DURGA SHANKAR MEHTA versus THAKUR RAGHURAJ SINGH AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 267 · Decided: 19-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN

Cited by 18 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
S,UPREME COURT REPQRT~ 
Tribunal's order which deals with the matter in deiaH. 
On the whole our opinion , is that the so-called appar-
ent errors pointed out by the High Court are neither 
.-). . 
' errors of law nor do they appear on the face of the 
record. 'An appellate 
Court might have on a review of 
this evidence come to a different conclusion but these 
are not matters which would justify the issue of a writ 
of certiorari.. In our opinion the judgment of the High 
Court cannot be supported and this appeal must be 
allowed. The writ issued by the High Court will there-
fore be vacated. We make no order as to costs of this 
appeal. 
. . 
... 
• 
Appeal allowed. 
DURGA SHANKAR MEHTA 
v. 
THAKUR RAGHURAJ SINGH AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN C.J., MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and VENKATARAMA 
AYYAR JJ.] 
._ 
Constitution 
of 
India, articles 136, 173, 329-Supreme Court 
.,.,-
-Power to grant special leave to appeal-Decision of Election Tri-
bunal-Representation of the 
People Act (XLIII of 1951), ss. 36, 
100(1) (c) and (2) (c), 105-Non-compliance with the provisions of 
, article 
17 3-C onstitutional 
disability-Election 
void-Whether 
under s. 100(1) (c) or s. 100(2) (c) of the Act-Non-compliance with 
the provisions of Constitution in s. 100(2) (c)-Scope of. 
Article 136 of the Constitution is worded in the widest terms 
possible. 
It vests in the Supreme Court a plenary jurisdiction 
in 
the matter of entertaining and hearing appeals by granting special 
)-
leave against any kind of judgment or order made by a Court or 
~ Tribunal in any cause or matter and the powers can be exercised 
in spite of the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Consti-
tution or other laws. The powers given by the· article are, however, 
in the nature of special or residuary powers which are exercisable 
outside th.e purview of ordinary law, in cases where the needs 
of 
justice demand interference by the Supreme Court. 
The non obstante clause in article 329 of the Constitution 
which debars the Supreme Court as well as any other Court in 
India from entertaining a suit or a proceeding calling in question 
~ . any 
election to 
Parliament or the State 
Legislature 
and sec-
tion 105 of the Representation of. the l'eopk Act which. gives fina-
lity to the decision of the Election· ·Tribunal so far as that Act is 
18-86 S.C, India/59 
1954 
T., C. Basappa 
v. 
T. Nagappa 
and Another. 
1954 
May 19. 
1954 
DMrga Shankar 
i..M1hta 
.. , 
v. 
Thakur Raghuraj 
Singh and 
Otlurs. 
268 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
concerned and does not provide for any further appeal, do not cut 
down or affect the overriding powers which the Supreme Court can 
exercise in the matter of granting special leave 
under article 136 
of the Constitution . 
The overriding power vested in the Supreme Court under 
article 136 of the Constitution is wider than the prerogative right 
of entertaining an appeal exercised by the Judicial Committee 
of 
the Privy Council in England because the prerogative right of the 
Crown can be taken away or curtailed by 
express legislation but 
the Constitutional provision 
in article 
136 
cannot 
be limited or 
taken away 
by any 
Parliamentary legislation 
and this 
Constitu~ 
tional provision overrides ordinary 
laws 
and no presumption can 
arise from words and expressions declaring an 
adjudication 
of a 
particular Tribunal to be final and conclusive 
that there 
was an 
intention to exclude the exercise of the special power. 
Where on the finding of the Tribunal there has been a viola· 
tion of or non-compliance with the provision of article 
173 of the 
Constitution because the candidate suffers 
from 
a 
Constitutional 
-Jf 
disability by reason of his under-age the case 
falls under sub.sec· ,. 
tion (2)(c) of section 100 of the Representation of the People Act 
and not under sub-section ( 1) ( c) of section 100 of the Act and elec-
tion should be held to be void on the ground of the Constitutional 
disqualification of the candidate and not on the ground that his 
nomination was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and 
therefore the election of that candidate only 
should 
be 
declared 
void and not the whole election. 
The 
expression 
"non-compliance with the provisions 
of the 
Constitution" 
in clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 100 of the 
Act is sufficiently wide to cover such cases where the question is 
not one of improper acceptance or rejection of the nomination by

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