Courts can work on holidays when citizens’ rights need protection: Rajasthan High Court

“The Courts are not prevented from functioning even on holidays when it comes to protecting the rights of citizens, as the doors of the temple of justice never remain closed. The Courts are empowered and indeed duty-bound to function even on holidays, including Sundays and public holidays, where the exigency so demands, particularly for the protection and preservation of the fundamental and legal rights of the citizens,” the court said on September 21, when Rajasthan observed a state holiday on account of Ramdev Jayanti, Teja Dashami, and Khejarli Martyrs’ Day.

“The administration of justice cannot be fettered by the concept of holidays, for the cause of justice brooks no delay when the liberty, life and rights of a citizen are at stake. It is often said that the doors of the temple of justice are never closed and remain open for all, at all times,” it added.

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand said courts cannot close its doors when a citizen approaches it for redressal of grievance, even on a holiday.

The judge said courts being the “sentinel on the qui vive (alert)” for the protection of the rights of the citizens, cannot shut its eyes or close its doors when a citizen approaches it for redressal of his grievance, even on a holiday.

Plea says councillors detained

Saini’s lawyers claimed that certain elected councillors supporting him were illegally detained by the police on the instructions of two respondents, preventing them from voting for him in the chairperson election.

The petitioner claimed to have received a video of one councillor in which he allegedly stated that he and the other councillors had been detained. A complaint had also been submitted to the sub-divisional officer, Tijara, but the petitioner said no effective action had followed.

Saini sought police protection for himself and the councillors, including safe passage to and from the polling venue. He also sought a direction to the State Election Commission to ensure a free and fair election, and asked that the poll be postponed until the said councillors were freed. The petition also sought registration of an FIR, appointment of an independent observer and videography of the election proceedings, with the records preserved.

State disputes allegations

The state opposed the allegations and told the high court that the police was not involved in the alleged conduct. The advocate general submitted that the petitioner had a remedy before the State Election Commission. The court was also informed that the complaint had already been filed before the returning officer, who forwarded it to the state poll panel.

According to the state’s submissions recorded in the order, the commission had ordered an inquiry through the additional district magistrate, Bhiwadi, and directed him to submit his report on September 21 by 1.30 pm.

The state also told the court that a video received from one of the councillors showed an allegation that the councillors were being detained at Panchkula in Haryana. It submitted that if the alleged detention was taking place there, the petitioner could approach the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a habeas corpus petition.

The Rajasthan High Court, however, did not record a finding that the councillors had been illegally detained.

Court refuses to postpone poll

The court then considered the request to defer the Tijara chairperson election. Justice Dhand referred to Supreme Court principles on judicial interference after an election process has commenced.

The principles discussed in the order said elections should proceed as scheduled and disputes should be raised through the appropriate legal process rather than by stopping the electoral process. The high court thus declined to accept Saini’s request to postpone the election.

‘Can’t deny right to vote’

The court separately considered the participation of the newly elected councillors. It said no authority could deprive them of their legal right to vote according to their free will, which is a basic feature of democracy.

It added that an individual cannot be deprived of the right to vote on the basis of “whims and fancies” or political interference, and a person has an indefeasible right to be part of the election process.

The court noted that the state election commission had already ordered an inquiry into the matter through the additional district magistrate, Bhiwadi. It, hence, declined to interfere with the election process. The judge said the commission could take a decision on the issue in accordance with the law after considering the inquiry report.