BEFORE THE ELECTION TRJBUNAL NEW DELHI [ESTABLISHED US lOB OF THE COMPANY SECRETARlES ACT 1980]
APPLICATION NO 412015
IN THE MATTER OF
CS Sanjay Kumar Gupta
VS
Applicant (In person)
CS Mamta Binani Respondent
(Represented by Shyi Pradeep Kumar Miffal Advocate Shj Pra veen K Mittal AdvocOIe
Shri Govind Kumar Advocate Shri Manish Singh Advocate)
30032016
ORDER
I This Application dated 22012015 has been filed by CS Sanjay
Kumar Gupta the Applicant herein under Section 10(A) of the
Company Secretaries Act 1980 (the Act) raising a dispute
regarding the election of CS Mamta Binani the Respondent as a
Member of the Central Council of the Institute of Company
Secretaries of India (the ICSI) from the Eastern India Regional
Constituency of the ICS] in the Central Councils Election of the ICSI
held in December 2014
2 The Applicant stated that he was a candidate for the Election to the
Counci l of the ICSt from the Eastern India Regional Council
Cortstituency held Ort 12122014 The Applicant submitted that he
1 A
lost lhe contest due to unfair practices adopted by the other
bull candidates including th e Respondent vvh o VOll the election
The Applicant a lleged that the re were numerous of instances of
violations of (a) The Company Secretaries (Ejection to the Council )
Rule 2006 (the Rules ) (b) Code or Conduct of Elect ions (c)
Direc ti ves issued from lim e to tim e by Returning Officerhis office
(d) Advisories issued h om time to time by RelUrning O fficerhis
oftice and (c) other communications hy the Retuming Officerhis
oHi ce
4 The Applicant further a ll eged that the Returning Offilter in his
communication dated 10112014 sent to atl the contesting
candidates Advisory -II dated 13 102014 and Direc ti ve shy III dated
271 12014 had observed th e violation o f Elecliun Code of Conduct
Advi sories and Directives hy some orthc candidales
5 The Applicant fUJ1her alleged that in her manifesto the Respondent
used at number or p laces the photographs or (he programmes
attended and addressed by he r which nlso includes the display of
logo of the TeSt ill violation o f Electi on Rules Election Code of
Conduct Adviso ries and Direc ti ves issued by the RelUming Orticer
The Applicant furth er lt)llcged Ihm the Respondent issued more than
one manifestocircular in vio lation and disregard to the Rules
Elec tion Code Advisories and the Directi ves and (l lso deliberately
suppressed this fact hy not sending the additional manifesto Icircular
to the Returning Ofti cer
2
6 The Applicclnt furth er alleged that the Respondent did not conlply
w ilh rhe advice g iven by tht Returning Officer daled 10 J J 2014 by
not purging photographs of the programmes 3uendcd and being
addressed by her whic h included the display or logo of the rcsi
7 The Respondent in her Written Statement dated 04-11-2015 denied
the a llegat ions o f the Appliclt)m and submitted thal these were
baseless vexatious and the app lica tion has been filed to harass and
malign her image She vehemently denied that the A pplicant lost the
contest due to unfair practices adopted by her The Respondent
denied that she had violated any provision of Election Rules
E lection Code of Conducts Directives Adviso ries and other
communication issued hy he Returning Offic er or his office witb
regard 10 Election
x T he Responden t admitted that the impugned election manifes to
containing the pholOgraph(s) logo of lCSI pe11aining to
eventsp rograms organised by the lCSIRegional Counc ilsChap ters
was isslIed on 31 -1 0-2014 through email
9 The Respondent fur th er submitted that Advisory-I II dated 3 1-10shy
p 2014 was not rece ived by her as the same was not c inulated by the
ICS[ to the candidate at all She further submitted that Directive - r
and Dircctjve II were issued by Re turn ing O ffi cer and Ch ief
EXccuLive amp Officiating Secretary s On-i ce (Mr Sutanu Sinha) all
07 1120 14 -herein dir(cl ions were given 10 nor publishpro pagate
by whatever means it may be logo of Lhe rCSl and hisher
photograph(s) perta ining to any events progrdms organized by the
JnsriluteKegion al Counei IChaptcrs She further submHted that
3 CA ~ b
restriction on use of pholograph(s)l logo was communicated by th e (CS I for the very fi rs l lime on 071120 14 by way of Directive middot 1
and Directive - II nnd that prior to 07112014 no email was sent by
rhl ICSJlrccciv(d by the Respondent restricting such inclusion in
manifesto
10 The Respondent further suhmiued thai she came to know about the
alresaid Directives al aboul 930 PM on 7112014 She had
ulreildy released the election manifesto on 3110 2014 much prior to
Directive - 1 and Direc(ive - II She issued the impug~ed Manifesto
on 31102014 aner proper deliberation and as per the law wh ich W(IS
then in rorce and ex istent on (hal day and that the manifesto was sent
through ern ail in different lots and all emails were Se nt well betore
07112014
11 The Respondent furlh er subm itted lhal on Ihe very sa me day of
receipi 01Direel ive - I and Direct ive - II ie 07 1120 14 she herself
scnt an emai l (at 1012 PM) 10 Ihe Relurning Oll1ce and Chief
Execulive amp Officialing Secrelaris OHlec Ms Meenakshi Gupta
Mr TR Manik Orricers of til e ICS I intimating about the issuance
of impugned manifesto on 31102014 and that she herself assured to
comply with the additional requirement forthwith (lnd Ihal if at all
Ihe elecli on manitltsto is c ircu lated again pOSI 07112014 due
ltomp liance of said Directive shall be ensured and shall send her first
mani festo and amended maniiesto (if any) tor the record orthe rcsT
12 The Respondent further subm itted th at if the allegations of lhe
Applican( are true the same would have been noted by th e Relurning
4
o[ticer on 071 12014 andiar 131 120 14 (da te 0 f original receipt of
manifes to by the Reluming Officer) or even at the later date llnd
orfice o f the Return ing O ffi cer would have taken appropriate ac tion
aga inst he r
13 The Respondent deni ed that she bas issued more than one
maniresloCircutar The R~spondent fu rther submitted that on and
Io rn the ecerp of Di reei vcs datcd 7 1120 14 he election
manifesto neither as ever repeated Ire-circu lated nor was it ever
amended for fresh circul ation The mode of sending the impugned
manifesto vas only thrOllgh emails and 110 repeat circulation or tiesh
circulat ion was made by any olher mode even
14 The Respondent furth er subm itted that in th e communication given
by ICS I vide email da led I0l l 20 14 nowhere d irection has been
gi ven for mandatorily re~circ ul aling the already issued mani festoes)
by purging Ihc photo(s) The Respondent further suhrn illed that if
election manifesto was modified in any manner il could be deemed
as new mani tes [() tantamounl ing to non compli ance of the Election
Code of Conduct as well of the Rules The Respondent fUithe r
submitted that impugned man i festu was issued as per guidelines middotand
direc tion encapsulated under Rule 42(3) of the Election Rules
IS The Responden t further suhmit ted that plead ing made in the
