Bombay High Court can’t be blamed that there was delay on its part in pronouncing the judgment. Moreover this is nothing surprising and certainly there is nothing shocking about it
After the death of former agriculture minister Ravi Naik, the Ponda seat of the Goa legislative Assembly fell vacant, and therefore was required to be filled in by electing a new MLA. A notification regarding the said election was issued on March 15, 2026 and published on March 16. The election was scheduled for April 9 and the result was to be declared on May 4.
Two persons challenged the notification before the High Court of Bombay at Goa on the ground that the person to be elected as an MLA would not get even one year tenure as the elections to the Goa Assembly are bound to be held by March 2027 since the tenure for the present Assembly expires in the said month. The petition was mentioned before the High Court on March 24 and thereafter, in order to enable the Election Commission of India to file its reply, time was granted till March 30. The matter was taken up for hearing the arguments on April 2, and after the hearing the judgement was reserved. The said judgement was pronounced on April 8 during afternoon hours and the copy thereof was uploaded during the fag end of the court hours.
If one goes through the copy of the judgment of the said matter, it mentions that the Advocate General had expressed his reservations on representing the state on the ground that the state has no role to play
in the byelection.
The perusal of the verdict discloses that the entire challenge was based on two earlier decisions of the Bombay High Court, wherein while interpreting the provisions of Section 151(A) of Representation of People Act, it was held that the period of one year specified in the Section is to be calculated in relation to the date when the incoming member takes charge and not from the date when outgoing member has vacated the seat. The judgment does not disclose any other point in relation to the merits of the case having been canvassed or argued before the High Court by any of the parties. Being so, apart from reminding the High Court about the judicial discipline that once a bench takes a particular view in relation to an issue, then in the normal course, subsequent similar matters before different benches are to be decided in accordance with the said decision. In other words, the judicial discipline requires that different benches can’t decide the same issue differently and create confusion. In case any bench wants to differ from the opinion expressed by one bench, then it is the duty of such bench to express its dissent giving reasons and thereafter to refer the matter to a larger bench, for the final decision on the issue.
It was really surprising and painful to hear a statement on behalf of the government and some other parties that too made at Ponda to the media that “it was shocking”. It was abundantly clear that when the said statement was made, there was no opportunity to read the judgment before expressing the observations; and in spite of that it was ventured to make the statement in a very rash and hasty manner and therefore, it was certainly not in a good taste.
Government officials are expected to be cautious, careful and disciplined in making any statement in relation to any court verdict. It should not be forgotten that the sitting judges are not expected to counter any such statement by appearing either before the press or otherwise. The judicial discipline does not permit them to come out in open with such expressions. Being so, those who are well conversant with constitutional provisions are certainly expected to observe required restrain in the matter of any reaction to any judgment or order passed by any court. It is more so when the person occupies high position in the government.
It is pertinent to note that it cannot be presumed that the government was completely unaware or had no inclination that the HC verdict would be in favour of cancelling the election, in view of illegality of the notification issued by ECI. In fact, one of the political leaders that very night of April 8 had given a press interview saying that he was well aware of the situation that the election would be cancelled. Similar view was expressed immediately after the judgement by one of the candidates to the media.
In addition, it is to be noted that the hearing of the matter took place on April 2. A news report in that regard disclosed that the Advocate General had made a statement that he was of the personal view that the petitioners’ contention in relation to the interpretation of Section 151A was correct. Of course, he had clarified that the said statement was his personal view and not on behalf of government. This statement itself disclosed that the views of the Advocate General were well known to the government. Certainly it cannot be believed under any circumstances that the authorities concerned had not briefed the government about what had happened in the court proceedings. Being so, everyone must have been fully aware of the situation which disclosed that the court was informed only about the earlier judgments of the Bombay High Court taking the view that the period of one year spoken of under Section 151A refers to the period which the incoming MLA should get and not the period from the date of vacancy and no other point was canvassed before the court, and in those circumstances the election was bound to be cancelled.
Unfortunately similar statements regarding the judgment are being made by some other persons and parties including political parties. In such circumstances it needs to be reminded that it cannot be ignored that any statement by any responsible person and more particularly a person occupying high position in the government carries a great weight and influence. It is always expected that there should be healthy and harmonious atmosphere and relationship between the two important wings of the government – executive and judiciary – while maintaining required distance and observing necessary restrictions.
We have to take note of the fact that the petition was mentioned before the court for the first time on March 24. The Election Commission took time till March 30 and the matter was argued on April 2. April 3 was Good Friday and hence holiday; April 4 was Saturday and April 5 was Sunday. The judgement was prepared and announced within three days – April 6, 7 and 8. Therefore the court cannot be blamed that there was any delay on its part in pronouncing the verdict. In any case, there was nothing surprising and certainly there was nothing shocking about the judgment or its pronouncement on April 8. Rather, rash and hasty reactions were certainly shocking.
I usually prefer to refrain myself from reacting to any of the comments or statements made in relation to court matters. However, the reactions compelled me to express my displeasure.
(Justice (Retd) RMS Khandeparkar served as a judge of the Bombay High Court.)
