TASSADIQ HUSSAIN versus MOHD. RASHID QURESHI AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 591 · Decided: 23-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 591 
TASSADIQ HUSSAIN 
v. 
MOHD. RASHID QURESHI AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1825 of 2006) 
NOVEMBER 23, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
A, 
B 
Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, 1957 - s.50(3) -
Eligibility to contest election - Expression "a resident of 
Poonch District" in proviso to sub-Section (3) of s.50 -
C 
Interpretation of - Legislative Council of Jammu and Kashmir 
- Election process for filling up reserved seat for resident of 
Poonch District - Three candidates including appellant, a 
resident of District Rajouri - Whether appellant, being a 
resident of District Rajouri, was ineligible to contest the 
D 
election for the seat reserved for a resident of Poonch District , 
- Held, Yes -
The word 'resident of Poonch District' in its . 
• ordinary sense would mean a resident of Poonch District and ~ 
a resident of Rajouri cannot be regarded as resident of 
Poonch District - If the framers of the Constitution had 
E 
intended to give representation by reservation to the residents 
of Poonch as well as of Rajouri, nothing prevented them from 
defining the territories of District Poonch as inclusive of 
Rajouri - In the absence of such definition, the expression 
"Poonch District" must be understood in its natural, ordinary 
F 
or popular meaning -
Even historically, Rajouri was never 
part of Poonch District either before or after the 
commencement of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir 
- No material brought on record by the appellant to indicate, 
even remotely, that a resident of Rajouri is called or known 
G 
as resident of Poonch District for the purposes of the proviso 
to sub-Section (3) of s.50 of the Constitution - The expression 
"a resident of Poonch District" in the proviso to sub-Section 
(3) of s.50 of the Constitution, does not include a resident of 
Rajouri. 
591 
H 
592 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R 
A 
Interpretation of Statutes - Golden rule of construction -
Held: The words of a statute must prima facie be given their 
ordinary meaning -
Parliament should prima facie be 
credited with meaning what is said in an Act of Parliament or 
Constitution - Courts to apply the golden rule of construction, 
B that is to read the statutory language grammatically and 
terminologically in the ordinary and primary sense, which it 
bears in its context without omission or addition - However, 
Parliament should also be credited with good sense that when 
such an approach produces injustice, absurdity, contradiction 
c or stultification of statutory objective the language may be 
modified sufficiently to avoid such disadvantage. 
The Election Commission of India initiated election 
process for filling up six vacancies having fallen vacant 
in the Legislative Council of Jammu and Kashmir 
D including the reserved vacancy for a person resident of 
Poonch District by a notification dated March 24, 2005, 
issued under Section 29 of the Jammu and Kashmir 
Representation of People Act, 1957. 
E 
For the reserved seat for resident of Poonch District, 
three candidates including respondent No.1 and 
appellant filed their nomination papers with the Returning 
Officer. The third candidate did not contest the election. 
Respondent No. 1 is a resident of District Poonch, 
F whereas the appellant is resident of District Rajouri. At 
the time of scrutiny of nomination papers, respondent 
No.1 raised an objection to the candidature of the 
appellant before the Returning Officer, stating that the 
appellant being a resident of District Rajouri was not 
G eligible to contest the election for the seat reserved for a 
resident of Poonch District and, therefore, his nomination 
be rejected. 
The Returning Officer, taking into 
consideration clarification given by the Election 
Commission of India dated March 30, 2005, rejected the 
objection raised by respondent No.1 and accepted the 
H 
TASSADIQ HUSSAIN v. MOHD. RASHID QURESHI 
593 
AND ORS. 
nomination papers of the appellant. Thereafter, the A 
election was held and as the appellant got more votes 
than respondent No.1, he was declared elected. 
Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed Election Petition 
before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and 
8 
challenged election of the appellant to the Legislative 
Council on the ground that the appellant, being ineligible 
to contest the election, his election was null and void. 
Respondent No.1 further prayed that after declaring the 
election of the appellant as null and voi

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