App lication cannot be relied upon be ing devoid of verificat ion or
affi nnation of the lac ts or affidnv il declar ing the contents of the
same to be t(ue and conmiddoteet The Respondent also doubted the
5
credibility of the annexures fi led by the Appl icant along wi th hi s
appl ication
16 The Respondent rUlther submitted thut present proleeding is sheer
abuse of right ava ilah le uls I oI o f the Act and out of the App li cant s
sheer tilIs tration ltIS the Applicant was anle lo score only 198 fi rst
preference votes in cOInparison 10 the Respondents amp44 first
preference voles
17 Sine the Election vas conducted by the ICSt in order (0 ascertain
Iht true and correct lactual posit ion of the mCltler the ICS I was
req uested to provide its (omments to the applica tion The ICSI jn ils
commen ts dated 16 1120 15 stated that in the Mani fes to rimed
3 I I 020 14 Ii lcd hy CS Mamta Bi nan i w ith the Retuming Offi cer it
was seen that she had pub lished the photographs o f the programmes
of lCSI attended and being addressed by her and in some of the
pho tographs t ile logo of lCS I was also d isplayed T he l CSI fllrther
submitled that restrict ions on the d isp lay or logo was imposed on the
lirst time th rough ADV ISO RY- III daLed 3 11 020 14 which was
posted on th e ICS1s webs ite but through in advertence the same
was 110t e111a ied to the cnndidates and subsequently the same was
repeated in 0 1 RECTIVE- f which was di splayed on the website and
also sent th rough email to the candidates on 071 12014
18 The ICS fll rlh er submitted that the Returning Officer did not receive
frum lilt Respondent any other Manifesto other than the one issued
by her 011 311020 14 The l CSl contended that the Applicant has
also not p laced on record u copy o f the second ManifestoCircular
6
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
lost lhe contest due to unfair practices adopted by the other
bull candidates including th e Respondent vvh o VOll the election
The Applicant a lleged that the re were numerous of instances of
violations of (a) The Company Secretaries (Ejection to the Council )
Rule 2006 (the Rules ) (b) Code or Conduct of Elect ions (c)
Direc ti ves issued from lim e to tim e by Returning Officerhis office
(d) Advisories issued h om time to time by RelUrning O fficerhis
oftice and (c) other communications hy the Retuming Officerhis
oHi ce
4 The Applicant further a ll eged that the Returning Offilter in his
communication dated 10112014 sent to atl the contesting
candidates Advisory -II dated 13 102014 and Direc ti ve shy III dated
271 12014 had observed th e violation o f Elecliun Code of Conduct
Advi sories and Directives hy some orthc candidales
5 The Applicant fUJ1her alleged that in her manifesto the Respondent
used at number or p laces the photographs or (he programmes
attended and addressed by he r which nlso includes the display of
logo of the TeSt ill violation o f Electi on Rules Election Code of
Conduct Adviso ries and Direc ti ves issued by the RelUming Orticer
The Applicant furth er lt)llcged Ihm the Respondent issued more than
one manifestocircular in vio lation and disregard to the Rules
Elec tion Code Advisories and the Directi ves and (l lso deliberately
suppressed this fact hy not sending the additional manifesto Icircular
to the Returning Ofti cer
2
6 The Applicclnt furth er alleged that the Respondent did not conlply
w ilh rhe advice g iven by tht Returning Officer daled 10 J J 2014 by
not purging photographs of the programmes 3uendcd and being
addressed by her whic h included the display or logo of the rcsi
7 The Respondent in her Written Statement dated 04-11-2015 denied
the a llegat ions o f the Appliclt)m and submitted thal these were
baseless vexatious and the app lica tion has been filed to harass and
malign her image She vehemently denied that the A pplicant lost the
contest due to unfair practices adopted by her The Respondent
denied that she had violated any provision of Election Rules
E lection Code of Conducts Directives Adviso ries and other
communication issued hy he Returning Offic er or his office witb
regard 10 Election
x T he Responden t admitted that the impugned election manifes to
containing the pholOgraph(s) logo of lCSI pe11aining to
eventsp rograms organised by the lCSIRegional Counc ilsChap ters
was isslIed on 31 -1 0-2014 through email
9 The Respondent fur th er submitted that Advisory-I II dated 3 1-10shy
p 2014 was not rece ived by her as the same was not c inulated by the
ICS[ to the candidate at all She further submitted that Directive - r
and Dircctjve II were issued by Re turn ing O ffi cer and Ch ief
EXccuLive amp Officiating Secretary s On-i ce (Mr Sutanu Sinha) all
07 1120 14 -herein dir(cl ions were given 10 nor publishpro pagate
by whatever means it may be logo of Lhe rCSl and hisher
photograph(s) perta ining to any events progrdms organized by the
JnsriluteKegion al Counei IChaptcrs She further submHted that
3 CA ~ b
restriction on use of pholograph(s)l logo was communicated by th e (CS I for the very fi rs l lime on 071120 14 by way of Directive middot 1
and Directive - II nnd that prior to 07112014 no email was sent by
rhl ICSJlrccciv(d by the Respondent restricting such inclusion in
manifesto
10 The Respondent further suhmiued thai she came to know about the
alresaid Directives al aboul 930 PM on 7112014 She had
ulreildy released the election manifesto on 3110 2014 much prior to
Directive - 1 and Direc(ive - II She issued the impug~ed Manifesto
on 31102014 aner proper deliberation and as per the law wh ich W(IS
then in rorce and ex istent on (hal day and that the manifesto was sent
through ern ail in different lots and all emails were Se nt well betore
07112014
11 The Respondent furlh er subm itted lhal on Ihe very sa me day of
receipi 01Direel ive - I and Direct ive - II ie 07 1120 14 she herself
scnt an emai l (at 1012 PM) 10 Ihe Relurning Oll1ce and Chief
Execulive amp Officialing Secrelaris OHlec Ms Meenakshi Gupta
Mr TR Manik Orricers of til e ICS I intimating about the issuance
of impugned manifesto on 31102014 and that she herself assured to
comply with the additional requirement forthwith (lnd Ihal if at all
Ihe elecli on manitltsto is c ircu lated again pOSI 07112014 due
ltomp liance of said Directive shall be ensured and shall send her first
mani festo and amended maniiesto (if any) tor the record orthe rcsT
12 The Respondent further subm itted th at if the allegations of lhe
Applican( are true the same would have been noted by th e Relurning
4
o[ticer on 071 12014 andiar 131 120 14 (da te 0 f original receipt of
manifes to by the Reluming Officer) or even at the later date llnd
orfice o f the Return ing O ffi cer would have taken appropriate ac tion
aga inst he r
13 The Respondent deni ed that she bas issued more than one
maniresloCircutar The R~spondent fu rther submitted that on and
Io rn the ecerp of Di reei vcs datcd 7 1120 14 he election
