The Madras High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking directions to enhance the election security deposit amount for both the State Assembly Elections and Parliamentary Elections.
A.Ilayaperumal , counsel for the petitioner further submits that the candidates are spending crores of rupees for election. The amount of security deposit is too meager and if the amount of security deposit is increased, then that would help in the economic development.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Vijaykumar Gangapurwala and Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy do not find any public interest involved in the petition.
Under the statute i.e. the Representation of People Act, 1951, the amount of security deposit is fixed. Section 34 of the Act of 1951 deals with the amount to be deposited by the duly nominated candidate for the election.
Under Section 34(1)(a) of the Act of 1951, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is required to be deposited by a candidate contesting the election from a Parliamentary constituency and under Section 34(1)(b) of the Act of 1951, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is required to be deposited by a candidate contesting the election from an Assembly or Council constituency.
The amount to be deposited by a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is half of the amount to be deposited by the candidate belonging to the general category.
“In the light of the statutory provisions, no question arises of directing the representation of the petitioner to be decided. The statutory provisions are not the subject-matter of challenge. The present petition does not serve any public interest. The present writ petition certainly cannot be categorized as public interest litigation”, the order reads.