LexN. P. PONNUSWAMI versus RETURNING OFFICER, NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1952 Jan. 21. 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS N. P. PONNUS\V AMI ti. RETURNING OFFICER, NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY and OTHERS [1952J UNION OF INDIA and STATE OF MADHYA BHARA T-INTERVENERS. [PATANJALI SAsTRr C.J., FAZL Au, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA ArYAR JJ.J Constitution of India Arts. 226, 324 to 329-Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 36, 80--Election to Legislatures-Rejection of nomination paper-Applicati-on to High Court for writ of certiorari -Maintainability-..furisdiction of High Court-Meaning of "election" and "questioning election"-Poli"cy of Legislature with regard to elections-Special remedies. Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India provides that "no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in ques- tion except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for, by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature." The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which made detailed provisions for election to the various Legislatures of the country also contains a· provi~ sion (sec. 80) that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provi~ sions of the Act. The appellant\ who was a candidate for election to the Legis- lative Assembly of the State of Madras_ and whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, applied to the High Court of Madras under article. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari' to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and to direct the Returning Officer to include his name in the list of valid nominations to be pub- lished: Held by the Full Court (PATANJALI SASTRI, C. J., FAZL Au, MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA, DAS and CHANDRASEKHAR.A AiYAR JJ.) that in view of the provisions of articles 329 (b) of the Constitu- tion and sec. 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer. The word uelection" has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the ,_ '· 4' .. .. S.~.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 219 narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate · 1952 which may embrace the. ·result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is N. P. Ponnu- no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire f.Wam1 process culminating in a candidate being declared elected and it" .v. is in this wide sense that the word is used in Part XV of the Returmng Officer, Constitution in which article 329 (b) occurs. Namak,k,al Constituency a1ld The scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Repre- Others. sentation of the People Act, 1951,' seems to . be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up' only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner be- fore a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an inter- mediate stage before any court. Undl:r the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has, consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. _Article 329 (b) was apparently enacted to preS<:ribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, anel other grounds which inay be raised under. the \aw to call the election in question., could be urged. It follows by neces- sary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any . other manner, at any other stage and before any other court. If tl1e grounds oh .which. an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like article 329 (b) and in setting up · a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution col,lld not have contemplated, one of them being that canflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal whicli is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. Therefore, questioni
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.