DR. N. B. KHARE versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Citation: [1958] 1 S.C.R. 648 · Decided: 14-10-1957 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHI RANJAN DAS · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

J9S7 
October, 14. 
648 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1958] 
Dr. N. B. KHARE 
v. 
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA 
(S. R. DAS, C.J,, VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, 
J. L. KAPUR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.) 
Presidential Election-Validity of Election-Enquiry into dis-
putes-Forum ond Procedure-Presidential 
ond Vice-Presidentiaf 
Elections Aci, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), ss. 14, 18--Supreme Court 
Rule.•, 1950, Or. XXXVII-A, Rr. 3, 12-Constitution 
of India, 
Art. 71(1)(3). 
The petitioner describing himself as an intending candidate 
for the Presidental Election filed a petition in the Supreme Court 
under Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India impugning the 
election. of the President, but it was returned by the Registrar of 
the Court on the ground that it was not in conformity ·with the 
provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 
1952, and the Rules of the Supreme Court contained in Or. 
XXXVII-A. 
011 appeal to the Court it was contended for the 
appellant that (I) tpe petition was founded upon doubts as to the 
validity of the election and, in consequence, was not convered 
either by the Act or the Rules of the Supreme Court, (2) the Act 
and the Rules in question were void on the ground that they 
derogate from the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court 
under Art. 71(1)· and (3) in any case, the petitioner has a ri!lht 
as a citizen to approach this Court for relief whenever an election 
has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions. 
Held, that Art, 71(1) merely prescribes the forum in which 
doubts and disputes in connection with the election of the Presi-
dent and Vice-President would be enquired into, but the right to 
move the Supreme Court as well as the procedure therefor, are 
determined by the Act of Parliament as authorised by Art. 71(3). 
Accordingly the Act and the Rules in question are valid, and the 
petitioner bas no rights apart from those given by the statute 
to file an application for setting aside an election. 
OmmNAL .JURISDICTION : Civil Miscellaneous Peti-
tion No. 915 of 1957. 
Appeal under Order V, rule 3 of the Supreme Court 
Rules; 
R. V. S Mani artd Gangat Rai, for the petitioner. 
1957. October 14. The following Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
VENKATA~MA AIYAR J.-This is a petition under 
Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India. On May 6, 
1957, there was an election to the office of the Presi-
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
649 
dent and Shri Rajendra Prasad was declared elected. 
Thereafter Dr. N. B. Khare filed the present petition 
describing himself as an intending candidate and 
alleging that there had been violations of the provi-
sions of the Constitution and that the election was in 
consequence not valid. The prayers in the petition 
are "that grave doubts that exist in connection with 
the Presidential election be enquired into, resolved 
and decided" and "the entire proceedings of the Presi-
dential election be quashed as void". 
· 
The Registrar of this Court returned the petition 
as not being in conformity with the provisions of the 
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 
(XXXI of 1952), and as not satisfying the require-
ments of the Rules of this Court contained in. 0. 
XXXVII-A. Section 14 of Act XXXI of 1952 provides 
that no election shall be called in question except by 
an election petition presented to the Supreme Court in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the 
Rules made by the Supreme Court under Art; .145 of 
the Constitution; and it further provides that it should 
be presented by any candidate at such election or by 
ten or more electors. The Rules framed by this Court 
.with reference to this matter are contained in 0. 
XXXVII-A. Rule 3 prescribes that a court-fee of the 
value of Rs. 250 should be paid on the petition and 
r. 12 requires the petitioner to deposit a sum of 
Rs. 2,000 in cash as security for the payment of costs 
that may become payable by him. The petitioner is not 
a person entitled to apply under s. 14 of the Act and 
his petition was also defective as it did not comply 
with the .requirements or rr. 3 and 12. It was accord-
ingly returned qy the Registrar. Against that order, 
the present appeal has been brought. 
It is firstly contended by Mr. Mani that the present 
petition is outside the purview of Act XXXI of 
1952 and of 0. XXXVII-A of the Supreme Court 
Rules. It is argued that the Supreme Court is invested 
with jurisdiction to enquire into and decide all doubts· 

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