LexSHIV KIRPAL SINGH versus SHRI V. V. GIRI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
'n
. c
D
E
F
G
SIUV KlRP AL SINGH
v.
SHRI V. V. Gnu
September 14, 1970
WITH CONNECTED PETITIONS
197
[S. M. SIKRI, J. M. SHELAT, V. BHARGAVA, G. K. MrrTER
:AND c. A. v AIDI.ALINGAM, JJ.J
Presidential and V~ce-Presidential Election Act 31 of 1952-Part 111
of A:t whether ~Itra V.ll'es Art. 71(1) of Constitution of India 1950--
£/ectton o~ Pres1~ent whether. c~n be challenged 011 grounds other thun
those mentwned ~~ s. 18-Validtty of s. 5(2)-Section whether ultra \ires
Art. 58 oj ConstJtutlon-Ca_ndi4ate signing his non_rination paper before
prof!o_ser or seconder-Nommatt~n paper whether /table to be rejected-
ll_altdtty of s. 21-Whether sectiOn suffers from vice of excessive deleca-
tron of legislative power-'Undue influence' itJ s. 18 meaning of--5tate-
ments within purview of s. 171 G cflndian Penal Code whether can also
/all under s. 111C-Comrivance by candidate of exercise of undue influ·
enu by others, proof-Material t!ffect on election, proof-Bribery, evi-
dei'ICe of.
Costs-Election Petition-When cosl! may be refused,
Presidential and Vice-Presidemial Election Rules, 1952-Validity of
Rule:J 4( 1 )and 4(2)-Requiremellf that nominatio11 paper must be ac-
companied by certified copy of entry in electoral roll relating to candidate,
whether arbitrary and rmreasotwble and ultra vires 11, 21 of Act 31 of 1952
-Validity of rr. 4(3) and 6(3)-Requirement that elector shall nor
subscribe whether as proposer or seconder more than one nomination
paper a/ any election, whether contravene3 s. 5(2) of Act 31 of 19?2-
Certi/ied copy of electoral roll entry relating to candidate--Who can u.rue.
Corutitmion of India, 1950, Art. 58-Age of candidate for office of
Prtsidel'll of Jndia,-Minimum age prescribed as 35 year~-Entry In elec-
toral roll showing candidate's age as above 35 years-Candt1at~s own state-
ment as to date of birth showing he /11 below 35 years-ReJI!Ctton of nomi-
nation papu wht'fher justified.
Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 54, 367, 372 and 3~1-A--Gmerol
Clause:J Act, s. 3(58)-Unlon Terrilory wltetlter 'State' wl/l11n meanf'g,:!
Art, 54--Elected member:J of LtJtl~·/atures of Union Terrllorles 'S'fde~~ of
num be Included In Electoral College for election to office o/ Pre
India,
.
. h ld • A
t 1969
The election to the office of President o[ I_ndia . c
10
u~~ main
Was challenged In five election petition! fil.:d 10 thJs f0~t
1·t"on of an
QU<.'Siion that 'fc iJ (or COmidcration WllS whether th~ d at;U~I ~ne of "tbo
anonymous pamphlet making defamatory statcmenh
ctitione,-, amount.
candida!~ at the election, In the manner alleged by, 1 e J'r s
18 ' of the
e(J to exercise of undue influence within the meamng f 195.; read witb a.
Pr~idential and Vice-Presidential Elec.tion Act ti~~ ~he Co;;rt bud furt~er
171 C of the Jndlan Penal Code. Jn thrblf~n~c~nd distributed bv the ~
to decide whether the pamphlet wos pu s c 811
orters and whethe~ .e
ning candidate or with his conn!vnncoir b~ ~lsby [);'0 publication aod d1s~;
t~ult of the election was maten~lly 8 ec e her uestions o! low I
bution "' the pamphlet in question.
Thep~ Jllqof Act 31 o! 1952 h~d
ft:ll ror eon~lderation were (i) whether
1~8,
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1~71) 2 S.C.R.
the effect of curtailing the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 71(1) of
the Constitution and was therefore ultra vires; (ii) whether an election
under the Act could be challenged on grounds other than those mentioned
in s. 18 of Act 31 of 1952 which fell in Part III thereof; (iii)' whether
:->. 21 fJf the Act was void because of excessiv.!! delegation of legislative
power; (iv) whether r. 4(1) was ultra vires s. 21 and also void because it
was arbitrary and unreasonable; consequently whether :r. 4(2) was void;
(v) whether the prohibition in· r. 4{3) on an elector proposing or second-
ing more than one candidate was ultra vires s. 5(2) of Act 31· of 1952;
consequently whether s. 6(3) was yoid; (vi) whether nomination paper of
one of the candidates was rightly rejected when the electoral roll showed
the candidate's age as above. 35 years·but the candidate's own statement us
to his date of birth showed that he was below 35 years;
(vii) whether
certified copy of entry in electoral roll relating to candidate must under
the Rules be issued either by the Electoral Registration Officer. or the
-~ssistant Electoral' Regi~tration Officer; (viii) wh~ther a nomination paper
stgncd first by the candidate and thereafter by hts Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.