manifesto neither as ever repeated Ire-circu lated nor was it ever
amended for fresh circul ation The mode of sending the impugned
manifesto vas only thrOllgh emails and 110 repeat circulation or tiesh
circulat ion was made by any olher mode even
14 The Respondent furth er subm itted that in th e communication given
by ICS I vide email da led I0l l 20 14 nowhere d irection has been
gi ven for mandatorily re~circ ul aling the already issued mani festoes)
by purging Ihc photo(s) The Respondent further suhrn illed that if
election manifesto was modified in any manner il could be deemed
as new mani tes [() tantamounl ing to non compli ance of the Election
Code of Conduct as well of the Rules The Respondent fUithe r
submitted that impugned man i festu was issued as per guidelines middotand
direc tion encapsulated under Rule 42(3) of the Election Rules
IS The Responden t further suhmit ted that plead ing made in the
App lication cannot be relied upon be ing devoid of verificat ion or
affi nnation of the lac ts or affidnv il declar ing the contents of the
same to be t(ue and conmiddoteet The Respondent also doubted the
5
credibility of the annexures fi led by the Appl icant along wi th hi s
appl ication
16 The Respondent rUlther submitted thut present proleeding is sheer
abuse of right ava ilah le uls I oI o f the Act and out of the App li cant s
sheer tilIs tration ltIS the Applicant was anle lo score only 198 fi rst
preference votes in cOInparison 10 the Respondents amp44 first
preference voles
17 Sine the Election vas conducted by the ICSt in order (0 ascertain
Iht true and correct lactual posit ion of the mCltler the ICS I was
req uested to provide its (omments to the applica tion The ICSI jn ils
commen ts dated 16 1120 15 stated that in the Mani fes to rimed
3 I I 020 14 Ii lcd hy CS Mamta Bi nan i w ith the Retuming Offi cer it
was seen that she had pub lished the photographs o f the programmes
of lCSI attended and being addressed by her and in some of the
pho tographs t ile logo of lCS I was also d isplayed T he l CSI fllrther
submitled that restrict ions on the d isp lay or logo was imposed on the
lirst time th rough ADV ISO RY- III daLed 3 11 020 14 which was
posted on th e ICS1s webs ite but through in advertence the same
was 110t e111a ied to the cnndidates and subsequently the same was
repeated in 0 1 RECTIVE- f which was di splayed on the website and
also sent th rough email to the candidates on 071 12014
18 The ICS fll rlh er submitted that the Returning Officer did not receive
frum lilt Respondent any other Manifesto other than the one issued
by her 011 311020 14 The l CSl contended that the Applicant has
also not p laced on record u copy o f the second ManifestoCircular
6
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
6 The Applicclnt furth er alleged that the Respondent did not conlply
w ilh rhe advice g iven by tht Returning Officer daled 10 J J 2014 by
not purging photographs of the programmes 3uendcd and being
addressed by her whic h included the display or logo of the rcsi
7 The Respondent in her Written Statement dated 04-11-2015 denied
the a llegat ions o f the Appliclt)m and submitted thal these were
baseless vexatious and the app lica tion has been filed to harass and
malign her image She vehemently denied that the A pplicant lost the
contest due to unfair practices adopted by her The Respondent
denied that she had violated any provision of Election Rules
E lection Code of Conducts Directives Adviso ries and other
communication issued hy he Returning Offic er or his office witb
regard 10 Election
x T he Responden t admitted that the impugned election manifes to
containing the pholOgraph(s) logo of lCSI pe11aining to
eventsp rograms organised by the lCSIRegional Counc ilsChap ters
was isslIed on 31 -1 0-2014 through email
9 The Respondent fur th er submitted that Advisory-I II dated 3 1-10shy
p 2014 was not rece ived by her as the same was not c inulated by the
ICS[ to the candidate at all She further submitted that Directive - r
and Dircctjve II were issued by Re turn ing O ffi cer and Ch ief
EXccuLive amp Officiating Secretary s On-i ce (Mr Sutanu Sinha) all
07 1120 14 -herein dir(cl ions were given 10 nor publishpro pagate
by whatever means it may be logo of Lhe rCSl and hisher
photograph(s) perta ining to any events progrdms organized by the
JnsriluteKegion al Counei IChaptcrs She further submHted that
3 CA ~ b
restriction on use of pholograph(s)l logo was communicated by th e (CS I for the very fi rs l lime on 071120 14 by way of Directive middot 1
and Directive - II nnd that prior to 07112014 no email was sent by
rhl ICSJlrccciv(d by the Respondent restricting such inclusion in
manifesto
10 The Respondent further suhmiued thai she came to know about the
alresaid Directives al aboul 930 PM on 7112014 She had
ulreildy released the election manifesto on 3110 2014 much prior to
Directive - 1 and Direc(ive - II She issued the impug~ed Manifesto
on 31102014 aner proper deliberation and as per the law wh ich W(IS
then in rorce and ex istent on (hal day and that the manifesto was sent
through ern ail in different lots and all emails were Se nt well betore
07112014
11 The Respondent furlh er subm itted lhal on Ihe very sa me day of
receipi 01Direel ive - I and Direct ive - II ie 07 1120 14 she herself
scnt an emai l (at 1012 PM) 10 Ihe Relurning Oll1ce and Chief
Execulive amp Officialing Secrelaris OHlec Ms Meenakshi Gupta
Mr TR Manik Orricers of til e ICS I intimating about the issuance
of impugned manifesto on 31102014 and that she herself assured to
comply with the additional requirement forthwith (lnd Ihal if at all
Ihe elecli on manitltsto is c ircu lated again pOSI 07112014 due
ltomp liance of said Directive shall be ensured and shall send her first
mani festo and amended maniiesto (if any) tor the record orthe rcsT
12 The Respondent further subm itted th at if the allegations of lhe
Applican( are true the same would have been noted by th e Relurning
4
o[ticer on 071 12014 andiar 131 120 14 (da te 0 f original receipt of
manifes to by the Reluming Officer) or even at the later date llnd
orfice o f the Return ing O ffi cer would have taken appropriate ac tion
aga inst he r
13 The Respondent deni ed that she bas issued more than one
maniresloCircutar The R~spondent fu rther submitted that on and
Io rn the ecerp of Di reei vcs datcd 7 1120 14 he election
manifesto neither as ever repeated Ire-circu lated nor was it ever
amended for fresh circul ation The mode of sending the impugned
manifesto vas only thrOllgh emails and 110 repeat circulation or tiesh
circulat ion was made by any olher mode even
14 The Respondent furth er subm itted that in th e communication given
by ICS I vide email da led I0l l 20 14 nowhere d irection has been
gi ven for mandatorily re~circ ul aling the already issued mani festoes)
by purging Ihc photo(s) The Respondent further suhrn illed that if
election manifesto was modified in any manner il could be deemed
