PURANLAL LAKHANPAL versus THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 688 · Decided: 30-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Af arch 30. 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
PURANLAL LAKHANP AL 
v. 
THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Parliamentary Election-Seats allotted to J ammu and Kashmir 
-Mode of election-Modification made by President-Constitutiona-
lity-Constitution of India, Arts. Br, 37o(r)-Constitution (Appli-
cation to J ammu and Kashmir) Order, r954, Para. 5(c). 
Six seats are allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in 
the House of People (Lok Sabha) and election to those seats 
should ordinarily have been by direct election under Art. 81(1) 
of the Constitution but the President modified that Article under 
Art. 37o(t) by Para. 5(c) of the Constitution (Application to 
Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, to the effect that "the re-
presentatives of the State in the House of People shall be 
appointed by the President on the recommendations ,of the 
Legislature of the State". The petitioner who claimed to be a 
registered elector and as such eligible for election from any 
Parliamentary constituency in India contended that the Presi-
dent had exceeded his powers when he made this modification 
for he thereby substituted direct election to the House of People 
by nomination which he could not do, and that the said modi-
fication amounted to radical alteration in Art. Sr and was not 
justified under Art. 370( 1 ). 
Held, that the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1) 
must be given the widest meaning in the context of the Consti-
tution and in that sense it includes an amendment and it cannot 
be limited to such modifications as do not make any "radical 
transformation". The modification lays down that the President 
will make the nomination on the recommendation of the State 
Legislature which can do so only by voting, and in effect it 
provides that the seats will be filled by indirect election and not 
direct election. The element of election being thus ,still present 
there was no radical alteration in Art. 81 and the President had 
the power to make the modification which he did. 
In re Delhi Laws Act, r9I2, [1951] S.C.R. 747, distinguished. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Writ Petition No. 139 of 
1957. 
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India 
for enforcement of Fundamental rights. 
R. V. S. Mani, for the petitioner. 
• 
,) 
• 
) 
\ 
) 
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
689 
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen 
and R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2. 
1961. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
W ANCHOO, J .-This petition challenges the consti-
tutionality of a provision in the Constitution (Applica-
tion to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 (hereinafter 
called the Order), made by the President under Art. 
370(1) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner 
is that he is registered as an elector in the Parliamen-
tary Constituency of Delhi. As such he has a right 
to stand for election from any Parliamentary constitu-
ency in India. Six seats are allotted to the State of 
Jammu and Kashmir in the House of the People (Lok 
Sabha). Ordinarily, the election to these seats should 
have been by direct election from the territorial con-
stituencies in the States as provided by Art. 81(1); but 
the President modified that Article in so far as it re-
lates to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by Para. 5(c) 
of the Order in these words:-
" Article 81 shall apply subject to the modification 
that the representatives of the State in the House 
of the People shall be appointed by the President 
on the recommendation of the Legislature of the 
State." 
,;, -· 
The petitioner contends that the President had ex-
ceeded his powers when he made this modification, for 
he thereby substituted direct election to the House of 
the People by nomination wliich he could not do. 
This, it is said, was 'a ·radical alteration in Art. 81 as 
applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and was 
not justified as a modification under Art. 370(1). He 
therefore- prays that the modification made ma;y be 
4eo1ared unconstitutional and a writ. of quo iVarranto 
be issued against the persons nomin·at\J\:l to 'the House 
of the People on the recommendation of the Legisla-
ture of the State of J ail'lmu and Kashmir prohibiting 
them from acting·as ni0m'bers of Parliament: 
- "" 
Apart fromtlie question whether the petitioner has 
any fundamental right ·to maintain this petition\mder 
87 
-~ 1·, 
! .: 
' 
1 
Puranlal 
Lakhanp

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