DR. P. NALLA THAMPY TERAH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 622 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
622 
DR. P. NALLA THAMPY TERAH 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
May 8, 1985 
[Y.V. CHANDkACHUD, CJ, P.N. BHAGWATI, D.A. DESAI, 
AMERENDRA NATH SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI JJ.j 
Constitution of India 1950, Art. 14 & Representation of People Act 1951, 
S. 77 (J), Explanation I-Scope of-Explained-Political parties spending 
unlinlited money in election of their party candidates-conferment of power-
Whether vio1ative of Art. 14 and unconstitutional. 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 90. Election-Expenditure-lncur-
rence of-Applicability of ceiling-whether prevalent. 
Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides 
that every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election 
agent, keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection 
with the election incurred or authorised by hint or by his election agent, 
between the date of publication of the notification calling the election and the 
date of declaration of the result thereof, both dales inclusive. Section 77(3) 
provides that the total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount a! 
may be prescribed by the Rules framed under the Act. In Kanwar/al Gupta 
[1975] 2 SCR 259 the Court observed that when the political party sponsoring 
a candidate incurs expenditure in connectivn with his election, as distinguished 
from expenditure on general party propaganda, and the candidate knowingly 
takes advantage of it or participates in the programme or activity or fails to 
disavow the expenditure or cons~nts to it or acquiesces in it, it would be 
reasonable to infer, save in special circumstances, that he impliedly authorised 
the political party to incur such expenditure and he cannot escape the rigour 
of the ceiling by saying that he has not incurred the expenditure, but his 
political party has done so. In otder to get over the judgment in Kanwar/of 
Gupta, the R~presentation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance. 1974 was 
issued which was replaced by the Representation of the People (Amendment) 
Act, 1974. Section 2 of the Amending Act added two Explanations to section 
77(1). Explanation 1 provides that notwithstanding any judgment, order or 
decision of any court to the contrary. any expenditure incurred or authorised 
in connection with the election of a candidate by a political party or by any 
individual (other than tbe candidate or his election agent) shall not be deemed 
to be, and shall not ever be deemed to 11ave been, expenditure in connection 
with the election incurred or authorised by the candidate or by his election 
agent for the purpose of gub·Section (I) of Section 77. 
.,. 
P.N.T. TEllAH P. UNION 
623 
In the writ petition under Art. 32 the petitioner challonged tho validity 
of Explanation 1 to section 77(1) of tho Representation of the People Act, 
1951 on tho grounds: (i) that it enables political parties to spend unlimited 
monies for the election of the candidates sponsored by them, (ii) that this is 
arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 because it sanctions serious discrimination 
between one political party or individual and another on the ba1i1 of money 
power, (iii) that it not only permits but encourages and legitimh1es the influence 
of big money in the electoral process and thus militates aaainst the fairness 
and purity of the electoral process, (iv) that it denies to the citizen riaht to 
have full and effective participation in the electoral process and (v) that it 
nullifies the salutary object of imposing a ceiling on a candidate's expenditure. 
On behalf of the respondent-Union of India it was contended: (i) that 
Explanation I to section 77(1) of the Act Wds introduced to restore the law as 
expounded in the decisions of this Court prior to the decision in Kanwar/al 
Gupta, (ii) that the expenditure incurred by political parties in connection with 
the election of their candidates do not fall within the mischief of section 77(1) 
read with section 123(6) of the Act, (iii) that Explanation 1 is not violative or 
Art. 14 and (iv) that legislative policies bearing upon matters aovernioa 
elections are not open to judicial review. 
Dismissing tho Writ Petition and C.M.Ps., 
HELD: I. Explanation I to section 77\1) or the Representation or the 
People Act, 1951 neither suffers from any constitutional infirmity nor it violates 
Art. 14. Explanation 1 classifies all political parties or associations in one aroup 
and confers upon them the same or similar

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