RAGHBIR SINGH versus SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 22-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RAGHBIR SINGH 
v. 
SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
AUGUST 22, 1994 
B 
1[J.S. VERMA AND K.S. PARJPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Represe11tation of the People Act, 1951 : 
Secti011s 5, 8(3 )-Membership of Legislative Assemblr-£lectio11 
C to-Disqualificatio1i-f'rescription ~f period of disqualification based 011 clas-
sification of offences according to their nature and period of convic-
tiolt-Held, not arbitrary-Nor open to judicial scruti11y--i.egislature has wide 
discretion in matter of c/assificatio11. 
The respondent filed an election petition before the High Court 
D challenging appellant's election to Punjab Vidhan Sabha held in Feb. 1992, 
on the ground that be was disqualified to be a candidate at the time of the 
election. The appellant bad been convicted and sentenced to 3 years 
rigorous Imprisonment under s.32,~ read with s.149 J.P.C. by the trial cburt 
on 15.11.1984, and having failed i10 the High Court and in this Court, be 
E served out bis sentence and was released on 14.11.1988. The High Court 
declared appellant's election to be void holding that in view of the 
provisions or s.8(3) of the Representation or the People Act, 1951, he was 
disqualified lo be a candidate in the said election. Aggrieved, the appellant 
filed the appeal under s.116A of the Act. He also filed the writ petition 
under Article 32 or the Constitution challenging constitutional validity of 
F 
s.8(3) or the Act. 
It was t:ontended on behatr or the appellant that the period or 
disqualification in sub-sections (l]i, (2) and (3) or s.8 of the Act should be 
Identical and, like in sub-s.(1), 11eriod of disqualification in sub-s. (3) 
G should also be read as six years from the date of conviction and not from 
the date of release as there is no rational basis for providing different 
period of disqualification in different sub-sections of s.8 of the Act. 
Dismissing the appeal as also the writ petition, this Court 
H 
HELD: 1.1. Prescription ofp,eriod of disqualification in sub-sections 
766 
' •
' •
RAGHBIR SINGHv. SURJIT SINGH [VERMA, J.] 
767 
(1), (2) and (3) of section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 A 
for different classes of persons convicted of different offences is based on 
the well recognised mode of classification ofoffecnes having regard to their 
nature and period of sentence, and is within the domain of legislative 
discretion and wisdom, which is not open to judicial scrutiny. The legisla-
ture has wide discretion in the matter of classification and there is no B 
arbitrariness reflected in the classification. [770-E, F, G) 
1.2. The categories of persons covered by sub-sections (1), (2) and 
(3) of section 8 of the Act being different and distinct, comparison inter se 
between any two of these three distinct classes is not permissible. While 
sub-section (1) enumerates the offences which are considered to be of one C 
category and the period of six years disqualification from the date of 
conviction is provided for them irrespective of the sentence awarded on 
such conviction, in sub-section (2) are specified some other offences, 
conviction for which is considered significant for disqualification only if 
the sentence is of imprisonment for not less than six.months and in that D 
case a longer period of six years disqualification since release bas been 
considered appropriate. Sub-section (3), which is the residuary provision, 
governs all persons convicted of any offence [other than any offence 
referred to in sub-section (1) or sub- section (2)) and sentenced to im-
prisonment for not less than two years, and it bas been considered ap-
E 
propriate to prescribe the same six years period of disqualification since 
release for all of them as they constitute one class. The provisions, there-
fore, cannot be said to be discriminatory. [770-D; 769-F -G-H; 770-B, C, El 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 933 of 
~~ 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.93 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in E.P. No. 6 of 1992. 
R.K Jain and S.B. Upadhyay for the Appellant/Petitioner. 
K. Madhava Reddy, M.L. Verma, B.S. Jain, Mahesh Srivastava and 
V.D. Khanna for the Respondents. 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
VERMA, J. Pursuant to the notification to elect a Member for the H 
768 
.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Punjab Vidhan Sabha to represent the Giddarbha Assembly Constituency, 
the appellant Reghbir Singh filed his 11omination on 1.2.1992 which was 
foun

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