1. Challenge to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, as amended by the 1997 Ordinance and subsequent Act. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 1512
1997(10) Supreme 42
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.C. Agrawal, G.N. Ray, Dr. A.S. Anand, S.P. Bharucha and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Dharti Pakar Madan Lal Agarwal -Petitioner
versus
Shri K.R. Narayanan & Ors. -Respondents
Writ Petition (C) No. 622 of 1997
Decided on 24-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : Ashok Desai, Attorney General, T.R. Andhyarujina, Solicitor General, Soli J. Sorabjee, Sr. Advocate, (C.L. Sahu), in-person, S.K. Bandyopadhyay, (Dharti Pakar and M.L. Agarwal,) Advocates-In-Person, P.H. Parekh, Sameer Parekh, Ms. Ruchi Khurana, P. Parmeswaran, Pallav Shishodia, Subrat Birla, N.K. Kaul, Manoj Wad and A.M. Khanwilkar, Advocates.
The Court upheld the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and refused to reconsider the precedent established in Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, thereby dismissing the challenge to the Act and its 1997 amendments.
Headnote:(i) Constitution of India-Article 32-Petition filed described as Election Petition-cum-Writ Petition-Whether such a composite petition is maintainable?-(No)-As per submission of petitioner, petition treated as a writ petition filed under Art. 32. (Para 1)
(ii) Constitution of India-Article 32-Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 as amended by Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997-Sections 5B and 5C-Validity of-Challenged-Challenge to validity of Sections 5B and 5C, as amended by Act 5 of 1974 and as they stood prior to promulgation of Ordinance of 1997, has been upheld by a 7-Judge Bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu s case-Validity of Ordinance and the Act has been upheld in writ petitions by orders dated 19-6-1997, 11-7-1997 and 13-10-1997-Petitioner s submission that Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy s case need reconsideration-Dismissed. (Paras 1 & 2)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought reconsideration of a seven-judge bench decision regarding the validity of the challenged provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act. (Para 2 )
3. The court found no substance in the submission that the prior decision of the seven-judge bench required reconsideration. (Para 2 )
4. Prior decisions of a seven-judge bench on the validity of challenged statutory provisions remain binding absent substantial grounds for reconsideration. (Para 2 )
5. Writ petition dismissed and application for exemption from payment of court fee allowed. (Para 2 )
6. Is a composite election petition-cum-writ petition maintainable?
No, such a composite petition is not maintainable; the petitioner must choose to treat the petition either as an election petition or as a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
7. What is the status of the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952?
The validity of these sections, as amended, has been upheld by a seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court, and subsequent challenges to the 1997 amendments have been dismissed. (Para 1 )
8. Can a decision of a seven-judge bench be reconsidered in a writ petition?
A decision of a seven-judge bench can be reconsidered only if the court finds substance in the submission for reconsideration; otherwise, the prior ruling stands. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT
S.C. Agrawal, J.-This petition has been filed by the petitioner in person. It has been described as Election Petition-cum-Writ Petition. During the course of his submissions before the Court it was pointed out to the petitioner that such a composite petition is not maintainable and that the petitioner could choose to have the petition treated as an election petition or a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner submitted that the petition be treated as a writ petition and that the reliefs sought by him regarding setting aside of the election of respondent No. 1 may be deleted. As per the said statement of the petitioner this petition has been treated as a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution and reliefs (a), (d) and (h) have been deleted. The petition is thus confined to the challenge to the validity to the provisions of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as amended by Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997 (No. 13 of 1997), hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance . Insofar as the challenge to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C, as amended by Act 5 of 1974 and as they stood prior to the promulgation of Ordinance of 1997, has been upheld by a 7-Judge bench of this Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy1. The validity of Ordinance was challenged before this Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 293/97 and 322/97 which have been dismissed by orders dated June 19, 1997 and July 11, 1997 respectively. The Ordinance has been replaced by the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1997 (Act 35 of 1997). The validity of the said Act was challenged in W.P. (C) No. D 13334/97 and the said writ petition was dismissed by order dated October 13, 1997.
2. The petitioner has submitted that the decision of this Court Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy (supra) needs reconsideration. We do not find any substance in the said submission of the petitioner. There is thus no merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner has also filed an application seeking exemption from payment of court fee. We have perused the said application. The said application is allowed.
Writ petition dismissed. Petitioner s application seeking exemption from payment of court fee, allowed.
**********
