Derecognition of Manithaneya Makkal Katchi by ECI challenged by Writ Petition in Madras HC The Honourable first bench of the Madras High Court, comprising the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Mr Justice Arul Murugan, ordered notice returnable within 4 weeks to the Election Commission of India and others after hearing arguments of P. Wilson, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Writ Petitioner.

[17/11, 20:34] Sekarreporter: [17/11, 20:33] Sekarreporter: 👍
[17/11, 20:33] Sekarreporter: Derecognition of Manithaneya Makkal Katchi by ECI challenged by Writ Petition in Madras HC

The Honourable first bench of the Madras High Court, comprising the Honourable Chief Justice and Honourable Mr Justice Arul Murugan, ordered notice returnable within 4 weeks to the Election Commission of India and others after hearing arguments of P. Wilson, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Writ Petitioner.
The writ challenges the order passed by the ECI, derecognising the Manithaneya Makkal Katchi because it has not contested elections for the last six years.
The ECI also derecognised about 476 Registered Unrecognised Political Parties (RUPPs) on the same grounds.
P. Wilson Sr. Advocate submitted before the Chief Justice bench that the order is without jurisdiction, as the ECI has no power to derecognise a political party once it has been registered under Section 29A of the Representation of the People’s Act. Mr Wilson argued that the ECI has no authority to review the registration already granted under section 29A, except when it is obtained by fraud, section 29A(9), or when declared as unlawful under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967, or any similar law as decided by the Supreme Court in the Indian National Congress case in 2002.
He argued that the Petitioner party was registered in 2009 and that the 2014 guidelines relied upon by the Election Commission do not apply to the petitioner’s party, as it is not required to contest elections continuously for 6 years. He further argued that the Secretary of the Election Commission of India, who passed the order, is not the Election Commission as defined in the Representation of the People’s Act, 1956, or Article 324, and that the Secretary of the ECI cannot assume the powers of the Election Commission. The order purportedly deprives the party of benefits under sections 29B and 29C, and therefore, such orders cannot be passed mechanically, which has civil consequences.
The Honourable first bench ordered notice to the Election Commission of India returnable within 4 weeks.
[17/11, 20:34] Sekarreporter: 👍👍