CHARAN LAL SAHU versus DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 13 · Decided: 11-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

14 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
The questions for consideration before this Court was whether the 
• 
Petitioner has locus standi to file the Election Petition; whether he was 
duly nominated candidate in accordance with the provisions of Sections 
S8 and SC of the Act; whether challenge to the validity of Sections S8 
and SC of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Act or any other 
B 
provisions of the Act and Rules was valid; and whether the Special Leave 
Petition and election petition are maintainable. [23-8, q 
Dismissing the petitions, the Court 
HELD: I. The petitioner cannot be regarded as a person who had 
c 
been nominated or can claim to have been duly nominated as candidate 
at the election in question. His nomination papers. were thus rightly 
rejected by the returning officer and the petition on his behalf is, therefore, 
not maintainable. 
Charan Lal Sahu v. K.R. Narayanan and Ors., [1998) I SCC S6; Charan 
D Lal Sahu v. Giani Zail Singh, (1984) I SCC 390 and Charan Lal Sahu v. 
Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors., (1978) 2 SCC SOO, relied on. 
2. Question regarding the constitutional validity of Sections S8 and 
SC of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 19S2, since has 
. ' 
already been upheld by this Court there is no need to examine these points 
E any further in view of the consistent view of this Court. The procedure 
prescribed under the Act and the Rules for holding the election of the 
President and Vice-President is valid and not ultra vires the Constitution 
of India. (23-C; 24-G, H; 2S-A) 
Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed and Ors., AIR (197S) SC 
F 1288; Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjeeva Reddy and Ors., (1978) 2 SCC 
SOO; Charan Lal Sahu v. K.R. Narayanan and Ors., (1998) 1 SCC S6 ; 
Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election, [1993) 
Supp. 4 SCC 386, relied on. 
G 
3. Objections to the validity of the nomination paper filed by 
respondent No. 1 are so frivolous that they do not require attention of this 
Court. Returning Officer rightly overruled the objections filed by the 
petitioner questioning the validity of the nomination paper filed by 
respondent No. 1 [2S-8) 
{ 
H 
4. There is no merit either in the election petition or.in the special 
CHARAN LAL SAHU v. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM [ASHOK BHAN,J.) 
l S 
leave petition against the judgment of the High Court. Costs assessed at A 
Rs. 25,000 imposed in each case. The costs so deposited shall be transferred 
to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. No petition filed by the 
petitioner-in-person shall be entertained in this Court till the amount of 
costs imposed is deposited. (26-B) 
Charan Lal Sahu v. K.R. Narayanan and Ors., (1998[ I SCC 56, B 
referred to. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Election Petition No. I of 2002. 
(Under Article 71(1) and 131(1) of,the Constitution of India.) 
WITH 
SLP(C) No. 22385/2002. 
In-person for the Petitioner 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
BHAN. J. It is regrettable that in spite of being cautioned four times 
by this Court not to challenge election of the President of India in a cavalier 
c 
D 
and light hearted manner, the petitioner, who is an advocate has filed the 
present election petition challenging the election of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam E 
respondent No. I as President of India on the same/similar grounds of challenge 
which stand concluded against him in petitioner's own cases by seve"ral 
decisions of this Court. Our regret is compounded by the fact that petitioner 
is an advocate. He does, we presume, know the value of earlier binding 
precedents declaring the law by the highest court of the land. 
This judgment shall dispose of Election Petition No. I of 2002 and 
Special Leave Petition No. 22385 of 2002. The facts are being stated from 
the Election Petition which covers and takes care of the points raised in the 
special leave petition as well. 
F 
Petitioner has challenged the election of Respondent No. I to the office G 
of the President of India which was held in pursuance to the notification 
dated I Ith June, 2002 published by the Returning Officer Shri R.C. Tripathi, 
Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The said election was conducted under the 
provisions of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 
(hereinafter referred to as the Act') and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential 
Election Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). 
H 
16 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.