LexHARISHANKAR JAIN versus SONIA GANDHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HARISHANKAR JAIN v. SONIA GANDHI SEPTEMBER 12, 2001 B [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ, R.C. LAHOTI AND DORAISWAMY RAJU, JJ.] c Election Law:: : Representation of the People Act, 1950/Representation of People Act, 1951. Sections 16, 36, 80, 82, 83, 86, 98, 99 and JOO. Election Petition-Statutory provisions-Validity qf-Power of High Court to adjudicate upon-High Court can adjudicate and if necessary declare D election void for granting relief in conformity with Sections 98 and 99- However, this power is subject to restriction under Article 329( a) of the Constitution. E p. G Citizenship Act, 1955 : Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9-Various modes of acquisition of .::itizenship- Certificate of citizenship-Termination qf citizenship-Held, lnspite of having a certificate of citizenship and enrolled in voter list, the question of citizenship and whether qualified!disqual(fiedfrom contesting an election can be tried by the High Court provided challenge is based on factual matrix and not based on bald and vague alh-gations. Constitution qf Jndia: Articles 84, 102 and 329-Scope and meaning qf Code qf Civil Procedure, 1908: Order VJ Rule5 2 and 11-Pleading-Requirements qf-Scope and ambit qf--Concise statements of material/acts-Meaning qf-Pleading without cause qf action/triable issue-Held, election petition cannot be directed to be tried and heard 011 bald and vague averments i11:firm and deficient pleading and not H satisfying requirements qf pleading qf material facts. 38 .. HARISHANKAR JAIN v. SONIA GANDHI Evidence Act, 1872 : 39 Ct>11ifiPd copy of electoral 1vll-Evidentiary value-It is conclusive evi- dence of being on elector unless disqual(fied. Section 114, illustration ( e)-Presumption-Applicability of-Cow1 may presume r~fficial acts have been regularly pe1.f01med-Presumption rebuttable and non-conclusive. Appellants and respondent contested the Lok Sahha election and the respondent wa'> declared elected. Election Petitions were filed before High Court challenging the election of the respondent. The designated Election Judge held that none of the election petitions disclosed any cause of action or triable issue and as such not maintainable. Two of the election petitioners preferred appeal hefore this Court. The following questions/issues arose for consideration: (1) Whether a designated Election Judge of High Court can entertain and decide a plea relating to validity of any law and can the plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India he raised in an election petition before the High Court (2) Whether plea questioning the citizenship of' the returned candidate is entertainable by High Court inspite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship granted under Section S(l)(c) of the Citizenship Act'? (3) Whether on the pleading of election petitioner a cause of action and a triable issue was raised which should have heen put to trial calling upon the respondent to file written statement? Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The jurisdiction to try election petition ha'i heen conferred on the High Court to adjudicate upon the validity of any statutory provisions subject to two limitations (i) that it must he necessary to go into the question for the purpose of trying an election petition on any one or more of the provisions enumerated in Section 100 and for the purpose of granting any one or more relief's under Sections 98 and 99 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 (ii) a specific case for going into the validity or vires of any laws is made out on the pleading raised in the election petition. Only restriction on the power of the High Court, as per Clause (a) of Article 329 of the Constitution of India, is that validity of any law relating to delimitation of constituency or allotment of' seat'i to such constituencies made or purporting to he made under Article 327 or Article 328, cannot be called in question and hence cannot he so adjudicated. [47-A; B-C] A B c D E F G H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorewala' v. Rajeev Gandhi, [1986] 4 SCC 78; Deen Dayal v. High Cow1 of Andhra Pradesh, [1997] 7 SCC, 535 and National Sewing Thread Co., ltd. v. James Chadwick & Ors. ltd., [1953] SCR 1028, relied on. Ramdhan v. Bhanwari Lal, 1983, RLW 507; Smt. Indira Gandhi v. Sh. B Raj Narain, [1975] SCR (Supp.) 1, referred to. c D E F 2.1. Citizenship Act, 1955 provides for acqu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.