LexRAMA KANT PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B RAMA KANT PANDEY v. UNION OF INDIA FEBRUARY 5, 1993 (LAUT MOHAN SHARMA, CJ., S. MOHAN AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) Constitution of India, 1950: C Articles 14, 19 and 21-The Representation of People (Amendment) Ordinance Nos. 1 and 2 of 199G-Whether ultra vires. D The Representation of People (Amendment) Ordinances No. 1 and 2 of 199G-Whether ultra vires the Constitution of India, 1950. Representation of the People Ac~ 195 J: Sections 52 and 30-Countennanding of elections-Confinement of cases where candidate of recognised political party dies-Reduction of period from 20 days to 14 days for completion of election-Whether valid and proper. E The petitioner in bis Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Coostltu· lion of India, challenged the constitutional validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (Ordinance No. 1 of 1992), and the Representation of the People (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 1992 (Ordinance No.2 of 1992) on the grounds of violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India. F The provisions of Section 52 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as they stood before amendment provided for countermanding the election in either of two contingencies: • (I) if a candidate whose nomina· lion was found valid on scrutiny under section 36 or who bas not withdrawn his candidature under section 37 died and a report of bis death G was received before the publication of the list of contesting candidates under section 38, (ii) if a contesting candidate died and a report of bis death was received before the commencement of the poll. By Ordinance No. 1 of 1992, the area attracting the provisions of countermanding in section 52 bad been narrowed down by confining the provisions only to H such cases where a candidate of a recognized political party dies. 786 - -.c ' RAMA KANT v. U.0.1. 787 Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 dealt with A ~ appointment of dates for nomination, scrutiny and the holding of poll, and in clause (d) it was provided that the date of poll shall not be earlier than the twentieth day after the last date for the withdrawal of candidatures. With a view of expedite the whole process, the words "twentieth day" have been subsituted by the words "fourteenth day" in clause ( d) of Section 30 B by the Second Ordinance viz. Ordinance No. 2 of 1992. -f On behalf of the petitioner it was contended that the distinction made by the impugned amendment between a candidate set up by· a recognised political party and any other candidate Is artificial, iocoosis- tent with the spirit of the election law and discriminatory, that the Con- c - stitutioo does not confer on a candidate set up by a registered political party any special right, and treats all candidates similarly, and does not recognize any categorisation, that the difference being introduced by the impugned amendment was contrary to the scheme of the Constitution and y violative of the equality clause lo Article 14, and that it also infringed the D guarantee under Article 19(1)(a). Io respect of the Second Ordinance the objection was that the period of 14 days substituted by the amendment was too short, and the reduction from the period of 20 days was arbitrary and prejudicial to the larger interest for which elections are held. ~. The Petition was contested on behalf of Union of India by stating E that on account of increase in terrorism and physical violence in several parts of the Country combined with the phenomenal increase lo the number of independent candidates,· the danger of disruption of the elec- .lion process had been fast growing and the problem was, therefore, taken up, examined and it was considered that the amendments were essential F to curb the danger of dlsniption of the election process. ~ Dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court, HELD : 1. The right to vote or to stand as a candidate for election is neither a fundamental right nor a civil right. In England also it has G never been recognised rui a common law right. [7910] .,_ Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosa/ & Ors., A.l.R. 1982 S.C. 983 and 986, referred to. 2. The Cabinet system of Government bas been envisaged by our H 788 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) 1 S.C.R. A Constitution, and the same is on the British pattem. In England, where democracy has prevailed for longer than in any other country in recent -y' times, the Cabinet system of Gov
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.