RANJIT SINGH versus HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1102 · Decided: 06-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RANJIT SINGH 
v. 
HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN 
MAY 6, 1999 
B 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.] 
Election Laws : 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Section 9-A-Condititons for 
C disqualification of candidates to contest election for the State. Legislative 
Assembly under-Candidates having a subsisting contract for sale of liquor 
with State Government as on the date of filing as well as on the date of 
scrutiny of his nomination paper;_Held, to attract Section 9-A the candidate ' 
sought to be disqualified must have a subsisting contract for the supply of 
goods to the Government or for execution of any work underta~n by the 
D government-Such contract would not fall within the expression "for supply 
of goods io, or for the execution of any works undertaken by the government" 
and hence purposive interpretation and not general or broad interpretation 
of Section 9-A needed 
E 
Interpretation of Statutes-Purposive interpretation-Provision in the · 
statute imposing conditions for disqualification-If general or broad 
interpretation ignoring essentials of provision and intention of the legislature 
be given-Held, in such. case purposive interpretation necessary. 
In an election to tlie State Legisliltive Assembly, appellant was defeated 
F 
by the reSpondent. The appellant filed an election petition in the High Court 
alleging that the respondent was disqualified from contesting the election 
under Section 9-A of the Representation of People Act,· 1951. as on the date 
of the filing of the nomination paper as well as on the date of the scrutiny 
of the nomination paper, respondent had a subsisting contract, for the sale 
of liquor, 'With G~verl\ment. However, High Court dismissed the eleetion. 
G . petiti~n. Hence this appeal. 
. . It was conten.ded.by the ~ppeJlant.tliat purpose ofsectjon 9'."Awas to 
. a~oid and conflict between private interest aild public ~uty and thus a broad 
.. int~rprefation of Section 9'."A should be p_laced. 
. . 
H 
· Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
1102 
.. 
;-
' 
• 
I 
11
R. SINGH v. H.S .. PRADHAN [DR. ANAND, CJ.] 
1103 
HELD : 1. On its plain reading, Section 9-A of the Representation of A 
People Act, 1951 requires (i) that there must be a subsisting contract which 
has been entered into by the person whose candidature is sought to be 
disqualified with the Government; (ii) that contract is for the supply of goods 
to the Government, or (iii) that the contract is for the execution of any works 
undertaken by the Government. [1105-D] 
2. It is notpossible to agree with the submission that keeping in view 
the purpose for which Section, 9-A of the Act was enacted, namely to avoid 
B 
any conflict between private interest and public duty, a broad interpretation 
should be placed on Section 9-A. Section 9-A is a statutory provision which 
imposes a disqualification on a citizen. It would, therefore, be unreasonable C 
to take a general or broad view, ignoring the essentials of the Section and 
the intention of the legislature. In such cases, purposive interpretation is 
necessary. [1106-E-G] 
Dewan Joyanal Abedin v. Abdul Wazed alias Abdul Wazed Miah & 
Ors .• [1988) Supp. SCC 580, relied on. 
D 
B. Laxminatha Rao v. D. Chinna Mal/aiah, AIR (1979) AP 132, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2008 of 
1998. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.9.97 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in E.P. No. 7 of 1997. 
A.M. Khanwilkar, Sudhir Walia and M.S. Dahiya for the Appellant. 
P.P. Rao, Nidhesh Gupta and Ms. Naresh Baskhi for Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ANAND, CJ. This appeal calls in question t.he judgment and order 
F 
of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Election Petition No. 7 of 1997 G 
decided on 29th September, 1997. The appeal arises in the following 
circurmstances. 
The appellant contested the election to 54 Raikot Assembly 
Constituency in the general elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly 
held.on 7th February, 1997. The respondent, a candidate of the Indian National H 
0 
1104 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A Congress,· was declared elected. After the declaration of the result of the 
elections on l 0th February- 1997, the appellant tiled an election petition in the ... 
High Court alleging that the respondent was disqualified from contesting the 
elect~n to the. Punjab Legislative Assembly under Section 9-A of the 
Repre~entation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.