NAIN SUKH DAS AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 1184 · Decided: 22-05-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. PATANJALI SASTRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
1953 
May 22 
il84 
SUPREME COURT REPORT8 
NAIN SUKH DAS AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
AND OTHERS. 
[i953] 
[PATANJALI SASTRI C.J., MuKHERJEA, S. R. DAs, 
GHULAM HASAN and BHAGWATI JJ.]" 
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14, 15(1), 32-},fonicipal 
election -Election on the basis of comin,ina1 electorates-Va1idity-
Application tinder Art. 32 for writ to prevent elected candidates 
from 
sitting on the Board-Mciintaincib-ility-Remedy of rate-
payers. 
The petitioners, 
who were residents of a municipality, 
alleging that they had been deprived of their rights to exercise 
their votes and to seek their election as candidates in certain by. 
elections to the Municipal Board, as those by-elections were held 
on communal lines on the basis of separate electorates contrary 
to the provisions of the Constitution, applied for writs under 
art. 32 of the Constitution for preventing the elected candidates 
from acting as members of the Board, and the District Magistrate 
and Civil Judge from holding any meetings of the Board: 
Held, that, though a law which provides for elections on the 
basis of separate electorates for members of different religions 
communities offends against art. 15(1) of the Constitution and an 
election held after the Constitution in pursuance of such a law 
subject to cl. 4 would be void, the right which the petitioners 
claimed as rate-payers in the municipality to insist that the 
Board should be legally constituted and that persons who have 
not been properly elected should not be allowed to take part in the 
proceedings of the Board was outside the purview of art. 32 of 
the Constitution inasmuch as such a right, even if it existed, was 
not a fundamental 
right 
conferred by 
Part III of 
the 
Constitution. 
Held f1!rther, that the alleged infringement of the funda-
mental rights of the petitioners under art. 15(1) and art. 14, that 
is, the discrimination practised against them related to rights 
which they in fact never sought to exercise and took no ste1~s to 
assert while there was occasion for doing so and the petitioners 
were therefore entitled to no 
relief under art· 32 of the 
Constitution. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 69of1953. 
Petitiop under article 32 of the Constitution for 
enforcement of fundamental rights. 
• 
• 
8.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPOR'l'S 
li85 
S. 0. Isaac;s (Ja·i Prasad Agarwal, with him) for 
the appellant. 
K. B. Asthana, for respondent No. 1. 
S. P. Sinha (R. Patnaik, with him) for respondent 
No. 4. 
1953. May 22. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
• • 
1953 
-.Vain Sukh Das 
and Another 
v. 
':Phe State of 
UUar Pradesh 
a.nd Others. 
P 
S 
,. J 
'Th' 
. 
1. 
. 
Patanjali Sa.tri 
ATANJALI 
ASTRI V• .-
JS IS an app 1cat10n un-
a. J. 
der article 32 of the Constitution seeking protection of 
the petitioners' fundamental right under article 15 ( 1) 
against alleged violation thereof by the respondentB. 
The petitioners are three residents of Etah in Uttar 
Pradesh. They complain that at the by-elections to 
the Municipal Board of Etah held on November 2, 
1951, December 8, 1951, and March 17, 1952, at which 
respondents 4, II and 12 were respectively elected, the 
petitioners were deprived of their rights to exercise 
their votes and to seek their election as candidates, as 
thosr by-elections were held on communal lines on the 
basis of separate electorates rnntrary to the provisions 
of the Constitution. They also allege that the nomi-
nation of respondent 3 as a member of the Board 
by the Government was an illegal exercise ofits powers, 
as the interest which that respondent was nominated 
to represent in the Board was already sufficiently repre-
sented. The petitioners accordingly pray for the issue 
of writs of quo warranto, mandamus and other appro-
priate writs or directions to respondents 3, 4, II and 
12 to show under what authority they are acting as 
members of the Board and to prevent them from act-
ing as such mem hers. The petitioners also ask for writs 
on the District :Magistrate and the Civil Judge ofEtah, 
respondents 2 and 13 respectively, directing them not 
to hold or permit the holding of any meeting of the 
Board which is said to be illegally constituted. 
Now, it cannot be seriously disputed that any law 
providing for elections on the basis of separate electo-
rates for members of different religious communities 
offends againRt article 15 (1) of the Constitution which 
runs thus: 
· 
• 
• 
• 
1186 
8UPR

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