Shri Balaji vs Election Commission Of India

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
% Date of decision: 9 March, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 634/2026 with CM APPL. 12421/2026
SHRI BALAJI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Mr.
Nishad L. S. and Mr. Aditya Verma,
Advocates.
versus
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Ashish
Shukla and Mr. Siddhartha Goswami,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction to quash and set aside the Impugned Order No.
113/1/2025/REGISTRY/18455 dated 05.12.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed
by the Respondent;
b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or
direction, directing the Respondent to reconsider the Petitioner's
application dated 14.08.2025 afresh on its merits, in accordance with the
law, and after taking into consideration the Petitioner's good conduct,
premature release, and social contributions;”
2. Brief facts which are necessary for deciding the writ petition are set
out hereinafter:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

th
i) The petitioner was convicted by the Supreme Court of India on 30
March, 2017 for an offence under Section 326 read with Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), which was committed
in 1993, and sentenced for 7 years’ imprisonment.
ii) Consequent to the conviction of the petitioner and sentence of
imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, the petitioner was
disqualified under Section 8(3) of the RP Act, 1951.
th
iii) On 8 February, 2021, the Jail Advisory Board recommended
premature release of the petitioner owing to his good conduct under
Rule 462 of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services
(Management) Rules, 2014.
th
iv) On 24 June, 2021, the petitioner was granted premature release
from prison.
th
v) On 14 August, 2025, the petitioner filed an application before the
respondent/Election Commission of India (‘ECI’) under Section 11
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter the ‘RP
Act, 1951’), seeking reduction of the period of the petitioner’s
disqualification, citing his good conduct, premature release, and
extensive social and public service post-conviction.
th
3. The respondent/ECI passed the impugned order dated 5 December,
2025 rejecting the petitioner’s application.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ
petition.
5. Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner has made the following submissions:
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

5.1. ECI has narrowly construed the discretion to be exercised by ECI
under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951. The legislature has not mandated that
the aforesaid discretion should be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances.
5.2. The impugned order has been passed without considering the case of
the petitioner on merits and is an unreasoned order.
5.3. The offence was committed by the petitioner as far back in 1993,
when he was only 30 years of age and otherwise the petitioner does not have
any criminal antecedents. The impugned order is against the fundamental
ethos of the criminal justice system of reformation.
5.4. Reliance placed by the respondent on Sarat Chandra Rabha v.
Khagendranath Nath , 1960 SCC OnLine SC 130 is misplaced. The said
judgment does not deal with exercise of discretionary powers under Section
11 of the RP Act, 1951.
6. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent/ECI,
wherein it is stated that the impugned order has been passed after examining
all relevant facts and circumstances, including the statutory provisions.
7. Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent/ECI has made the following submissions:
7.1. Exercise of discretionary power conferred on a body under a statute
would not create a vested right in favour of a person to demand its exercise
in his favour.
7.2. The contention of the petitioner that premature release granted to the
petitioner would lead to removal of his electoral disqualification is
misconceived. In this regard, the respondent/ECI has placed reliance upon
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

judgment of Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Sarat Chandra
Rabha v. Khagendranath Nath (supra).
8. I have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
9. Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951 provides for disqualification of a person
from contesting elections on account of conviction for an offence with
imprisonment of at least 2 years. It also provides that such a person would be
disqualified for a period of 6 years from the date of release. For ease of
reference, Section 8(3) of the RP Act, 1951 is set out below:
“ 8. Disqualification on conviction for certain offences. —
… … …
(3) A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for
not less than two years [other than any offence referred to in sub-section
(1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified from the date of such
conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six
years since his release.”
10. It is an undisputed fact that in the present case, the petitioner was
convicted by the Supreme Court for the offences under Section 326 read
with Section 149 of the IPC and was awarded imprisonment of 7 years.
11. Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 grants a discretionary power to ECI to
remove or reduce the period of disqualification. Section 11 of the RP Act,
1951 is set out below:
“ 11. Removal or reduction of period of disqualification .—The Election
Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any
disqualification under this Chapter (except under section 8A) or reduce
the period of any such disqualification.”
12. Merely because a statutory authority such as ECI has been vested with
discretionary power in terms of Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 would not
mean that there is a vested right in favour of the petitioner for the aforesaid
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

