PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA versus DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @ DHIRAJ SAHU & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 14 S.C.R. 480 · Decided: 18-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
480
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA
v.
DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @ DHIRAJ SAHU & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 611 of 2020)
DECEMBER 18, 2020
[S.A. BOBDE,CJI, A.S. BOPANNA AND
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Arts.191, 193, 190, 188 and 80(4) –
Biennial elections for two seats in the Council of States from the
State of Jharkhand – Appellant and two others filed nominations –
An elected member of the Assembly admittedly cast his vote at 9.15
a.m on 23.03.18 in favour of one of the winning candidate – He
was convicted and sentenced in a criminal case in the afternoon of
the same day – Suffered disqualification u/Art.191(1)(e) r/w s.8(3),
1951 Act – Appellant secured 2599 value of votes, and the other
two candidates secured 2601 value of votes and 2600 value of votes
– Objection lodged requesting the Returning Officer to declare the
vote cast by the aforesaid convicted elected member to be invalid –
Rejected – Appellant was declared defeated and the other two
candidates were declared duly elected – Appellant filed election
petition praying for a declaration that the Returning Officer has
caused improper reception of the void vote – Dismissed by High
Court – On appeal, held: To hold that a Member of the Legislative
Assembly stood disqualified even before he was convicted would
grossly violate his substantive right to be treated as innocent until
proved guilty – Thus, vote cast by such member at 9:15 a.m on
23.03.18 was rightly treated as a valid vote – Representation of the
People Act, 1951– ss.8 and 152 – Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
– r.2(d) – Principle of legality – De facto doctrine – Insurance.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.8 – Interpretation
of.
Words & Expressions – “the date” in s.8(3), 1951 Act – Held:
Interpretation to be given to the expression “the date” appearing in
s.8(3) will have a bearing upon the interpretation to be given to the
date of happening of any one of the events of disqualification u/
[2020] 14 S.C.R. 480
480
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
481
Art.191(1) – Representation of the People Act, 1951 – s.8(3) –
Constitution of India – Art.191.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Article 191 of the Constitution speaks of the
circumstances under which a person will be treated as disqualified
(i) either for being chosen as (ii) or for being, a member of the State
Legislative Assembly. The language of Article 191 makes it clear
that it covers both a contest in an election and the continuance in
office after getting elected. If a person, being a member of the
Assembly, suffers a disqualification, his seat becomes vacant. This
situation is taken care of by Article 190. The event which causes
the disqualification under Article 191(1)(e) read with Section 8(3)
is a conviction of a person for any of the specified offences. The
consequence of such disqualification is that the seat becomes
vacant. Obviously therefore, a Member of the Legislative
Assembly who has become disqualified and whose seat has become
vacant is not entitled to cast his vote for electing a representative
from his State under Article 80(4) which provides that the
representatives of each State “shall be elected by the elected
members”. His name is liable to be deleted from the list of
members of the State Legislative Assembly maintained under
Section 152 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He
ceases to be an elector in relation to election by assembly member
and cannot cast his vote. [Paras 11-13][492-G-H; 493-A-H;
494-A-F]
1.2 The Representation of the People Act, 1951 was enacted
for the purpose of providing for the conduct of elections of both
houses of Parliament and to the House/Houses of State
Legislatures, the qualifications and disqualifications for
membership of those houses, the corrupt practices etc. Section 8
of the Act deals with disqualification on conviction for certain
offences. For the purpose of disqualification, the offences are
classified in section 8 into 3 categories. The present case is
concerned with sub-section (3) of section 8, as Amit Kumar Mahto
was convicted for offences which do not fall either under sub-
section (1) or under sub-section (2). The disqualification under
PRADEEP KUMAR SONTHALIA v. DHIRAJ PRASAD SAHU @
DHIRAJ SAHU
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
482
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 14 S.C.R.
Section 8 of Act 43 of 1951 is relatable to Article 191(1)(e) of the
Constitution. Therefore, any interpretation to Section 8 should
be in sync with the Const

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