.
- Article 324: EC has wide powers to ensure free and fair polls, used fairly and reasonably.
- Natural Justice: When EC decisions affect rights, fairness and transparency apply.
- Judicial Review: Available after the process via election petition; mid-process review is barred.
Facts (Timeline)
View
Arguments
Appellant
- EC acted without proper basis; re-poll wipes out votes already cast.
- Court should check arbitrariness through writ powers.
- Natural justice required a fair hearing before cancelling the poll.
Respondent (EC)
- Article 329(b) bars interference mid-election; remedy is an election petition later.
- Article 324 power is wide to protect free and fair polls amidst grave disruptions.
- Urgency justified swift action to preserve integrity of the vote.
Judgment (Held)
View
- Appeal dismissed: High Court view sustained.
- Article 329(b): A comprehensive bar on court interference between notification and result declaration.
- Re-poll challenge: Treating it as a writ amounts to “calling in question” an election; hence barred.
- Post-result relief: Election Court can grant full remedies, including undoing a re-poll where justified.
- Natural justice & EC: EC’s power stands, but it must act fairly; no rigid guidelines set due to facts.
Ratio Decidendi
During an ongoing election, courts cannot interrupt or review steps like a re-poll order (Art. 329(b)). Integrity and continuity of the process prevail. After results, judicial review through an election petition remains open. EC’s Article 324 power is broad but must be exercised with fairness.
Why It Matters
- Keeps elections timely and uninterrupted.
- Protects free and fair polls during emergencies.
- Ensures accountability via post-election judicial review.
Key Takeaways
Art. 329(b) bars mid-election court interference.
Article 324 gives wide, duty-bound powers to EC.
Natural justice applies to impactful EC decisions.
Election Court can undo a faulty re-poll post results.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “LET IT RUN, THEN REVIEW”
- LET IT RUN: Process first (Art. 329(b)).
- EC GUARDS: Article 324 power, used fairly.
- THEN REVIEW: Election petition after results.
IRAC Outline
| Issue | Rule | Application | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can courts review an EC re-poll order during the election? | Art. 329(b) bars mid-election challenges; EC acts under Art. 324 with natural justice. | Violence and loss of ballots led EC to cancel and re-poll to protect fairness. | Mid-election writ not maintainable; election petition is proper route post results. |
Glossary
- Article 329(b)
- Bars courts from interfering with elections before results are declared.
- Article 324
- Vests EC with powers to conduct free and fair elections.
- Election Petition
- The legal route to challenge election steps after the process ends.
FAQs
Related Cases
Election Process & Bar
Cases on Article 329 and when courts may step in.
EC Powers & Fairness
Judgments balancing EC’s wide powers with natural justice.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now