as new mani tes [() tantamounl ing to non compli ance of the Election
Code of Conduct as well of the Rules The Respondent fUithe r
submitted that impugned man i festu was issued as per guidelines middotand
direc tion encapsulated under Rule 42(3) of the Election Rules
IS The Responden t further suhmit ted that plead ing made in the
App lication cannot be relied upon be ing devoid of verificat ion or
affi nnation of the lac ts or affidnv il declar ing the contents of the
same to be t(ue and conmiddoteet The Respondent also doubted the
5
credibility of the annexures fi led by the Appl icant along wi th hi s
appl ication
16 The Respondent rUlther submitted thut present proleeding is sheer
abuse of right ava ilah le uls I oI o f the Act and out of the App li cant s
sheer tilIs tration ltIS the Applicant was anle lo score only 198 fi rst
preference votes in cOInparison 10 the Respondents amp44 first
preference voles
17 Sine the Election vas conducted by the ICSt in order (0 ascertain
Iht true and correct lactual posit ion of the mCltler the ICS I was
req uested to provide its (omments to the applica tion The ICSI jn ils
commen ts dated 16 1120 15 stated that in the Mani fes to rimed
3 I I 020 14 Ii lcd hy CS Mamta Bi nan i w ith the Retuming Offi cer it
was seen that she had pub lished the photographs o f the programmes
of lCSI attended and being addressed by her and in some of the
pho tographs t ile logo of lCS I was also d isplayed T he l CSI fllrther
submitled that restrict ions on the d isp lay or logo was imposed on the
lirst time th rough ADV ISO RY- III daLed 3 11 020 14 which was
posted on th e ICS1s webs ite but through in advertence the same
was 110t e111a ied to the cnndidates and subsequently the same was
repeated in 0 1 RECTIVE- f which was di splayed on the website and
also sent th rough email to the candidates on 071 12014
18 The ICS fll rlh er submitted that the Returning Officer did not receive
frum lilt Respondent any other Manifesto other than the one issued
by her 011 311020 14 The l CSl contended that the Applicant has
also not p laced on record u copy o f the second ManifestoCircular
6
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
restriction on use of pholograph(s)l logo was communicated by th e (CS I for the very fi rs l lime on 071120 14 by way of Directive middot 1
and Directive - II nnd that prior to 07112014 no email was sent by
rhl ICSJlrccciv(d by the Respondent restricting such inclusion in
manifesto
10 The Respondent further suhmiued thai she came to know about the
alresaid Directives al aboul 930 PM on 7112014 She had
ulreildy released the election manifesto on 3110 2014 much prior to
Directive - 1 and Direc(ive - II She issued the impug~ed Manifesto
on 31102014 aner proper deliberation and as per the law wh ich W(IS
then in rorce and ex istent on (hal day and that the manifesto was sent
through ern ail in different lots and all emails were Se nt well betore
07112014
11 The Respondent furlh er subm itted lhal on Ihe very sa me day of
receipi 01Direel ive - I and Direct ive - II ie 07 1120 14 she herself
scnt an emai l (at 1012 PM) 10 Ihe Relurning Oll1ce and Chief
Execulive amp Officialing Secrelaris OHlec Ms Meenakshi Gupta
Mr TR Manik Orricers of til e ICS I intimating about the issuance
of impugned manifesto on 31102014 and that she herself assured to
comply with the additional requirement forthwith (lnd Ihal if at all
Ihe elecli on manitltsto is c ircu lated again pOSI 07112014 due
ltomp liance of said Directive shall be ensured and shall send her first
mani festo and amended maniiesto (if any) tor the record orthe rcsT
12 The Respondent further subm itted th at if the allegations of lhe
Applican( are true the same would have been noted by th e Relurning
4
o[ticer on 071 12014 andiar 131 120 14 (da te 0 f original receipt of
manifes to by the Reluming Officer) or even at the later date llnd
orfice o f the Return ing O ffi cer would have taken appropriate ac tion
aga inst he r
13 The Respondent deni ed that she bas issued more than one
maniresloCircutar The R~spondent fu rther submitted that on and
Io rn the ecerp of Di reei vcs datcd 7 1120 14 he election
manifesto neither as ever repeated Ire-circu lated nor was it ever
amended for fresh circul ation The mode of sending the impugned
manifesto vas only thrOllgh emails and 110 repeat circulation or tiesh
circulat ion was made by any olher mode even
14 The Respondent furth er subm itted that in th e communication given
by ICS I vide email da led I0l l 20 14 nowhere d irection has been
gi ven for mandatorily re~circ ul aling the already issued mani festoes)
by purging Ihc photo(s) The Respondent further suhrn illed that if
election manifesto was modified in any manner il could be deemed
as new mani tes [() tantamounl ing to non compli ance of the Election
Code of Conduct as well of the Rules The Respondent fUithe r
submitted that impugned man i festu was issued as per guidelines middotand
direc tion encapsulated under Rule 42(3) of the Election Rules
IS The Responden t further suhmit ted that plead ing made in the
App lication cannot be relied upon be ing devoid of verificat ion or
affi nnation of the lac ts or affidnv il declar ing the contents of the
same to be t(ue and conmiddoteet The Respondent also doubted the
5
credibility of the annexures fi led by the Appl icant along wi th hi s
appl ication
16 The Respondent rUlther submitted thut present proleeding is sheer
abuse of right ava ilah le uls I oI o f the Act and out of the App li cant s
sheer tilIs tration ltIS the Applicant was anle lo score only 198 fi rst
preference votes in cOInparison 10 the Respondents amp44 first
preference voles
17 Sine the Election vas conducted by the ICSt in order (0 ascertain
Iht true and correct lactual posit ion of the mCltler the ICS I was
req uested to provide its (omments to the applica tion The ICSI jn ils
commen ts dated 16 1120 15 stated that in the Mani fes to rimed
3 I I 020 14 Ii lcd hy CS Mamta Bi nan i w ith the Retuming Offi cer it
was seen that she had pub lished the photographs o f the programmes
of lCSI attended and being addressed by her and in some of the
pho tographs t ile logo of lCS I was also d isplayed T he l CSI fllrther
submitled that restrict ions on the d isp lay or logo was imposed on the
lirst time th rough ADV ISO RY- III daLed 3 11 020 14 which was
posted on th e ICS1s webs ite but through in advertence the same
was 110t e111a ied to the cnndidates and subsequently the same was
repeated in 0 1 RECTIVE- f which was di splayed on the website and
also sent th rough email to the candidates on 071 12014
18 The ICS fll rlh er submitted that the Returning Officer did not receive
frum lilt Respondent any other Manifesto other than the one issued
by her 011 311020 14 The l CSl contended that the Applicant has
also not p laced on record u copy o f the second ManifestoCircular
6
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
o[ticer on 071 12014 andiar 131 120 14 (da te 0 f original receipt of
