PASHUPATI NATH SUKUL & OTHERS. versus NEM CHANDRA JAIN & OTHERS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 25-11-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

"' 
• 
... 
,., . 
. . 
PASHUPATI NATH SUKUL & OTHERS. 
P. 
NEM CHANDRA JAIN & OTHERS. 
Novem/Jer il5, 198/J 
• 
· [S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, 0, Ca1NNAPPA REDDY, & 
E."S. VBNKATARAlo!IAH, JJ.j 
• 
Constitution of lndia J95o, 1rticlq 98, 174, 102 {/) (•), 187, 188, 191 (/) 
(a), ~ml 193 • . 
The Represantation of the people Act 1951Section•.21,33, 73 aml 152; 
Candidate eiected as Member of State Legislative ,.fisethbly...;....Not _taking 
oath as Member-Whether could propose a cd~didate for e/e,:tion to Rajya Sabha 
Ond entitled to vote in -such election. 
-
., 
1 
Secretary & Joint Secretary of State Legfalalive Assemb/y-Whelher 'an 
officer O/Government'-Appointment as Retur11ing officer and A.ssistanl Returning 
Ufficer in an el;clion to _Rajya _Sabha-VaJidi1~ of. 
Words & Phrases-Meaning_ of: 
.• 
•Gove1nment'-Cons1i1ution of Jndia 1950, Afticles 102 (l) (a) and 191 (1) 
(a) •an officer of Go~ernme1u'-The Repr~sentution of the People A'"I 1951, s, 21. 
After the Legislative Assembl)' of lhe State was dissolved by the President 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
"elections Were held _and after the results were declared the Election Comm1s-
F 
aiO".l issued a notification containing the names of the members elected for the 
constituencies on June 9, 1980. The elected rpcmbers were .notified that they 
could take the oath as required- b) Art. 188 of the Constitution at the session of 
Che Legislative Assembly which had been summoned to meet on J unc 27, 1980 
and on subsequent d:iys. In the meaiwhile, on JunC 17-. 1980 the E_lection . 
Commission issued a notification calling upon the elected members of the State 
Le&islative Assembly to elect a person for the purpose of ·filling a vacancy ia 
tho Kajya Sabha. For conducting the election the Secretary and Joint Secretary 
of the State_ Legislative Assembly .wefe appointcd-,respeclivcl)' as the Returnina: 
Officer and ·the Assistarit Returning officer. 
G 
The appellant and respondent No. I "in Livil Appeal No. 1175 of 19_81 
H 
were nominated aa the candidates at that clectio~. 
J).t the time of scrutiny, 
respondent No. 1 filed objections to the nomination of the appellant raising two 
srounds;-(1) that the appellant was disquali6e_d as he w~s a Government 
• 
---. -
. 
. ' 
SUPREME COURT REPoRTS 
(1984] i s.C.a. 
. -_·. 
. 
. 
.• _ . ·' 
:. ,· 
. 
- ; : 
.. : 
;-- .: ·- ----:--.,,-- 'i -•--:-
. . 
' 
-
. 
servant, and (2) that the proposer _tbotig'1 an elected _inember ·or the Assembly, · 
was not ·qualified to propose-the: appellanCs candid.iture as he had not yet taken-
.. 
the oa!h under: Article 18~ ~f the CoristUution.. 
· · 
· 
· · 
· 
•. 
The apPellant .'c~ritended ... th<it as· he- nad 
reti~ed volunta"fitY 'rrorri· 
GOvernment service he was.Ilot-disqua1ified for b'"eing Chosen as 3. member of the . :-
. Rajya Sabha ;nd that.the prop(nerbeiag.an elected··member or .the'_Legislaiive-. -
'~ 
:AsseQ:tbly was. competent io'.prOpoSe eyen thOUgh hC. haci not taken the oath as 
.-.!"--\. -
provided in Art. 188. Oveiruling-the objectioD.s-- the; ."nomination papers Of the -
· -_· C3Ddidates wei-e aCcePied. IO fhe election- the aPpellant Was declared elected as 
·, - -
.a_.membe~_Of the Rajy~_Sabha. __ .- ·.' 
J· · · .. · • .( 
·- .•,. 
. . . .. ReSPondCnt-··n~. · 1 th~refore tit~d an·~ electioO PetitiOn. -The i:Iigh°Cou;t.set-
aside.th~ ap"pellant"s electiOn o_ii. the gfOunds ·: ·11r th~t_ as thq SecretarY of the 
Legislative .AsseffibtY· _was .neither 110 ·offii:ef of the -Government nor of a ·10C31 
authQriry·. he could not ·be app_ointed · o:s ihe ReiurniD8: --<?fficCf UJ?.de"r s.21. iind 
(2) that."the· propOser of the·nominatioa i}aper--had no·t _mide or subscribed the , 
,.. oath. or affirmation as required by Article 188 of the Constitution on;tbe date of 
··~ noniiriation arid consCquently there_ w·as irilproper acceptance o~ the-·D.omination 
"oftbe·appellilµt~·-·_-
,.,·,.' 
-
~.·. 
-
. 
. D ·• 
.. · . 
. '°ThC ~PP~it~nl,-~i1e fiectiori ·Com~js~i~n-Of i~dia, and tl~e St~te.P~eferred . 
. ;. 
. 'Appeals to this Cou~t~' ' 
· 
_-(.: ~- .' .· -
- -
-~ . . 
· 
-
.. 
__ ; 
~--. - . ·- -- -
-. 
. . ·-· 
. ~ 
Allowing 'the_ Appeals. 
' -
, .· __ . > 
~ ·, ... 
. ·-. 
. ·• 
. 
. . 
. 
- • 
• . 
-_ 
f 
. -
• ' 
-
.-
• 
• . HELD: .l (i) .. The word :•Gov<rnment'· in Article 102' (l)(a)' and in 
:.Article 191 (l)(a) Of the (onstituti~~ ·and the' word •90Verrunent' in the expfes.: .-
~ .:·. 'sion.UD.·officer of Government• jn Section 21 of the Representation ryf thO: PeoPle 
. · ~ ACt; 1951

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