CHARAN LAL SAHU & OTHERS versus GIANI ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 6 · Decided: 13-12-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

;
•
A
6
B
c
D
G
H
•
CHARAN LACSAHU & OTHERS
..
v.
,
GIAN! ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER.
December 13, !983
(V.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J P,N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA
NATH "SEN, D.P. MADON AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.)
.. '.
ConSti~ution of 1t1Jia-1950:. A;ticles 71(1) and 84(a) Sec. 18(1) of Presidential ...
_and Vice-Piesidential Elections Act 1952-Whethef ultra vires Article 71(1).
Presidential election-Candidate co~tesiing such election-Whether to tuke
· oafh prescribed by A~ticle 84( a).
• -"_Presidential and Vice-P...,esidential Elections Act, 1952Secliou13(a) read with
section 14A (!)-:-'Candidate' at Presi«ential election-Who is-One •duly no111inated' ·
or_ who Claims to have been duly •nominated'-Who has locus standi to challenge
'election.
, Section ~8(1) and 19-Election petition-Whether Could be filed .. on Kround
that elected c.andltjate not q '_suil'!ible personj for holding the office.
•
Section 18(2}--Un_due influence ilnd bribery at an election-Canvassing for a
candidate-Whether amouliis tO undue.influence.
Pleading & Practice : Election
u,t1a11.tbiguous-Necessity for ..
Pctifions-Pleadings-Precise specific and
. -
.
indian Penal- Code-Section 171C-Undue influence at electio11s.;_Can·vassing-
Whether amounts to undue influence.
-"
· Words & Phi·ases-Meaning of
"Connivii'nCe" whether means "conseni".
For the election to the office of the Pfesiden'\ of India, the Returning officer
aeccPted the nominatiOn papers of two candidates only viz. Oiani Zail Singh
and Shri H·R. Khanna. The:election was held On July 12,1982, an·ci Giani zail
Sirigh was dec13.rcd as the suCcessful candidate.
ifhe petitioners in Election Petition Nos. 2 and 3 of 1982 who had filed
their nomination paPers, contested the election On vari_ous grounds and alleged
that Respondont 1. Giani zail Singh exercised undue infiueilce over the yotcrs
through his confidants.
'
·
t
•
i
-
;
•
r·
,y
•
J
·_jl
CHARAN LAL V. ZAIL SINGH
7
A preiiminary objection to the maintainability of these'petitioiis was raised
on behalf of Respondent no. l and the AttorneY General. It was contended
that neither of the two petitioners was a 'candidate' within the meaning of section
J3(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 and since
under section ·14A,·an election petition can be filed only by a persJn.who was
a candidate -~ t the election, the petitioners had no standing to :file thC petitiolls .
•
.
This Court framed the foJlowing prr.Iimin,ary issue : "Does the petitioner
have no locus stamii to maintain the petition on the ground that he-Was not
a ·'candidate' withi~. the meaning of .sect~On l 3(a) read wiih . section 14A of .
Presidential and ViceRPresidential Elect.ions Act 1952?
Election. Petition No. 4 Qf 1982 was filed by 27 Meclbers of Parlia111ent
challen"ging the electiOn of Respondent No. 1, Giani Zail Singh as. the President
of India. Contending that the petitioners jointly sponscred the can°didature Of
Shii H.R. Khanna,· a former Judge and that Giani zail Siilgh was 'not a
·"suitable' perso.n" for holding the· high office of the President of India, and
that : (1) Shri M.H. Beg former Chief Jus~ice and Chairman of the Minorities
Commission, was engaged by Respondent J and by the Prime Minister "for
influencing the Votes of the Minority Communities"; (2) that a Cabinet
Minister of the Union -Government, a 'suppdrter ·and cfose associate'. of
Respondent 1, exercised undue influence civer the voters by n1isusing the a·overnR
ment machinery and that a statement was issued by him through the Press ·
Information Bureau asking the voters to vote for Respondent 1, (3) that the
Prime ,Minister participated. in the election can1p.aign of ReSpondent 1 and·
misused the Government machinery for that purpose, ( 4) that th~ Prime
Minister made a conunu~al appeal to the Akali Dal that its members should
vote for Respondent J., and (5) that Govern1nent helicopt_ers arid cars weie
misused for the purpose of the election of Respondent 1, and that thesr various
acts were committed.by" supporters of Respondent 1 with his connivance.-
It was contended on behalf of ResP,ondent 1 that even assuming that
the.aforesaid <i:IJegation wefe true they did not disclose any cause of action·
for setting ~side vie i:lection of respondent 1.
This Court framed the following issue'j.: (I) "can the election ofa
candidate to the office of the Pres.ic.le~t o(Indi:i be cha!langed ·l'>n .the. ground
th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.