LexCHARAN LAL SAHU versus NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
CHARAN LAL SAHU
v.
NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY
February 15, 1978
fM. H. BEG, C.J., Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI, V. R.
KRISHNA {YER, JASWANT SINGH, V. D. TULZAPURKAR AND
D. A. DESAI, JJ.]
Constitution of India 1950, Arts. 54, SS, 58 and 71-Scope of Art. 58-
Whether the Presidential Vice-Presidentlal Elections Act (Act 31), 1952 made
under Art. 71(1) is in conflict with Art. 58.
Constitution of India 1950-Article 14 whether ss. SB and SC of the Presi-
dential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 violates Art. 14.
Candidates for elections and his locus standi to file election petition under
the. P1esidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952-Scope of s. 13(a)
r /w ss. SB, SC and s.' 14A rlw Order XXXIX rules 2, 5 and 34 of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966.
The petitioner filed his nomination papers as a candidate for the Presidential
elections held on 19th July, 1977, which was not supported by the deposit
prescribed under s. 5C and not subscribed by any voter as a proposer and as a
seconder, as required by s. SB of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elec-
tions Act (Act 31), 1952 made under Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India.
The Returning Officer rejected his ~omination papers for non-compliance with
the provisions of ss. SB and SC of the Act. The respondent was duly elected
and the petitioner challenged the said election u/s. 14 of the Act.
Dismissing the petition the Court.
HELD : 1. Article 58 only provides the qualifications or conditions for the
eligibility of a candidate. It has nothing to do with the nomination of a can-
didate which requires ten proposers and ten seconders.
In the case of an ele~
tion to such a high office as that of the President of India, it is quite reasonable
to lay down the conditions that a person who is allowed to contest the election
as a candidate must have at least ten proposers and ten seconders from amongst
hundreds of electors who are legislators. The subject-matter of ss. SB and SC
of Act 31 of 1952 is completely covered by the provisions of Art. 71(1) of the
Constitution. [6 E-F]
2. Sections SB and SC of the Presidential or Vice-Presidential
Elections
Act, 1952 are not in conflict with Art. 14 of the Constitution. The conditions
laid down in ss. SB and 5C apply to all persons who want to be candidates at
a Presidential election without any discrimination. They prima facie impose
reasonable conditions to be observed by any person who wants
seriously to
contest at a Presidential election. Hence, these provisions
would
be
valid
a·part fron1 Art. 71 (3) of the Constitution. {6 F-G]
3. The impugned amendment of the C0\1stitution in 1974 introducing Art.
71(3) only refers to a law by which Parliament may regulate matters connected
with the ·Presidential election, including those, relating to election dispute arising
out of such an election. It cannot be said to take away the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court to decide any matter which may be pending before it.
All it
does is to provide that the validity of any law falling under Art. 71 (i) will not
be called in question in any Court. Inasmuch as Supreme Court has been
constituted the authority of Tribunal before which the election of the President
can be questioned the effect of Art. 71 (3) is only to give effect to a well-known
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
\
A
B
c
D
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1978] 3 S.C.R·
general principle which is applied by this Court that a court or tribunal
func·
tioning or exercising its jurisdiction under an enactment will not question the
validity of that very enactment which is the source of its powers. The Supreme
Court functions as an election tribunal set up under a law made by Parliament
under Art. 71 (I) of the Constitution. Sections 5B and 5C of the Act and tho
Constitution Amendment 1974, which introduced Art. 71 (3) are valid. There
is also no invasion of any basic structure of the Constitution. [7 A-FJ
Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain [1976] 2 SCR 347 referred to.
4. In an election petition, the petitioner must come within the four corne.i;a
of the procedure or manner for questionin~ the Presidential election, in order
to have a locus standi to challenge the Presidential election to be able to main-
tain the petition. If he neither is nor can claim to be a candidate, he would
be lacking the right to question the election.
The effect of the provisions of
sa. 14(1). 14(2) and 14(3) and 14A(I) of the Act,
r/w. OExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.