Representation for Redress of Grievance under Article 350 of Indian Constitution

Representation for Redress of Grievance under Article 350 of Indian Constitution

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!
Arun katiyar started this petition to Election Commission of INDIA

From: India Against Discrimination

Headed by Arun Kumar Katiyar alias Er.Lastman India

R/o:A-260 Green hill comfort home Ashiana , Neemrana

      Alwar Rajasthan , 301705

To,

The Chief Election Commissioner and his two Companion Election Commissioners:

 

Subject: Representation for Redress of Grievance under Article 350 of Indian Constitution.

 

Sir,

 

Where election is not free and fair and not in accordance with the valid law of election validly made, then everything is unfair and unjust in the country and that is the definition of dictatorship-than God help the country- Unknown.

 

The aforementioned complaint states as under seeking redress of his under mentioned grievance in accordance with our Constitution and the law made there under:-

 

1. That the complainant is a proprietorship organization of the citizens as described in the solemn words of the preamble summed up in what is later provided in our Constitution and particularly in Articles 13(2), 14, 19, 21, 81, 84, 170, 173, 325, 326 inter alia of our constitution and the R.P Act, 1950 and 1951, and Rules, 1961 made thereunder, which may kindly be kept in mind while addressing the grievances under mentioned.

2. That the citizens are possessed of full civic rights individually in the body politics that is India, that is right to elect as elector/voter and right to be elected to fill a seat in the Parliamentary Institutions-all statutorily defined and well settled by the Supreme Court in its various pronouncements.

 

3. That the Election Commission as described in Article 324 is possessed of the right of superintendence, direction and control of election held in Article 84, 173, 325 and 326 and section 14 and 15 of the R.P. Act, 1951, which says that the constituencies shall elect members in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules and orders made thereunder, which is also well settled.

 

4. It is thus loud and clear that- (a) election is statutorily defined in the election law; (b) the members of the Lok sabha are chosen by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the states based on the population of each state; (c) that elections to the lok sabha and to the state Assembly shall be based on adult Suffrage –in that-every person who is citizen of over 18 years of age, is entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election; and (d) any person, natural or artificial, not being registered as a voter, has no locus, status, position , place and right exercisable at elections based on Adult Suffrage-which is well settled.

 

5. That the problem arose in the first general election held in February, 1952 when the than Election Commission supplanted a few body of persons to function as distributors of the election symbols to the candidates designated by the constitution after he made and subscribed an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the third schedule attached to Articles 84 and 173 read with sections 31 and 32 as to the person who can be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat, and this was done without the sanction and support of the constitution and the R.P Act, 1950 and of 1951 as, there was no mention of the body of persons thereunder.

 

6. That the practice of body of persons distributing the symbols to the Candidates at the instance of the Election Commission continued over after the statutory Rule 5 in Rules, 1961 was made effective to regulate the symbols for elections in parliamentary and assembly constituencies which did not make any mention of symbols to be reserved to body person not did it obligate the Election Commission to reserve symbols for any kind of body of persons.

 

7. That the worst happened in 1968 when the Election Commission passed and notified its orders in the name and style of the “Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968” in gross violation of statutory Rules 5 of Rules, 1961 and, in blatant defiance of the fundamental rights under Article 13(2), 14, 19, and 21 including defiance of the Constitutional rights under Articles 81, 84, 170, 325 and 326 and in that, it went ahead to override the statutory definitions of the words and expressions in the Act, 1950 and of the Act 1951, that is namely- (1) persons; (2) political party; (3) Candidate and (4) electoral rights.

 

8. It is relevant to mention have in this very context that the Parliament decided to do away with illegal provisions of the said Election Symbols Order, 1968 by adding statutory definition of the Political party and its due registration by adding section 29A and 2 (1) (f) in the Act, 1951 by adopting and enacting the R.P. Amendment Act, 1 of 1989.

 

9. That thereafter, the said Election Symbols Order, 1968 should have ceased to have effect and removed from the process of notified election as, it became repugnant and infructuous on the face of the statutory definition of political party u/s 2 (1) (f) of the Act, 1951.

 

10. But sadly, unjustly, unfairly and perhaps mischievously the Election Commission kept the said Election Symbols, 1968 in force with a view to give undue and extra advantage to the groups of some high profile persons and thereunder, prejudice the common persons and teeming millions-which must not be ignored not excused on the touch-stone of the Rule of Law and equality.

 

11. That based on the principle of equality and Rule of Law, you may kindly be pleased:-

 

(a). to recall the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 and specify the symbols afresh strictly as directed by Rule 5 and 10 of Rules, 1961.

 

(b). to ensure that the candidate designated by the Constitution only after his oath or affirmation and also, defined by an Act of Parliament, is not discriminated against each other and treated differently on the basis of the so called recognized National/State party, not statutorily defined and more so, when it is repugnant of the face of political statutorily defined.

 

12. Kindly acknowledge receipt and be pleased to inform the complainant within 21 days from the date of receipt of this letter-otherwise the complainant shall proceed legally.

 

 

Dated: 07/01/2021                                 Yours’ Faithfully

                                                 Arun kumar katiyar alias Er.Lastman India 

0 have signed. Let’s get to 100!
At 100 signatures, this petition is more likely to be featured in recommendations!