Implement orders despite election code, High Court tells Haryana, Punjab, Chandigarh

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 25

Making it clear that the code of conduct cannot be permitted to stand in way of the implementation of its orders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed Punjab and Haryana, along with the UT, to comply with its directions.

‘Unnecessary excuse’

Advertisement

Describing the excuse as “unnecessary”, Justice Sehrawat said there was no clause in the code under which the issuance of appointment, pursuant to the court’s order “might be required to be kept in abeyance”

The Bench also made it clear that the Election Commission of India’s nod or intervention was not a requisite as the authorities concerned were authorised and under legal duty to execute the orders. “The States of Punjab and Haryana, as well as Union Territory Chandigarh, shall comply with the orders passed by the high court, irrespective of the enforcement of the model code of conduct on account of Lok Sabha elections or any other election, unless the orders passed by the high court are actually and specifically stayed by some appellate court,” the Bench asserted.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat also directed the forwarding of the order’s copy to the Chief Secretaries and the UT Administrator for “knowledge and necessary compliance, and also for onward communication of this order to all the departments under them”.

Justice Sehrawat was hearing a contempt of court petition filed in a service matter against HSSC Secretary and another respondent by Naresh Kumar through counsel Rajat Mor. The State counsel told the Bench that orders appointing the petitioner had been issued. But actual appointment “could not be given because of prevalent model code of conduct”.

Describing the excuse as “unnecessary”, Justice Sehrawat said there was no clause in the code under which the issuance of appointment, pursuant to the court’s order “might be required to be kept in abeyance”.

He added that the court had come across a number of cases where the two States and the UT had been taking a stand that the court orders could not be complied with following the prevalence of the code.