manifes to by the Reluming Officer) or even at the later date llnd
orfice o f the Return ing O ffi cer would have taken appropriate ac tion
aga inst he r
13 The Respondent deni ed that she bas issued more than one
maniresloCircutar The R~spondent fu rther submitted that on and
Io rn the ecerp of Di reei vcs datcd 7 1120 14 he election
manifesto neither as ever repeated Ire-circu lated nor was it ever
amended for fresh circul ation The mode of sending the impugned
manifesto vas only thrOllgh emails and 110 repeat circulation or tiesh
circulat ion was made by any olher mode even
14 The Respondent furth er subm itted that in th e communication given
by ICS I vide email da led I0l l 20 14 nowhere d irection has been
gi ven for mandatorily re~circ ul aling the already issued mani festoes)
by purging Ihc photo(s) The Respondent further suhrn illed that if
election manifesto was modified in any manner il could be deemed
as new mani tes [() tantamounl ing to non compli ance of the Election
Code of Conduct as well of the Rules The Respondent fUithe r
submitted that impugned man i festu was issued as per guidelines middotand
direc tion encapsulated under Rule 42(3) of the Election Rules
IS The Responden t further suhmit ted that plead ing made in the
App lication cannot be relied upon be ing devoid of verificat ion or
affi nnation of the lac ts or affidnv il declar ing the contents of the
same to be t(ue and conmiddoteet The Respondent also doubted the
5
credibility of the annexures fi led by the Appl icant along wi th hi s
appl ication
16 The Respondent rUlther submitted thut present proleeding is sheer
abuse of right ava ilah le uls I oI o f the Act and out of the App li cant s
sheer tilIs tration ltIS the Applicant was anle lo score only 198 fi rst
preference votes in cOInparison 10 the Respondents amp44 first
preference voles
17 Sine the Election vas conducted by the ICSt in order (0 ascertain
Iht true and correct lactual posit ion of the mCltler the ICS I was
req uested to provide its (omments to the applica tion The ICSI jn ils
commen ts dated 16 1120 15 stated that in the Mani fes to rimed
3 I I 020 14 Ii lcd hy CS Mamta Bi nan i w ith the Retuming Offi cer it
was seen that she had pub lished the photographs o f the programmes
of lCSI attended and being addressed by her and in some of the
pho tographs t ile logo of lCS I was also d isplayed T he l CSI fllrther
submitled that restrict ions on the d isp lay or logo was imposed on the
lirst time th rough ADV ISO RY- III daLed 3 11 020 14 which was
posted on th e ICS1s webs ite but through in advertence the same
was 110t e111a ied to the cnndidates and subsequently the same was
repeated in 0 1 RECTIVE- f which was di splayed on the website and
also sent th rough email to the candidates on 071 12014
18 The ICS fll rlh er submitted that the Returning Officer did not receive
frum lilt Respondent any other Manifesto other than the one issued
by her 011 311020 14 The l CSl contended that the Applicant has
also not p laced on record u copy o f the second ManifestoCircular
6
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
credibility of the annexures fi led by the Appl icant along wi th hi s
appl ication
16 The Respondent rUlther submitted thut present proleeding is sheer
abuse of right ava ilah le uls I oI o f the Act and out of the App li cant s
sheer tilIs tration ltIS the Applicant was anle lo score only 198 fi rst
preference votes in cOInparison 10 the Respondents amp44 first
preference voles
17 Sine the Election vas conducted by the ICSt in order (0 ascertain
Iht true and correct lactual posit ion of the mCltler the ICS I was
req uested to provide its (omments to the applica tion The ICSI jn ils
commen ts dated 16 1120 15 stated that in the Mani fes to rimed
3 I I 020 14 Ii lcd hy CS Mamta Bi nan i w ith the Retuming Offi cer it
was seen that she had pub lished the photographs o f the programmes
of lCSI attended and being addressed by her and in some of the
pho tographs t ile logo of lCS I was also d isplayed T he l CSI fllrther
submitled that restrict ions on the d isp lay or logo was imposed on the
lirst time th rough ADV ISO RY- III daLed 3 11 020 14 which was
posted on th e ICS1s webs ite but through in advertence the same
was 110t e111a ied to the cnndidates and subsequently the same was
repeated in 0 1 RECTIVE- f which was di splayed on the website and
also sent th rough email to the candidates on 071 12014
18 The ICS fll rlh er submitted that the Returning Officer did not receive
frum lilt Respondent any other Manifesto other than the one issued
by her 011 311020 14 The l CSl contended that the Applicant has
also not p laced on record u copy o f the second ManifestoCircular
6
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
alleged to have been issued by the Resrondent The rCS) further
contended Ihat the Applicant had also not placed on record any
dOCUll1entsevidcnce to substantiate his allegations that the
Respondent has not complied with the advice given under the
communication orthe Returning Officer dated JO lh November 20 14
19 The Applicant in his rejoinder dated 231120)5 repeated and
re i~ratcd his allegations m(ldc in the application and denied Lhe
subm issions made by the Respondent in her wri tten statement The
Applicant vide letter dated J O 2201 5 along with supporting
nffidavit submiued addilional documellls Ie emails dated
31 102014 and 01 12014 alleged to havc been sent by the
Respondent to three di fferent vOlers
020 The malter was heard on 040120 16 in the presence of both the
parties The Aprli cant appeared in person whereas the Respondent
appeared through her advoca tes The Parties reiterated their
respective content ions
2 1 The Applicant argued that as per Rule 42(2) and Rule 42(3)(f) of the
Election Rules a candidates can issue only one manifest or circular
ho-vever candidate may repeat such maoifest or ci rcular in any form
without changing its contents He also argued that as per Clause
4(xxi) or EJection Code of Conduct manifesto or ci rcular may be
rcreated in any toml including SMS without changing th e contents
thereof any manner and that in ltIlly other communicat ion in re lation
to the election issued by the candidate in electronic roml or
otherwise shlJl he d~ctncd to bc second manifesto or circular and
7
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
bull
will he in contravention orthe Electi on Rules -Ie vehemently argued
that as per combined reading or aforesa id provisions the two emails
both dated 3 1102014 and another email 011 12014 of the
Respondent vide which she sent her manifesto dated 3 11020 14 to
three different voters are deemed to be second circular as al these
cmails are e1cctronilt communications by the Respondents and are in
contravention of lhe Rule 42 or the Election Rules He emphas ized
thal al the cmails are difJerent as much these contain different name
diffe rent po lling booth no e tc and submitted that even the covering
