ELECTION COMMISSION, INDIA versus SAKA VENKATA SUBBA RAO

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 1144 · Decided: 27-02-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
1953 
. Rani Praaad 
Narayan Sahi 
and Another 
v. 
The State of 
Bihar and 
Other". 
M nkherjea J. 
ii44 
StJPREl\fE . COURT REPORTS 
[1953] 
comprised in the lease referred to in that Act. 
The 
appellants will have their costs in both c"ourts . 
VIVIAN BosE J.-I am in entire agreement with my 
Lord the Chief Justice and with my learned brother 
Mukherjea. 
GHULAM HASAN J.--1 agree with my Lord the Chief 
Justice and with my brother Mukherjea. 
BHAGWATI J.-1 entirely agree with the judgment 
just delivered by my Lord the Chief Justice and my 
brother Mukherjea and there is nothing which I can 
usefully add. 
Appenl allowed. 
Agent for the appellants: I. N. Shroff. 
Agent for the respondents: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
ELECTION COMMISSION, INDIA 
v. 
SAKA VENKATA SUBBA RAO 
UNION OF INDIA-Intervener. 
[PATANJALI SAS'l'RI C. J·., MuKHERJEA, VIVIAN BosE, 
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWA'rI JJ.] 
Gonstitntion of India, 1950, a.rts. 132, 102, 2211-High Court 
-Poiver to iss·ue writs-Liniitatio1u1-Po1oer to issue iurit on 
persons residinu outside territorial fttrisdiction-Election to 11Iad1'as 
Assembly-Reference to l!Jlection Commission, New Dclhi-Jllrisdic-
tion of .iliarlras High Conrt to issue ivrit a{]ainst 00111.rnission-Dis· 
qiwlification before election-Effect of-Appeals from Sin17le Judge, 
The respondent, who had been convicted and sentenced to 
rigorous imprisonment for seven years, was elected a member of 
the Madras Legislative Assembly. At the instance of the Speaker 
of the Assembly, the Governor of Madras referred to the Election 
Commission, which had its offices permanently located at New 
Delhi, the question whether the respondent was disqualified and 
could be allowed to sit and vote in the Assembly, The respondent 
thereupon applied to the High Court of Madras under article 226 
of the Constitution for a writ restraining the Election Commis-
sion from enquiring into bis alleged· disqualification for member-
ship of the Assembly : 
Held, thJ>t the power of the High Court to issue writs under 
article 226 of the Constitution is subject to the two·fold limitation 
• 
/ 
• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
that such writs cannot run beyond the territories subject to its 
1953 
jurisdiction and th& person or authority to whom the High Court 
is empOVi'ered to issue such \Vrits must be amenable to the juris-
Election Com--
diction of the High Court either hy residence or location "rithin 
niission, India 
the territories subject to its jurisdiction. 
The High Court of 
Saka ~;nkata 
liladras bad therefore no jurisdiction to issue a writ unc1er article 
Subba. Rao 
226 of the Constitution against the Election Commission. 
Held f!!rther, that articles 190(3) and 192(1) are applicable l'alanjali Sastri 
only to disqualifications to which a member becomes subject after 
o. J. 
heis elected as such, and neither the Governor nor the Election 
Commission had jurisdiction to enquire into the respondent's dis-
qualification which arose long before his election. 
A tribunal or authority permanently located and normally 
carrying on its activities outside the territorial limits of a High 
Court cannot be regarded as functioning within those territorial 
limits and therefore amenable to the jurisdiction of that High 
Court, ,merely because it exercises jurisdiction within those 
territorial limits so as to affect the rights of parties therein. 
The fact that the matter referred to it for decision related 
to the opposite party's right to sit and vote in the Legislative 
Assembly at Madras and the parties to the dispute resided in 
the State of Madras could not give jurisdiction to the High Court 
of ?i.iadras to issue such a writ against the Election Commission. 
An appeal lies to the Supreme Court under article 132 of the 
Constitution even from a judgment, decree or final order of a 
Single Judge of a High Court, provided the requisite certificate 
is given. 
Crvn, 
APPELLATE J·umsDH"rlON: 
Civil 
Appm1l 
No. 205 of 1952. 
Appeal from the Judgment and Order elated the 
16th September, 1952, of the High Court of Judicature 
at Madras (Subba Rao J.) in Writ Petition No. 599 of 
1952 filed under the Special Original Jurisdiction of 
the High Court under article 226 of the" Constitution 
of India. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attoi•ney-Genernl for Indict (G. N. 
Joshi, with him) for the appellant and Intervener. 
Mohan Kumaramangalam, for the respondent. 
1953. February 27. The judgment of the court 
was delivered by 
PATANJALI SASTRI C.J,.-'

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