PRAMOD LAXMAN GUDADHE versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2018] 4 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 09-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
397
 PRAMOD LAXMAN GUDADHE
v.
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9968 of 2018)
MAY 09, 2018
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A. M. KHANWILKAR
AND DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Representation of People Act, 1951 – s.151A – Interpretation
of – Justifiability of holding bye-election – On resignation of elected
representative of constituency in question, the petitioner, public
spirited person filed PIL contending that if the election commenced
in the month of May 2018, the effective period which the new
incumbent would get would be only upto March 2019 that is less
than one year and therefore the new incumbent would not be in a
position to function with all vigour and render service and there
shall be huge expenditure in conducting the election – High Court
dismissed the writ petition – Held: There was no election petition
pending in the instant case – The elected candidate tendered his
resignation on 08.12.2017 and the same was accepted by the
Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017 – The command of s.151A is
to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of
occurrence of the vacancy – The next General Election to Lok Sabha
is in June, 2019 – Therefore, the remainder of the term is not less
than one year – The ground raised that the code of conduct would
come into play before the elections are held in June, 2019 is
absolutely sans substance as the Act does not contemplate so –  It is
the period alone that should be the governing factor subject to the
pendency of election petition because that is not controlled by the
non obstante clause – Such an interpretation is in accord with the
sanctified principle of democracy and the intention of the Parliament
is not to keep a constituency remaining unrepresented –  The concern
expressed with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated
as a ground – It is so because the representative democracy has to
  [2018] 4 S.C.R. 397
397
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
398
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 4 S.C.R.
sustain itself by the elected representatives – High Court was right
in dismissing the writ petition – Election laws.
Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 151A commences with a non obstante
clause and clearly states that notwithstanding anything contained
in Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151, a bye-election for filling any
vacancy referred to in any of the said Sections shall be held within
a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the
vacancy.  The holding of election is controlled by a rider, namely,
that the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy
is less than one year.  There is a distinction between Sections
147, 149, 150 and 151 on the one hand and Section 151A of the
Act on the other. While interpreting these provisions, it has to
be kept in mind that though the right to elect a person is
fundamental to democracy, yet it is only a statutory right. It is
also well settled in law that the legislations governing the said
right have to be strictly construed. [Paras 10, 12][402-D-E; 403-
B]
2. In the case at hand, no election petition was pending.
The elected candidate tendered his resignation on 08.12.2017
and the same was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on
14.12.2017. The command of Section 151A is to hold the election
within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the
vacancy. As the factual score depicts, the vacancy occurred when
the resignation was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on
14.12.2017.  It is beyond any dispute that the next General
Election to Lok Sabha is in June, 2019.  Therefore, the remainder
of the term is not less than one year.  The ground raised that the
code of conduct would come into play before the elections are
held in June, 2019 is absolutely sans substance as the Act does
not contemplate so.  It is the period alone that should be the
governing factor subject to the pendency of election petition
because that is not controlled by the non obstante clause.  Such
an interpretation is in accord with the sanctified principle of
democracy and the intention of the Parliament is not to keep a
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
399
constituency remaining unrepresented. The concern expressed
with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated as a
ground. It is so because the representative democracy has to
sustain itself by the elected representatives. The matter would
be different when an election dispute is pending against the
candidate that comes withi

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