lener sent by email is a communication and as per Elect ion Rules
and Code of Conducts rhese shall be deemed different circular
manifesto
22 The Applicant placed the reliance on thlt admiss ion made by the
Respondent jn her wrillen argument that impugned election
manifesto containing the photograph(s)Iogo of rcsr pertaini ng to
eventsprogram$ organised by the I CSTRegional CouncilsChapters
was issued on 3 I 102014 through em a i I He submits that the
Respondent ought to have complied with the Advisory -Ill dated
31102014 whi ch had been posted on the ICSs website on
31 1020 14 ilsclr The Advisory-Ill dated 3 1- t0-20 14 had come in to
force on 31102014 on posting of the same on lCSIs websi te and
the Respondent cannot take advan tage of non-rece ipt of the same He
furLher ltI rgucd that ignorance of law is no excuse and the Respondent
has lI sed the logo and photographs of (he ICSt in her manifesto in
violation of ~lcction Rules E lection Code of Conduct Advisories
and Directives issued by the Returning Officer
8
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
23 Mr P K Millal advoca te for the Respondent rei terated the
contentions ra ised in the written statement and argutd that it is
nobodv ca~e that the Responden t has issued any manifesto after
07 1 120 14 when all the candidates were nlHde aware o r Directi ve ]
sent through ema il by the Relurn ing O ffi cer He argued that the
Respondent canno t bemiddot said to have vi olated the Advisory dated
3 I I 020 I 4 in which candidate were restricted Iiom publishing
exhibit ing his her photograph pertaining 10 any event p rogra mme
orgmized by the ICSI as the JCS I itscll has adm itted in its comments
to the application that this Advisory waS never communicated to any
of the contesting candidate including the Respondent The learned
Advocate vebemently argued that the alleged emai ls dated
3 11020 14 and 01) 1201 4 cannOl be termed as second manih~slo as
sel id emails are ma inly covering letters vide wh ich Election
Manifesto were sent by the Respondent and there is no appeal or
request Co r vote in the sa id emails He further argued that the
observation of the rewming officer in his Adv isory Direclives
regarding (he v iolation orCode of Conduc() Advisory and Directives
by the some of the candidates does not mention the name or any
cand idate hence the S(lme cannot be const rued against the
Respondent in any manner
24 The learned advoc(lte fu rther argued rhell th e Applicant has not
placed any documen U evidence show ing that the Respondent has not
complied with Di rect ives AdvisOlY issued by re tuming onicer on
07 1 120 14 or therea fter The learned ad vocate rely and emphasized
upon the o rde r dated 14 220 14 passed by the Appellate Authority of
tbe leST const ituted for the purpose of disputed matte r wherein
9 A~
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
shy Arpe llate Authority held that the Appellant (in the said appeal)
cannot bt penali zed 101 the us ing o f logo o f the ICSl in the Election
aniresto issued on ) 8 1120 ) 0 and 191120 I0 when the directions
were issued on 29 112010 for the irsl time imposing restriction on
use or logo of the ICSI in the Election manitesto
25 The parties w~re given libeny to nle the ir vrilten arguments made
by them du ri ng the course of argument The Applicant as well as the
Responden have tiled their written arguments Both the parties have
reitermed their submissions The Appl icant also quoted the
provis ions o f Election Rul es and E lection Code of Conducts in his
wr itten argumen ts The Applicant contended that much before the
Adviso ri es and Directive issued by the Reuming Officer there was
a clear cut prohibition for publication or the photographs andor logo
or the ICSI under c lause no4(i) of the Election Code of Conduct
issued On 0992014 and by using the photograph(sJlogo of [CSI
peltaining to eventsprograms organised by the leSI in manifesto
the Respondent has violated the Election Code of Conduct
26 The Tribunal carefully considered the submissions made by the
parties and also gOIl~ through the application Nr ittcn statement
vritten arguments and al1 the documents available on record
27 Rulc 16 of the Election Rules conrerred power upon the returning
ofliccr to issue a Election Code of Conduct to maintain a hea lthy and
peaceful alnlosphcrc during the election profcss tor ensuring a nmiddotee
and fa ir e lection Rule 16 further prov id(S tha I Election Code of
Conduci shall conwin inrelHioll and norms LO be follo wed by the
10
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
candidate and their authori 7ed represen tati ve Rule 16 makes it
obligatory for each candidate 1O comply with this Election Code of
Conduct
28 Rule 42(4)(viii) of the Rules makes it obligatory to the Members of
the ICSI to comp ly with any or the Directives or Circu lar or
instructions issued by the Returning Officer under Election Rules in
any matter relating to tbe elections Retuming officer in exercjse on
the authority vested him under th is rule had issued Advisory 111 on
3 1-10-2014 The same was repealed in Uirec li ve I issued on 07-11shy
20 14
29 In terms of Rule 42(2) read with Rule 42(3)(1) of the Flection Rules
a candidate can issue only one Manifesto or circular in relation to
elec tion during the period commencing from the date of issue of
fina l list of nomination to candidates
30 Elec tion Code of Conduct under Ru le 16 o f the Elec tion Rules was
issued by the Renmling Ollicc( on 09920 14 Restrictions on use of
pholograph(s)Iogo were imposed fo r the first time by the Returning
Omcer througll ADVISORY- lIl dated 3 1102014 In Advisory III
dared 3 1l020 14 the contest ing candidates were advised by the
Retun ing Officer that they sha li not pick lip any photograph logo of
th e In stituteJimage of the building or the InslituteRegiona l
Coumil slChpoundlp lers from offic i(ll joumal of (he Ins titute or he
News letter IMagazines of Regional Counci lChapters and use the
same In any manne r ADV (SORY- JJ1 dated 3110201 4 was posted
on the leS l s vebsitc but through inadvertence the same was not
II
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
emailed to the candidates Such restrictions were repeated by the
Retuming Orneer 111 DIRECTl VE- I and
Directive 11 which were displayed on the ICSls website and also
sent through email to the candidates on 071 1 20 14
31 Rule 42 ( I) o f the Elect ion Rules provides Ihal any vio lalion of subshy
rule (2) (3) and (4) of Rule 42 is liable 10 invite punishmenl lor
bringing disrepute to the Council of the leSt under item (2) of Part
I V o f the Firs t Schedu le of the Company Secretaries lIel 1980
32 From the above fo llowing issues appear for the adjud ication
I Whether pleading made in the application can be relied being
devoid or verilkation of aftirmation o f fCltts or affidavit
declaring the Gontcnts of the smnc 10 be true and cOITecL
2 Wherher the Respondent has issued more than one Election
manircs to ill violation of prov isions of Ejection Rules EJection