right to be exercised in his favour.
13. In the present case, ECI has rejected the petitioner’s application under
Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951. A perusal of the impugned order would
show that ECI has considered the case of the petitioner in its entirety and has
come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of the
discretion provided under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951. The relevant
findings as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the impugned order is set out below:
“5. NOW, THEREFORE, the Commission records its consideration and
decision as under:
i. At the outset, it is reiterated that the power conferred upon the
Commission under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 to remove or reduce
the period of disqualification is an extraordinary and discretionary
power, intended to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional
circumstances. The provision does not create any vested or automatic
right in favour of a convicted person.
ii. It is a matter of record that such power has been exercised by this
Commission only in three exceptional cases over several decades,
namely, the cases of Shri Shyam Narain Tiwari, Shri Mitrasen Yadav,
and Shri Prem Singh Tamang. Each of the said cases was decided on its
own peculiar facts and circumstances and does not constitute a general
precedent for routine invocation of Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951.
iii. In so far as reliance placed by the Applicant on the decision of this
Commission in the case of Shri Prem Singh Tamang is concerned, it is
observed that the said decision was rendered in materially different
factual and legal circumstances, including considerations relating to the
legal position prevailing at the time of commission of the offence and the
protection under Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. Further, the
said decision is presently under consideration before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and the matter is sub judice. Accordingly, the said case
cannot be relied upon as a precedent in the present matter.
iv. In the present case, the Applicant has been convicted for serious
offences involving violence and sentenced to seven years of rigorous
imprisonment, which squarely attracts disqualification under Section
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

8(3) of the RP Act, 1951. The disqualification so incurred flows directly
from the statute and does not call for reconsideration in the absence of
exceptional circumstances.
v. The Commission further observes that good conduct after conviction,
premature release on remission, and social or public contributions, by
themselves, do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting
exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 11 of the RP Act,
1951. Acceptance of such grounds would dilute the statutory scheme of
disqualification envisaged under Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951.
vi. The Commission is also of the considered view that it is not open to
this Commission, while exercising powers under Section 11 of the RP
Act, 1951, to re-examine the merits of the conviction, the nature of the
offence, or the proportionality of sentence, particularly when the
conviction has attained finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
vii. Upon due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, the
Commission finds that the Applicant has not been able to demonstrate
any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting exercise of
powers under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951.”
14. In my considered view, the mandate of the RP Act, 1951 with regard
to the disqualification of a candidate on conviction for offences is clear from
a reading of Section 8. Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 is in the nature of an
exception to the disqualifications under Section 8.
15. It is a settled position of law that an exception to a statute has to be
strictly interpreted. [Please see Project Officer, IRDP v. P.D. Chacko ,
(2010) 6 SCC 637]
16. Therefore, no fault can be found with the decision of ECI that
discretion under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 should be exercised only in
exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.
17. A perusal of the extracts from the impugned order as set out above
shows that ECI has exercised this power only in three exceptional cases over
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

several decades.
18. ECI has also distinguished the case of Shri Prem Singh Tamang,
which was relied upon by the petitioner in his application under Section 11
of the RP Act, 1951. It was observed in the impugned order that the case of
Shri Prem Singh Tamang cannot be treated as a precedent and it was based
on materially different factual circumstances.
19. Accordingly, ECI has come to the conclusion that since the petitioner
has been convicted for serious offence involving violence and has been
awarded 7 years’ rigorous imprisonment, this would not be a fit case for
exercise of discretion under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 in favour of the
petitioner. Merely because the petitioner has shown good conduct after his
conviction cannot be a ground for reduction of the disqualification period
prescribed under Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951. If the submission of the
petitioner is accepted, it would dilute the mandate of Section 8 of the RP
Act, 1951.
20. Mr. Vashishtha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ECI,
has placed reliance on the observations made by the Supreme Court in
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India , (2019) 3 SCC 224, wherein
the Supreme Court has laid emphasis on the need for reform of electoral
process and decriminalisation of politics. It was noted in the said judgment
that rampant increase in the number of candidates with criminal antecedents
contesting elections, is a menace to the democracy and substantial efforts
need to be made to prohibit such persons from entering public life.
21. In view of the discussion above, no grounds for interference under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India are made out.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37

22. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
23. The pending application also stands disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL, J
MARCH 9, 2026/rr
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 634/2026 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:AARZOO
Signing Date:12.03.2026
15:00:37