Dr. N. B. Khare Vs. Election Commission of India [1957] INSC 83 (14 October 1957) | Judgments | Supreme Court Judgments: October, 1957 | Law Library | AdvocateKhoj (2024)

Dr. N. B. Khare Vs. ElectionCommission of India [1957] INSC 83 (14 October 1957)

14/10/1957 AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA AIYYAR,T.L. VENKATARAMA BOSE, VIVIAN DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) DAS, S.K. KAPUR, J.L.

CITATION: 1958 AIR 139 1958 SCR 648

ACT:

Presidential Election-Validity ofElection-Enquiry into disputes-Forum and Procedure-Presidential andVice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (XXXI Of 1952),ss. 14, 18Supreme CourtRules, 1950, Or. XXXVII-A, Rr. 3,12-Constitution of India, Art. 71 (1) (3).

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner describing himself as anintending candidate for the Presidential Election filed a petition in theSupreme Court under Art. 71 (1) of the Constitution of India impugning theelection of the President, but it was returned by the Registrar of the Court onthe ground that it was not in conformity with the provisions of thePresidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 152, and the Rules of theSupreme Court contained in Or. XXXVII-A. On appeal to the Court it wascontended for the appellant that (1) the petition was founded upon doubts as tothe validity of the election and, in consequence, was not covered either by theAct or the Rules of the Supreme Court, (2) the Act and the Rules in questionwere void on the ground that they derogate from the jurisdiction conferred onthe Supreme Court under Art. 71(1) and (3) in any case, the petitioner has aright as a citizen to approach this Court for relief whenever an election hasbeen held in breach of the constitutional provisions.

Held that Art. 71(1) merely prescribes theforum in which doubts and disputes in connection with the election of thePresident and Vice-President would be enquired into, but the right to move theSupreme Court as well as the procedure there for, are determined by the Act ofParliament as authorised by Art. 71 (3). Accordingly the Act and the Rules inquestion are valid, and the petitioner has no rights apart from those given bythe statute to file an application for setting aside an election.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil MiscellaneousPetition No. 915 of 1957.

Appeal under Order V, rule 3 of the SupremeCourt Rules.

R. V. S. Mani and Ganpat Rai, for thepetitioner.

1957. October 14. The following Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AIYAR J.-This is a petition under Art.71(1) of the Constitution of India. On May 6, there was an election to theoffice of the President 649 and Shri Rajendra Prasad was declared elected.Thereafter Dr. N. B. Khare filed the present petition describing himself as anintending candidate and alleging that there had been violations of theprovisions of the Constitution and that the election was in consequence notvalid. The prayers in the petition are " that grave doubts that exist inconnection with the Presidential election be enquired into, resolved anddecided " and " the entire proceedings of the Presidential electionbe quashed as void ".

The Registrar of this Court returned thepetition as not being in conformity with the provisions of the Presidential andVice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), and as not satisfying therequirements of the Rules of this Court contained in 0. XXXVII-A Section 14 ofAct XXXI of 1952 provides that no election shall be called in question exceptby an election petition presented to the Supreme Court in accordance with theprovisions of the Act and of the Rules made by the Supreme Court under Art. 145of the Constitution; and it further provides that it should be presented by anycandidate at such election or by ten or more electors. The Rules framed by thisCourt with reference to this matter are contained in 0. XXXVII-A. Rule 3prescribes that a court-fee of the value of Rs. 250 should be paid on thepetition and r. 12 requires the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 in cashas security for the payment of costs that may become payable by him. Thepetitioner is not a person entitled to apply under s. 14 of the Act and hispetition was also defective as it did not comply with the requirements of rr. 3and 12. It was accordingly returned by the Registrar. Against that order, thepresent appeal has been brought.

It is firstly contended by Mr. Mani that thepresent petition is outside the purview of Act XXXI of 1952 and of 0. XXXVII-Aof the Supreme Court Rules. It is argued that the Supreme Court is investedwith jurisdiction to enquire into and decide all doubts and disputes arisingout of or in connection with the election of the President, that Act XXXI of1952 and O. XXXVII-A apply only when there is a dispute 650 as to the election,but where the petition is founded upon doubts as to the validity of theelection, it is not covered either by the Act or the Rules. We are unable toaccept this contention. When once an election has been held, any doubtconcerning its validity is material only as a ground for setting aside theelection and that in fact is the prayer in the petition itself In substance thepetition is one calling the election in question and it must satisfy therequirements of Act XXXI of 1952 and of the Rules in 0. XXXVII-A.

It is next contended that the Act and theRules in question are void on the ground that they derogate from thejurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enquire into and decide all disputes anddoubts arising out of or in connection with the election of the President orthe Vice-President. It is argued that under s. 18, the election could be setaside only on certain grounds and that further under clause (b) it could bedone only if the result of the election is shown to have been materially affected,and that these are restrictions on the jurisdiction conferred by Art. 71(1) andare ultra vires. Article 71(1) merely prescribes the forum in which disputes inconnection with the election of the President and Vice-President would beenquired into. It does not prescribe the conditions under which the petitionfor setting aside an election could be presented. Under Art. 71(3), it isParliament that is authorised It( make law for regulating any matter relatingto or connected with the election of the President or Vice President, and ActXXXI of 1952 has been passed by Parliament in accordance with this provision.The right to stand for election and the right to move for setting aside anelection are not common law rights. They must be conferred by statute and canbe enforced only in accordance with the conditions laid down therein. Thecontention that the Act and the Rules derogate from the jurisdiction of theSupreme Court under Art. 71(1) must accordingly be rejected. The petitionerhas, therefore, no right to move for setting aside the election except inaccordance with the provisions of Act XXXI of 1952.

651 And finally it is contended that thepetitioner has a right as a citizen to approach this Court under Art. 71(1)whenever an election has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions.For the reasons already given, this contention must fail. The right of a personto file an application for setting aside an election must be determined by thestatute which gives it, and that statute is Act XXXI of 1952 passed under Art.71 (3). The petitioner must strictly bring himself within the four corners ofthat statute and has no rights apart from it. The order appealed against isclearly right and this appeal is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Back