The Madras High Court on Friday, April 26, 2024, refrained from passing any orders on a writ petition that had insisted that those wanting to contest in Parliamentary, Assembly or local body polls should be mandated to disclose their health conditions and ailments, if any, at the time of filing nominations.
The First Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay V. Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy said they did not want to pass any kind of orders in this case in the midst of the ongoing Lok Sabha polls. The judges directed the High Court Registry to list the matter for hearing in June.
The writ petition was filed in November 2016, when former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa was admitted to a private hospital. Initially, the petitioner S.V. Subbaiah of Pollachi had restricted his plea for the disclosure of health conditions only by those who wanted to contest in the local body elections that were due that year. However, on November 18, 2016 Justice N. Kirubakaran (since retired) had expanded the scope of the petition to include those who wanted to contest in Assembly as well as Parliamentary elections too and suo motu impleaded the Election Commission of India (ECI) as one of the respondents to the case.
Subsequently, the writ petitioner too, amended his prayer to include those wanting to contest for the posts of Member of Parliament as well as Member of the Legislative Assembly in the Pollachi constituency.
However, ECI standing counsel Niranjan Rajagopalan told the court that disclosure regarding health issues was a matter related to privacy and the Commission would not be able to demand medical certificates at the time of filing nominations, without any statutory backing to do so. He said, it would be up to the wisdom of the Parliament to enact a law insisting upon every candidate wanting to contest in Parliamentary and Assembly elections to disclose the ailments suffered by them and whether they were physically fit to discharge the functions expected of a legislator.
On his part, the writ petitioner’s counsel M. Purushothaman had argued that voters at large would be at loss if an elected legislator was found to be suffering from a chronic illness and became immobile after the elections. He/she may not be able to represent his electors before the Parliament or Assembly, Mr. Purushothaman argued.
Stating that a duty was cast upon electors to make an informed choice by electing a hale and healthy candidate, he said, even for appointment of Constitutional posts such as Supreme Court and High Court judges, it was necessary to submit fitness certificates. Further, an age limit was also fixed for those posts.
Citing the death of many legislators due to failing health and the need to conduct byelections in those constituencies, the counsel said it was also necessary for the electors to know whether the contestant had good hearing faculties to be able to follow the proceedings of the House. Similarly, good vision was necessary to peruse records and documents while attending proceedings. He/she must be able to speak well to champion the cause of the constituency and must be free from excruciating ailments such as diabetics, piles, cancer and heart problem, he said.
“I must know whether my representative is physically fit to sit for long hours to watch the proceedings of the House, whether he/she would be able to travel extensively and whether he/she is afflicted with any life threatening diseases that would incapacitate him/her,” the counsel added.
