Election Dispute in Dental Council: Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order

The case revolves around the election of a member to the Dental Council of India under Section 3(a) of the Dentists Act, 1948, and the Dental Council (Election) Regulations, 1952. The appellant, Shaji K. Joseph, challenged the High Court’s decision allowing the nomination of respondent V. Viswanath, whose name was not included in Part A of the register of dentists for the state.

Background of the Case

Respondent No. 1, V. Viswanath, wished to contest the election but was denied participation as his name was absent from the electoral roll. Consequently, he filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, which ruled in his favor, directing the Returning Officer to conduct the election afresh. The appellant, Shaji K. Joseph, then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the election process once it had commenced. He cited precedents such as N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer and Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, which upheld the principle that courts should not interrupt elections once they have begun.

The appellant also contended that election disputes should be referred to the Central Government, as specified under Section 5 of the Act and Regulation 20 of the Regulations.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent argued that he was qualified to contest the election despite his exclusion from Part A of the state register. He asserted that the eligibility criterion only required a candidate to be a registered dentist possessing a recognized qualification.

He further contended that his exclusion was improper and that the High Court was justified in intervening.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the election process. The Court emphasized that once an election process begins, judicial intervention should be minimal, as reiterated in past precedents.

Additionally, the Court highlighted that Respondent No. 1 had an alternative remedy available—he could have challenged his exclusion before the Central Government after the election’s conclusion.

The Court concluded by setting aside the High Court’s order and directing that the election result be published.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that judicial interference in election matters should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. This judgment reinforces the statutory provision that election disputes should be resolved through prescribed mechanisms rather than through judicial intervention.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shaji K. Joseph vs V. Viswanath Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-02-2016-1741852425446.pdf