S. NARAYANASWAMI versus G. PANNERSELVAM & ORS.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 12-04-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,. 
.' 
' 
i· ,· 
,. 
\• 
' i 
.j 
:i . 
'I. 
' \ 
y 
. l 
; ~ ~ 
; ; . .. . 
,q 
;)ll 
, · 
,. :· 
~ ; : 
172 
s. NARA YANASWAMI 
A 
v. 
G. PANNERSEL V AM & ORS. 
April 12, 1972 
[S. M. SIKRI, C.J .• A. N. GROVER, A. N. RAY, D. G. PALF.XAil 
AND M. H. BEG, IJ.J 
B 
ConstitutioJJ o/Imlia 1950, A.rt.t. 171 to 173 and ReprtsenJction of tht 
People 4ct (43 of 1951) s. 6-Candidate from Grodualer constit11mcy 
1o ulis)ative Council-lj should bt a KTDduaJe, 
The respondent cbalknged the appellant'! 
cl~ to the Madras 
Legi.slalivt Council from the Madras District Gr:uluates' Coostitueocy en 
the grounds, (l) that, the pw-po&e of.Art. 171 of the Constitution waa 
C 
lo C0!1fa a right of ftmclional {!!presentation upon petsoll$ po:ssessina 
certain educational or other qualifications !0 that the appellant who was 
not • graduate could not be elected to ·the Legi:slative Council from tbe 
GroduaJCS' Cooltltueucy; (2} that, it would be absurd and destructive 
of the ~ 
of representation that an individual, who did not poee5S 
the ~ 
a.- buic qualification of .the electon. Uould be tbeir repre-
aentatm, aAd 
(3~ . that. the Con~tiaJtion, beioc an organic inslzwnent. 
D 
must be imapi'eted in 11 broad and liberal ma.aner !0 ae to gM: etrect 
to the ande~ principi.!S and purpoee& of the system of repte9entation 
sought to be embodied in it. 
The ..High Court &el aside the cll:ctiDA. 
Anowinr the appeal to flm Court, 
HELD: (l)(a) Gradu:rtes are not an occupational or vocati~al I 
If'~· but ~ly a body of. person& with particular ~ducatioool qualifi· 
~ 
It would, therefor.e, n()t be cotTect to describe the additional 
~ 
sought to be given to them in the Legislative Council as an 
1l%1cmpt ao tntrodu~ functiooal or vocational representation. [181Bl 
(b) The qualillcati0118 of the elector oomtituting the clectoi'Qt.e, and 
of .thoec who can repreaent .each ekctorate, contemplated by the ~ 
tution and supplemented by Parliament, are separately set out fot tach 
f 
~~ 
Aa ~pds tbe Legislative Council too qualificationi for the four 
e-...,..t.es are indi~tcd In Art. 171(3)(a): (b),(.:) and (d). The plain 
and ordinary mearung of ~ term "electorate is that it is tilt body of 
~m 
who e~t. It does not take in the extended notion of a body 
P_ei"!!IOl51 el(:(;llnl! representatives from among1r th~m.s~trel. It does 
not Impose • reqUirement that the person to be chosen must also be a 
member of the electorate. (177D-FJ 
G 
• 
(c) 'Ille qualillcatioos of cflll<lidtltes for seats in the Council are given · 
~~ 1· 6 of ~be .Repre~entation of the People Act, 19Si: While a mwber 
tro::C ~~hlhtive ~embly should also be un ·elector in the constituencY 
tequlrcd to bee stan s, the member of the Legislative Council ia not sO 
tht penon to ~ :mber of the e~IOrate. All Chat is. required is .tbfJ 
be ao ~tutor for a~t~ aab~ ~of 
the Legislative Council ~gis-
lative Counc;il he Is ch~: [l~J*•IIt7 in tho State to whoso 
}I 
(d) Whatever may have been the_....._ 
. tioo .;,aket 
or their advisors it is not P<*ibAc Co .....-- ot the Co!Mbtu 171 tbat 
tho Sec.ood Cbambet- f OUDd ..._ 
aay • «a a perusal. of Art. • -!,~.I 
~e woere lOIIIQt to provide for fu~ 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
c 
··- ...:...::.:..:._ .. -- .. 
NARAYANASWAMI v. PAN.NEitSELVAM (Beg, /.) 
173 
or vocational representation. t\f1 that can be . f 
. 
repres~tation or wcigbtage was given to 
rso~n e~ed ~~ that a~dit.ionaJ 
of knowledge and experience by enabling ~m s posscssmg _spec1al types 
presentativcs. 1bo concept of such ~epresentation ~
0 elect the~e s~i~ re-
further notion that the rep!"esentative must aso oes not cany w1th 1t the 
1ications of tbose he represents. 
The Hi h C 
possess the very quaJi. 
outside the fo1..r c&tters of the statutory gprov·~ err~eously traveUed 
. . 
all . 
.he I 
JSJOns Wu.;n there wu DO 
~b1~1ty at . 
m 
an&\! age,. and by rescting to a presumed 1e · 
Jative mtent, 1t added a qualificatJon to those expressly iaid d 
· ~ 
Constitution and otber statutory provisions. 
(lBOF] 
own 10 
e 
Davies Jankins & Co. v. Davies, 1967 (2) W.LR. p. 1139 @ 1156, 
rc!ef"!'d to. 
2(a) Article 171 is designed only to give a right to choos.e their re-
presentatives to those_ who have certain types of presumably valuablo 
mowledge ~d educalton. 
I~ ~ 
pi"c3umptioo of their better competence 
to elect a SWtable (Cpresentahvc IS there, It would be for the members of 
such a constituency themselves to decide whether a person who stands 
for election from their constituency possesses 

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