RailEnquiry

NEW DELHI: The Union government on Tuesday told the Supreme Court that there was no statutory provision or authority empowered to de-register a political party.Solicitor General (SG) R F Nariman told this to a bench of Justices G S Singhvi and S J Mukhopadhaya, who had wanted to know his response to its question: could a political party be de-recognized for calling blockade of rail or road traffic?The SG said the apex court had in 2002 decided the question declining to empower Election Commission (EC) with the power to deregister a political party. The SC judgment had ruled, "De-registration of a political party is a serious matter as it involves divesting of the party of a statutory status of a registered political party. We are, therefore, of the view that unless there is express power of review conferred upon the Election Commission, the Commission has no power to entertain or enquire into the complaint for de-registering a political party for having violated the Constitutional provisions."Upset over the lack of penalty for political parties resorting to blockades that paralyze normal life, the bench had posed this question to SG while dealing with PILs - one dealing with the Mirchipur incident and resultant blockade of rail traffic and the other by former BSF DGP Prakash Singh drawing court's attention to the 120- day blockade by Naga groups in Manipur.

The Mirchpur violence against dalits had led to arrest of upper caste Jats. Protesting the arrests, the Jat community had uprooted rail tracks and blocked road traffic for days resulting in a loss of Rs 33 crore to railways and the state exchequer.

Though the apex court had in 2009 laid down guidelines against mob violence damaging public and private property, the bench of Justices Singhvi and Mukhopadhaya attempted to streamline action against those resorting to road and rail traffic blockades.

After getting response from SG, the bench asked Haryana government whether it was willing to compensate the loss of Rs 33 crore caused by the Jat agitation. It returned an affidavit filed by a deputy commissioner of the state, and directed the state's principal secretary (home) to file a response since the loss to the exchequer was on account of the state government's negligence or inaction.

Posting the matter after two weeks, the court also directed the state to report what action had been initiated against the accused under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.