HYDERABAD: There are several ifs and buts that matter when it comes to the now much-talked about premature dissolution of the Telangana State Assembly, and holding of fresh polls by November-December this year along with elections to Rajastan, Madhya Pradesh and Chattisgarh Assemblies. The most important of these are two landmark verdicts, one issued by the Election Commission and other by the Supreme Court in the year 2002 with regard to holding Assembly polls for the dissolved House of Gujarat.
On Monday, Chief Minister K Chandrasekhara Rao once again dropped sufficient hints indicating that he prefers early Assembly elections. Reports suggest that he may dissolve the House prematurely to force the Election Commission to hold polls along with other States that will go to ballot in December this year.
The current Telangana Assembly had its first sitting on June 8 of 2014. This means, it has a life of five years -- till June 7, 2019. As per rules, the Election Commission can hold fresh polls for the House within six months from the date of expiry of the term. This means the Election Commission is empowered to hold polls any day starting December 7.
Obviously, the Commission cannot hold polls only for Telangana Assembly in December, while pushing Andhra Pradesh Assembly polls and Lok Sabha polls to another date. For, in 2014, polls to both these States and the Centre were held simultaneously. The poll panel is unlikely to hold elections to Telangana along with Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh unless a formal move is made by the State government here by prematurely dissolving its State Assembly and requesting the panel for an early election. However, the situation would be different if the panel decides to club the Andhra Pradesh and Lok Sabha elections with the above States to save money and time.
Historical lessons
In 1989, when the poll panel decided to hold Lok Sabha elections after the expiry of its term, then Andhra Pradesh government’s Chief Secretary, at the behest of Chief Minister NT Rama Rao, wrote to it seeking simultaneous polls to the AP Assembly. This, his letter said, would save precious time and mammoth expenditure to be incurred if the polls were to be held separately, three months later. The Election Commission agreed to the proposal sent by Andhra Pradesh. However, Telangana Chief Minister cannot take shelter under this precedent as he does not want the Lok Sabha polls to be held along with the Assembly elections.
However, there are two other precedents that might help tilt the issue in favour of KCR. In 2002, Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi dissolved the Assembly to go for early polls. The original term of the Assembly was up to 18th March 2003, and keeping that in view, the poll panel had contemplated holding elections in early months of 2003. However, Modi dissolved the House prematurely on 19th July, 2002 using Article 174(2) of the Constitution.
Modi was hoping that elections would be held in early October, 2002, as Article 174 (1) of the Constitution states that there cannot be a gap of more than six months between two Assembly sessions. However, the Election Commission headed then by JM Lyngdoh rejected this theory in its verdict. It said that Article 324, which gave the Election Commission the powers to decide on anything regarding holding of elections, will not have any bearing on Article 174 (1). In fact, any article of Constitution should yield to Article 324. Further, the panel held that the law and order situation in riot-torn Gujarat was not conducive to hold elections immediately.
The decision shook the entire nation, including the then NDA government, which had referred the matter to Supreme Court for its opinion. Supreme Court, too, upheld the poll panel’s decision. It held that the six-month norm would not apply to a “dissolved House”. If at all it did, it should apply only from the date of dissolution, which was July 19, 2002. Subsequently, the Commission held the Assembly elections in December 2002, duly taking the six month norm into account.
The second precedent was when then Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu got the Assembly dissolved by the Governor on November 14, 2003. He was hoping immediate elections would be held, sometime between December 2003 and January 2004, hoping the would have a favourable vote bank, due to the attack on his life by Maoists in October 2003. However, the same Chief Election Commission JM Lyngdoh did not order fresh polls as expected, but held it only in May 2004.
Options ahead for KCR
How will the above instances impact the possible outcomes in current Telangana? Application of Article 174(1) would not be possible due to the apex court ruling. The Election Commission is empowered to take any decision on conducting elections under Article 324. Assuming KCR recommends dissolution of the Assembly and if the Governor accepts the same, fresh elections would be due within the next six months.
Even if the House is dissolved by the end of August 2018, elections could be held anytime before February 2019. Since there are no major law and order concerns currently in Telangana, as was the case in Gujarat back in 2002, the Election Commission may consider clubbing polls to the State along with Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh.
However, without dissolving the existing House, KCR cannot plead to the poll panel to hold early elections, especially since he wants to avoid simultaneous polls with Andhra Pradesh and the Lok Sabha.