Madras High Court has observed a guideline of Tamil Nadu State Election Commission barring advocates from contesting elections in local bodies if they had appeared for or against them was unconstitutional.
Making the observation during the hearing of a petition, a bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M M Sundresh, however, stopped short of quashing the guideline because its constitutional validity had not been challenged before the court.
"We may hasten to add that we are not commenting on the legality or validity of this provision, as it has not been questioned in the present petition, though we would have grave doubts about its constitutionality," the judges said.
The matter relates to a petition by advocate S Balasubramanian, whose nomination for a ward councillor post in Tindivanam municipality was rejected on the ground that he attracted disqualification (to contest the poll) as per clause 2.3 (vi) of guidelines issued by the SEC for 2011 local body polls.
The clause provided for rejection of papers of a candidate who appeared for or against the corporation or municipality in which the candidate is seeking to contest.
Petitioner challenged his disqualification and sought to quash the rejection order.
The court said: "We find the cause is one of restraint on profession in carrying out the obligations which an advocate is required to do under Advocates Act, 1961. The bar which this clause seeks to impose is not even with respect to any period of time, but is blanket ban - if an advocate in performance of his profession had ever appeared against or for the corporation, he would be disqualified to file his nomination."
"We are of the view that the rejection of the nomination of the petitioner is illegal and objections put forth by the election commission are unsustainable," the judges said.
