R.CHANDRAN versus M. V. MARAPPAN

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 23-04-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

46 
R.CHANDRAN 
v. 
M. V. MARAPPAN 
April 23, 1973 
LD. G. PALEKAR AND A. ALAGIRISWAMI. JJ.] 
A 
Madras Villa1:e Pancllayats Act. Ss. 20 and 30-Election of President front 
B 
1·o:t~rs-C . .'a11dida1e's name included in voters list-Age qualification if conclusil·e. 
Constitution of l11dia, 1950, Art. 221-Power of revision-Scope of. 
The appellant was elected to the office of President of Village Panchayat of a 
village in Tamil Nadu. The respondent filed an election petition contending 
that the appellant had just completed 19 years of age and was therefore incom· 
petent to be elected as President. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition 
but the High Court. in revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution, took the view 
C 
that the appellant was not above 21 years and set aside the election. 
AIIowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) The High Court erred in dealing with the matter as if it was 
dealing with an appeal under s. 96, C.P.C. [471'1 
(2} Jn regard to the election t:J the village panchayats: either of members 
or of the President. there is no constitutional provision laying down any age 
D 
limit. 
Under s. 30 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act. the President of a 
village panchayat shall be elected by the persons whose names appear in the 
electoral roll of the panchayat from 
among themselves. 
Section 20 of the 
Act does not lay down a- qualification for a voter but only adopts the qualifica-
tion laid down for persons to b:! included in the electoral roll of the Legislative 
Assembly constituency of which that village may be a portion. The provisions 
of Art. 326 of the Constitution are not attracted in deciding upon the validity 
of the inclusion of a person's name in the electoral roll for a panchayat merely 
because the Panchayats Act 
has adopted a part of the eltctoral roll for an 
E 
Assembly constituency as the electoral roll for the Pancbayat. Therefore, all the 
decisions of this Court regarding the finality of the electoral roll would apply 
to the interpretation of s. 20 that is, once a person's name has been included in 
the electoral roll his right to vote cannot be questioned when he tries to cast his 
vote or to stand for election or even after the election is over. [48E-F; 49B-
E; 50G-H] 
Durga Shankar Melita v. Thakur Raghurai Singh, (1955] I S.C.R. 267, S. K. 
Clwudhury v. Baidyanath Paniiar, [1973] I S.C.C. 95 and B. N. Ramaswamy v. 
F 
B. M. Krishnamurthy, (1963] 3 S.C.R. 479, followed. 
Mahmadhusein v. Q. FidaaV A.1.R. 1969 Guj., 334 Ghulam Mohiuddin v. 
Election Tribunal, A.LR. 195; All. 357, Jagannath v. Sukhdeo, A.LR. 1967 
Bom. 317 and P. Subramaniam v. S. Pachamuthu & 
Ors. 
85 L.W. 
567 
approved. 
Viswanathan v. Rangaswamy, 1966 (2) M.LJ. 560; A.LR. 1967 Mad. 244, 
Goverdhanareddv v. Election Tribunal A.I.R. 1970 A.P. 56 8.nd P. Kunhiraman 
v. V. R. Krishna Iyer. A.I.R. 1962 Kerala 190, over-ruled. 
G 
Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh, A.I.R. 1968 Punjab !, referred to. 
CIVn:, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
1724 of 
1972. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 
17, 1972 of the Madras High Court in C.R. No. 1830 of 1971. 
H 
M. Natesan and /. Ramamurthi, for the appellant. 
K. Jayaram and K. Doraswami, for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
.. D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
R. CHANDRAN v. M. v. MARAPPA~ (Alagiriswami, 1.) 
4 7 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-This appeal arises out of the election to the 
office of President of the Muthugapatti village Panchayat in Salem 
district of Tamil Nadu held on 31-7-1970 in which the appellant 
secured 1256 votes as against IO 15 secured by the respondent and 
was declared 
elected. 
Thereupon the respondent filed an election 
petition before the Election Tribunal questioning the election. 
His 
contention. was that the appellant had just completed 19 years of age 
and was, therefore, incompetent to be elected as President. The elec-
tion Tribunal held that it was not established that the appellant was 
below 21 years of age. It was contended before the Election Tribunal 
on behalf of the appellant .that once hi!r narnc was found in the electoral 
rolls his election cannot be questioned on the ground th:it his age was 
below 2 r. 
Relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in 
Viswanathan v. Rangaswamy(I) the Election Tribunal rejected this 
contention, but as it had held in favour of the appellant on the question 
of sge, it dismissed the election petition. On an application

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