Code o r Conduct Or any or Advi sories Directives issued by the
Returning Officer
3 Whether th e Respondent has violated the provisions of Election
Rules Election Code or Conduct or any of Advisories
Directives issued by the returning officer In issuing of
manifesto on 31-10-20 14 through email containing the
photograph(s)i logo or leSI pertaining to event i programm e
organized by the leSI)
4 Whelher Ihe Respondent has violated the
AdvisoryCommunicat ion dated 10112014 issued by the
Returning O fticer by not purging photograph(s)Iogo of lCSl
I2
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
used in her manifesto pertaining to cvenlsJprograms orga nised
hy the ICS
5 Rel ief if any
32 The afores(lid issues are discussed herein in helow shy
321 [SSUpoundNOI
I Whether pleading made io the ltlppl ication can be relied
being devoid of verification of aftirrnation of facts or affidavit
declaring the contents of the same to be true and correct
322 Rule No8( 1) of Ihe Company Secretaries (Election Tribunal)
Rules 2006 made by the Central Government prov ides that in the
di scharge of the funct ions the Tribunal shall he guided by the
principles of natural justice and subject to the other prov ision of
the Act and these Rul es the Tribunal shall regulate its own
r rocedures Hence under these Rules the poer has been conferred
upon the Tribunal to regulat e its own procedure in di sch arge of its
function Only obl igation on the Tribunal is to comply with the
principles o f natural justice and other prov isions of the Company
Secretaries Act 1980 and these Rules in the Company Secretaries
Act 1980 as well as in these Rules there is no such requirement
that the appli cation or pleadings filed before the Tribunal should be
veri fied by th e party or accompanied by a Suppol1ing affidavit to
the effect rhat content of Ihe application or pleadings to be true and
correc t Under these rules libeJt y is granted to the Tribunal to take
the cognizance of the applicmion ra ising the ElecLion dispute
13
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
though the pleading orsuch app licat ion is not verified or supported
by affidavit Therefore we do not tind any force in the contention
of the Respondent to rejed the tlppl ica tion on this technical ground
w ithout going into the merit orthe casco
323 This issue is thus decided against the Respondent and in favour of
Applicant
324 ISSlJ I NO2
2 Whether the Respondent has issued morc than one Election
111anifesto in violation of provisions of Election Rules EJection
Code of Conduct or any or Adv isories J)irclttives issued by the
Returning Officer
325 Rule 42(2) of the Election Rules prov ides that unly one manifesto
or c ircular shaH be issued by (J candidate in relation to the Election
Rule 42(3)(1) orthe Election Rulcs provides that thc cand idate may
repeat in any form the manifes to or circular without changing its
contents but he shall not issue more than one manifesto or circular
Iknee a clear restriction is imposed on the cand idltes to issue only
one manifes[O or c ircular However candidates are given liberty to
repeat Election manifesto or circular in any form wi thout changing
its content In other words the change in the contents of manifesto
or circular would amount to second manifesto The restrictions
contained in rule 42 (2) and 42(3)(1) were also reiterated by the
Returning Officer in Elect ion Code o r Conduct at clause No(xxi)
issue on 0909 2014 Igt
326 In the light of provisions as discussed as above the contention of
the Applicant that ema ilsdated 31 IG 2014andOll I 2014 vide
14
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
which the Respondent has forwarded her manitesto to three
different voters amounts to second c ircular has no basis
Admittedly it is not the case of the Jrplicant that the Respondent
has changed the contents of her manifesto Menti oning ofdilTerent
name and different poll ing booth in slIch el11ai ls are very much
obv ious as these emails were addressed 10 th ree difre rent voters
32 7 If thi s content ion of the App licant is acccplcd then all the emailsl
letters or the contesting candidates forvlarding therewith the
Election mani tes to for c ircular would amOLlot to second manifes to
or circular and the middotwme middoti ll result in the vio lat ion of Election rules
by all sLich contesting cand idates This is nor the intention of these
EleClion Ruks The contention of the Appli cant is based upon the
misunderstand ing of election rules Clnd devo id or Clny merit and
hcncc not Cllcepwble
32S llIL1hermore the leS I III its comments spec ifically stated that the
office of the Returning Officer has not received from the
Respondent any other manifesto other than the one issued by her
on 3 11 02014 The Appl icant has never challenged the
submissions of th c leSI Thus the A pplicant has fa iled to prove
th (1 t the Respondent had issued second munifesto
32 9 Thus this issue is decided against the Jppli cant and in favour of
the Respondent
3210 ISSUE NO3
3 Whether the Respondent has violated the proVISiOns of
Election Ru les Election Code of Conduct or any of Adv isories
Directives issued by the relUrning officer 111 ISS lilng or
IS j1 Cl
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
manifesto on 31-10-2014 through email contain ing the
photograph(s) logo of ICS I pellaining to event programme
organi zed by the ICSI
3211 It is admitted by the Respondent that she used tile photographs
and logo of the [CSI pertaining to the event programme organized
by the tCSt in her Election mani festo whi ch was issued on 31- 10shy
2014 through email 11 is never been the case of the Applicant that
the Respondent after issuing of Direc tive [ and Directive II on
07-1 J -20 14 by the Returning Officer has ever circulated sa id
mani festo or amended changed the content of tbe same Rather
than the App licant contended argued th at the AdvisOlY III was
p issucd on 3101020 14 impos ing res trict ions on the display of
photograph(s) Iogo of ICSI pertaining to event programme
organi zed by the leSl and tha r the Respondent s manifesto was
issued on the ve ry sa me day ie ~10-20 14 in the v iol ation of
AdvisOlY lIl The Respondent contented that she came to kn ow
ahoul the restric tion on use of photograph logo for Ihe very first
time on 071 12014 Volhen she received Direct ive and Directive II
from tile res I and that and (hat sbe has not circulated or sent her
sa id Elect ion l1lani((sto subsequ ent to 0711 20 14
32 J2 The leSTin its com ments specitlcnlly stated that the restricti ons on
the display of logo vas imposed on the tLrst time through Advisory
III dated 3 11020 14 which was pos ted on the ICS Is website but
through in auvertence the same WClS no t cmailed to the candida lts
and subsequen tl y the same was repeated in Directi ve I hich was
di splayed on lhc Wlbs ite and also sen t through ema il to the
cand id ates on 07112014 From the submi ssion of the IC SI it is
