Delhi High Court Stays Disqualification of Plaintiff in USI Elections, Rules WhatsApp Is Not Social Media and Violating Election Code Without Prior Notice Breaches Natural Justice: “The plaintiff has established a prima facie case”

Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court stayed the disqualification order issued against the plaintiff, allowing him to contest the Urological Society of India (USI) elections for the post of President Elect. The Court directed the defendants to include the plaintiff’s name in the ballot and immediately inform all members of the society about the Court’s decision. This relief was granted on an interim basis and would remain subject to the final outcome of the suit.

Facts of the Case

1. The Plaintiff: A senior urologist with over 27 years of experience, the plaintiff has been an active and long-serving member of the USI and has held various leadership roles, including Secretary (2021-2023).
2. The Election Rule Amendment (2021):
   • In February 2021, during the Annual General Meeting (AGM), USI’s bye-laws were amended to prohibit the use of social media and email for election campaigns.
   • The plaintiff contended that this amendment was carried out without proper procedure, such as prior notification or approval from the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
3. Election Notification and Alleged Violation:
   • On 30.06.2024, the USI notified the election schedule for 2025, explicitly banning social media or email campaigning. Only personal communication (e.g., telephone) was allowed.
   • The plaintiff filed his nomination, which was initially accepted.
   • On 15.10.2024, at 7:53 PM, the defendants alleged that the plaintiff violated the election code by sending a video message on WhatsApp after the cutoff time of 5:00 PM.
   • A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on 30.10.2024, citing this alleged breach.
4. Plaintiff’s Defense:
   • The plaintiff submitted a screenshot showing that the video message was sent at 3:52 PM and delivered to recipients at 3:55 PM—well before the deadline.
   • He argued that WhatsApp does not qualify as a public social media platform like Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter, as it is inherently private and used for personal communication.
   • The plaintiff further contended that the Facebook post allegation (dated 16.10.2024) was introduced for the first time in the disqualification order (18.11.2024), depriving him of the opportunity to respond—a violation of natural justice.
5. Disqualification:
   • The defendants issued the disqualification order on 18.11.2024, citing both the WhatsApp video and a Facebook post as grounds for barring the plaintiff from contesting the elections.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the plaintiff’s disqualification was justified under the amended election rules.
2. Whether the plaintiff violated the election code by sharing content on WhatsApp and Facebook.
3. Whether the disqualification order violated the principles of natural justice.

Petitioner’s Arguments

1. Improper Amendment:
   • The 2021 bye-law banning social media campaigns was introduced without due procedure under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
   • The amendment was not circulated to members in advance and was not notified to the Registrar for approval, making it invalid.
2. WhatsApp Is Not Social Media:
   • The plaintiff argued that WhatsApp does not fall under the definition of “social media” as it is a private messaging platform.
   • The election rules permit personal communication, and sending a video via WhatsApp complies with this rule.
3. Evidence of Compliance:
   • The plaintiff provided evidence (screenshots) showing that the video message was sent at 3:52 PM, well before the cutoff time of 5:00 PM.
   • The plaintiff asserted that the defendants lacked proof of delayed sending or delivery.
4. New Allegations:
   • The Facebook post allegation was not part of the SCN and was raised for the first time in the disqualification order.
   • This deprived the plaintiff of his right to defend himself, violating the principles of natural justice.
5. Irreparable Harm:
   • Disqualifying the plaintiff would cause him irreparable harm, as he would lose the opportunity to contest an election in which he had a strong likelihood of success.

Respondent’s Arguments

1. Validity of the Bye-Laws:
   • The 2021 bye-law was unanimously adopted in the AGM and implemented in previous elections without challenge.
   • The plaintiff, as USI Secretary, was instrumental in enforcing the same rules in past elections.
2. WhatsApp as Social Media:
   • WhatsApp qualifies as a social media platform, and the plaintiff’s message at 7:53 PM violated the election rules.
   • Under the IT Act, 2000, delivery of electronic messages is deemed complete when it reaches the recipient’s device, regardless of when it is sent.
3. Opportunity to Defend:
   • The plaintiff was given an opportunity to respond to the SCN and even participated in a hearing via Zoom.

Analysis of the Law

The Court referred to the principles of temporary injunctions laid down in Dalpat Kumar v. Prahlad Singh (1992):

1. Prima Facie Case: The plaintiff must show that his case raises a serious question that requires adjudication.
2. Irreparable Injury: The injury caused must be one that cannot be adequately compensated through damages.
3. Balance of Convenience: The harm to the applicant must outweigh the harm to the respondent if relief is granted.

The Court observed the following:

• The plaintiff provided credible evidence (screenshots) showing the WhatsApp message was sent before the deadline. The defendants presented no counter-evidence.
• Allegations regarding the Facebook post were introduced for the first time in the disqualification order, depriving the plaintiff of his right to defend himself. This amounted to a violation of natural justice.
• Denying the plaintiff the opportunity to contest the elections would cause him irreparable harm.

Court’s Reasoning

1. The plaintiff established a prima facie case that the WhatsApp message was sent within the permissible time.
2. The defendants failed to prove that the message was delivered late or that the plaintiff had violated election rules.
3. Introducing the Facebook post allegation at the final stage without prior notice contravened the principles of natural justice.
4. The balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as the harm caused to him by barring his participation was significant and could not be compensated later.

Conclusion

The Court stayed the disqualification order and allowed the plaintiff to contest the USI elections scheduled for 16.12.2024 to 25.12.2024. The defendants were directed to:

1. Include the plaintiff’s name in the ballot papers.
2. Inform all stakeholders about the Court’s decision through email.

The Court clarified that this relief is interim and subject to the final outcome of the suit.

Implications

• This judgment emphasizes adherence to the principles of natural justice when imposing sanctions or disqualifications.
• The ruling highlights the evolving interpretation of social media platforms like WhatsApp, distinguishing private messaging tools from public broadcasting platforms.
• The decision serves as a reminder that internal election rules must be enforced fairly and transparently.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Dismisses Insurance Company’s Appeal: Holds Police Charge Sheet as Prima Facie Evidence, Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Claims for Death of Pillion Rider and Injured Rider