INDRAJIT BARIJA & ORS. ETC. versus ELECTION COMMLSSION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 225 · Decided: 30-09-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. BHAGWATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-
DlDJAJIT IWllJA & OBS, ETC, 
v. 
ELECTION COMMlSSIOll OF INDIA & OBS. 
SEPIEJo!BER 30, 1985 
225 
[P.N. BllAGIATI, C,J,, AMARENDRA NAIH SEN, V. BALAl<RISllNA ERADI, 
RA!iGANP.Xll MISRA AND V, J.(!JALlD, JJ. J 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ Petition 
challenging holding of elec tiona -
Whether maintainable -
Election Petition ~ Only remedy • 
.i 
Article 329 (b) -
Electoral rolla -
Preparation and 
Publication of - Whether part of 'election process•. 
Representation of the People A.ct, 1951, 1s. 100 and 21 (i) 
and Registration of Electors Rules 1960 - Electoral rolls -
Preparation and Raviaion of - Whether part of 'election process' 
- Challenge to election of a. candidate o,:i tha around of defective 
elector rolla - Maintainability of. 
Geaaral Election to the A11D Le&ialative A11111Dbly wa1 
notified to be held in re~ 1983. The petitioner• filed writ 
petitiona in the Hi&h Court cont1DC111111 that elactiona 1houlcl not 
be held in the State on the bui1 of defective electoral roll• 
prepared ill 1979 and to defer holdill& of the elactiona 
on 
&CCOl!Zlt of tha prevailiaa di1t11rbed 1it111tion in tha Stat•• An 
intam order for 1t1y of the elactiona wu al10 1ouaht. The Hi&h 
CcNrt did not 1rant interim •ta:v of tha 1l1ction1 thouah it 
111tartai1111d the writ 1'9titiona. The olactiona were held and the 
r1111lt1 were duly notified, 
Writ petitio111 were tharuftor filed in tha High Court 
chllllaains the haldi111 of tha 1lec tiona on tho bui1 of the 
defective electoral rolla and al10 quaationing the validity of 
ell tha el1ctio1111 to the Leai1lltive Al1Dbly and 111 order waa 
1ouaht for di11olution of the !lout•· 
At tha i1111tanc1 of the Election Comll111ion tht afor11aid 
CHll were tranaf1rr1d to tha Supreme Court. It wu contended on 
behllf of tha P'!titioner1 that the balding of tha elactione on 
the buil of 
tha electoral roll• of 1979 wa1 
not valid 
becs11111 (1) the olectorll rolle were not reviHd before tha 
2:26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R. 
elections as required by the provisions of s. 21 sub-s.Z(a) of 
the Representation of the People Act, 1950; and (2) that the 
Election Colllllission had by a Press note dated Sept. 18, 1979 
erroneously directed the electoral authority in charge of the 
revision of electoral rolls not to delete the name of any person 
on the ground of lack of qualification of citizenship. It was 
further contended that the ban of Article 329(b) does not stand 
in the way of maintainability of the writ petitions as the 
petitioners were challenging the impugned elections as a whole 
and not any individual election, and that the electoral rolls 
should be revised before the holding of elections as required by 
s. 21(2)(9) of the Act. 
Dismissing all the cases, 
HELD: l(i) The writ petitions under Art.226 challenging the 
election to the State Legislature are not maintainable ·and 
election petitions under s. 81 of the Representation of the 
People Act 1951 have to be filed in the High Court. [233 DJ 
(ii) Article 329{b) of the Constitution bars any challenge 
to elections by a writ petition under Art. 226 as also on the 
ground that the electoral rolls on the basis of which elections 
were held were invalid. An election can be challenged only by 
filing of an election petition in the manner prescribed by the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. In the Act, there is no 
concept of elections as a whole. What the Act contemplates is 
elections from each constituency and it is that election which is 
liable to be challenged by filing of an election petition. The 
proceedings under the Act are quite strict, and clear provisions 
have been made as to how an election petition has to be filed and 
who should be the parties to such election petition. It 11ay be 
that there is a co11100n ground which may vitiate the elections 
from all the constituencies, but even so it is the electi9n from 
each constituency which has to be challenged though the ground of 
challenge may be identical, Even where in form the challenge is 
to the eleCtions as a whole, in effect and subetauce what is 
challenged is election from each constituency. Article 329(b) 
1111st, therefore, be held to be attracted in the instant case. 
[230 G-i!; 232 B; 231 B~] 
J"&"ll Nath v. Jaswant Singh & 0rs., (1954] s.c.R. 892, Harl 
Visiaiu Iamath v. Syed Alued Isbaq & 0rs., (1955] s.c.R. 
1104 at 
1111 and Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Ragburai Singh & Ora. , 
[1955] s.c.R. 267, relied upon. 
'

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