established that the res triction on the display of logu of the ICSI
16
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
bull
pertaining to eVell I programme organi 7ed by the ICSI was first
lime e ffect ively commun icated to the Respondent only 011 07-11shy
2014
32 13 Advisory Iff ~ was issued on 31102014 and Directive I amp 11
prohibiting the use of photographs of eventsprogrammes
organized hy the InstituteRegional CouncilsCharters and logo of
ICS I were issucd by the Return ing Officer on 07 112014 and the
in struct ionsdirections contained therein became effective hom the
dale of Issue as no date was mentioned U1 these
Advisory ID ireCI iyes
3214 D1RECnVE- 1 und Directive - 1I wh ich were displayed on the
TCSIs website and also sent through cnw il to the cand idates on
07 ]12014 and did not have reLrospective effect Since the
MltlIlileslo containing photograph(s) Iogo of ICS pet1(1ining to
eventspro grat11 S~rganisecl by (he ICSI Vas issued by the
Respondent on 311J0 20 14 that is before Lhe date of issue of
DlRECTIVb- J and Directive - JJ on 07 1120 14 there IS no
vio lation of these directive
32 1 6 The contenrionl argument of the ~rpJI~c~t that the Advisory III
elated 3Ll O20 14 had come inLo force on 31 102014 by posting of
the same on ICSls webs ite and the Respondent can not take
advantage of non-receirt of the same as ignorance of law is no
excuse docs not sound good and have no place in legal prosrective
The said Advisory I cannot be given lhe effec t and implications a
law passed or made by lhe competent authuri ty An adviso ry by the
Executive Cilnnot be replaced or substituted vith the law made by
the Legislarures or made by the Exetutives under delegated power
17
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
The purposes of IllHking [avv and issuing an advisory are enti rely
different and there is no cO ITtlation between a law and an advisory
32 7 The legal posi tion s is that the law making agency for the
compliance of law in true spirit has to ensu re that such law is
known to the person on whom sucb law is havi ng binding force In
the E lect ion Rules and even in the Company Secretaries Act 1980
no spcc ific procedure is prov ided 10 make such Advisories or
Directives known to the candidates rn the ahsence o f s lIch specific
procedure these Advisories or Directives cannot have any binding
force on the cmdidates until the same are communicated to the
candidmes There is a rea)onable probahility that the candidates
may not have noticed the ADVISORY III daled 31102014 In
any case the benefit of doubt goes is in favour of the contesting
candidates
32 J 8 The arguments I contention of (he pplicant that much before the
Ad visories and Directive issued by the Returning Onmiddotjeer there
was a clear cut prOhibition for publicati on of the photographs
andlor logo of Ihe lCSl under clnllse no4(i) of the Ejection Code
of Conduct issued on 0992014 is also 11 0t tenab le Clause 1104(i)
of the Eleclion Code o r Conduc s tat tS The contesting candidates
andlor their althorized representatives shall not use any
inraslructure forum including programmes by middotvhafever name
caled manpower machineyo fadlilies or communicofion
medium - electronic or otherwise of he insillite ifS Regional
Councils and Chapfers in any IIanner whatsoever While Ihere is
no bar jor participalion in an eventprogramme organized by the
Instflule andor ils Regional Councils Chapters as an ordinOlJl
participant however he evenlprogramme shall not be used for
18
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
bull
pubifiryeectioneering in Clny form whatsoever Th is restriction is
equally applicable 10 any Study Circle meeting by whatever name
called
32 19 C lause oo4( i) o r [he EJec[i on Cocllt of Conduct prohibits the
candidates frol11 ui ing infrflst ruclUfc forum includ ing programmes
1l1 anpover mach inery facililies or comm unicati on medium of the
ICS I and a lso [he eventprogramme of the rcsr for
publicityeleclioneering in any form whatsoever II does no t even
whisper abo ut [he usc of [h e photograpb(s)Iogo of ICSI pertaining
to eventsprograms organ ised by the lCSI by the contesting
cand idate in manifesto which is the subject malter of the case in
hand C lause no4( i) of the Election Code of Conduct does not help
the Respondent in prov ing his case
3220 Hence the AppLicant has not been abJ e to prove that the
Respondent bad v iolated the provis ions or Election Rules Election
Code of Cond uct or any o r Advisories Directives issued by the
returning o ffi cer in issuing of manifesto on 3 110204 through
ema il eonLOining the pho[ograph(s) logo of ICS I pel1nining [ 0
event programme organized by the lCSJ
Thus this issue also decided aga inst the Applicant In favour of
Respondent
322 1 ISSUE NO4
4 Whether the Respond ent has vio lated the
AdvisoryCommunica [ion dated 101120 14 issued by [he
Returning O fficer hy not purging photograph(s)Iogo of ICST used
in her manifesto perta ining to eventsprograms organised by the
ICS T)
19
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21
3222 In his communication dated 101 J 2014 Retuming Officer had
advised the candidales Nho have printed the photograph(s)logo of
reS pertaining to (vcntslprograms organised by (he ICSI in the ir
man ifesto to purge the same from their rnanifestq The Respondent
has specifica ll y submiued (hat after issuing of Directive 1 and
Directive U on 07middot11middot2014 by the Retuming Omcer she never
repeated Ire-cirCllluted said manifesto Or amended changed the
con tent of the Sam ror fresh circulation This submission has not
been contravened or chH lleoged by the Applicant As discussed
above the reSl (lJso in ils comments has stated (hat Returning
O tlicer did nol receive from [he Respondent any other Manifesto
o ther than the one issucd by her on 31 102014
3223 When the alleged manifesto has not been rcpeated re~ circu lated by
the Respondent after the receipt of Directive r and Directive li on
07 112014 she was not req uired to purge the photograph(s)Iogo
of ICSJ used in man ifesto dated ~I020 14 The purpose of said
communica tion daled 10 112014 arrears La eliminate the
photograph(s)Iogo or ICSJ from rhe manirestos which were in
circulati(ln even atler the issuance of Di rective I and Directive fl on
071 120 14 Said communicalion is not applicable on the
Respondent who had already restricted hersel f on 07 11 20 14 from
repeating Ire-circulat ing a lleged maniles lO dated 3 11020 14 This
issue is a lso decided agains t the Aprlicant in favou r of Respondent
33 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances this Tribunal hold
thac none of the allegations made by the App licant against the
Respondent has any merit T l1e Application heing devoid of
20
mer it deserves to be dismissed Accordingly the Application is
di smissed No order as to cost
copy o1 this order be sent to the parties and a lso to the res
)K~
(AK Cbatllrvedi) (R Asokan) Memher Member
~ (D Bhardwaj)
Presiding Officer
21