LexELECTLON COMMISSION OF INDIA versus N. G. RANGA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2!0
A
ELECTlON COMMISSION OF INDIA
v.
N. G. RANGA AND ORS.
August 17, 1978
[Y. \". CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA,
B
A. D. KosnAL AND A. P. SEN, JJ.]
c
D
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts, 84, 101, 102, 103(2) and 104-Scope of- .
Powers of the Election Comn1ission under Sections 10A, 146(1) (2) of tile
Representation of the People Act, read with Art. 103(2) of the Constitution.
Respondent No. 2 who is a voter in the Srikakulam
Constituency. sub-
mitted a petition to the President of India under Articles 84, 101,
102,
103
and 104 of the Constitution Of India alleging tha·t respondent No. 1, a returned
candidate -to the Lok Sabha on April 28, 1967 in a bye-election from that consti-
tuency. had become subject to the disqua1ifications contained in Article 102(1 ).
The President, exercising his powers under Aricle 103(2) of the Constitution.
sought the opinion of the appellant by an order dated May 18, 1968. The
appellant issued a notice dated June 6, 1968 to respondent No. 1 Calling upon
him to submit his reply to the allegations contained in respondent's petition to
the Pmsident Earlier to this, the appellant condoned the delay in submissio1~
of account· of election expenses by respondent No. I.
On ]une 26, 1968, respondent No. l, therefore, filed a Writ Petition in lhc
Andhra Pradesh High Court asking for a writ of prohibition forbidding the
appe!laat from taking further action pursuant to the Notice dated June 6 and·
for .a declaration that the appellant bad no jurisdiction to inquire into the peti-
. tion submitted by respondent No. 2 to the President. The High Court allowed
E
the petition and issued a writ of Prohibition. It has granted to the appellant
a certificate of fitness under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.
G
ff
Allawing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The President acted both in the exercise of constitutional autho-
rity and in the discharge of his constitutional obligation in referring the ques-
tion raised by respondent No. 2's petition for .the opinion of the appellant.
Upon the presentation of a petition by respondent 2 to the President of Inrlia,
alleging that respondent 1 had become subject to the disqualifications
n1en-
tioned in article 102(1) of the Constitution, a question clearly arose as
to·
whether respondent 1 had truly become subject to .any of the disqualifications,
mentioned in that article.
jly clause (2) of article !"03, the
President was
bound to obtain the opinion of the appellant before giving\ his decisiori on the
question.. Not only that, but the President was further bound to act according
to the opinion given by the appellant.
[2130-E]
2. The Election Commission, by reason of the provisions of Section 146(1)
and (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had the power and'
authority to require respondent 1 to furnish information on matters which were
relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry, namely, the allegations contained!
in the ·petition presented by respondent 2 to the President of India. [2148-CJ
(a) The Representation of the People Act, 1951, confers extensive po:vers
on the Election Commission in regard to inquiries pertaining to the questions.
referred by tht' President for its opinion under Article 103 of the Constitution.
[213F-G]
..
I
..
.,
1'LEC. COM. OF .INDIA v. N. G. RANGA (Chandrachud, C.J.) 211
(b I Art. 103(2), as it stood then, required the President to
obtain the
A
opinion of the Election Commission before deciding the question referred to in
clause ( l ) of that article. The President was bound to act according to the
opinion given by the Commission.
By the Forty...gecond Amendment Article
103{2) requires the President to consult
the Election
Commission. The
Amendment Article expressly confers power on the Commission to make, for that
purpose, "such inquiry as it thinks fit'7.
The implication of the
unamendt:d
Article \vas in truth and substance the same namely, that since the Commission
B
was charged with the obligation to tender its opinion to the President, it had
the power to make such inquiry as it thought,fit in order to enable it to ·express
its opinion, which under the law as it stood then, was binding an the President.
The Forty-second amendment expressed clearly what w.ts necessarily implicit
in the old provision. If the Constitution envisages that the Commission should
ha\'e the power to make' such inquiry as it thinks fit evenExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.