VERY IMPORTANT POINT
The petitioner has no locus standi to maintain the election petition against Presidential election. He has also not put a valid change to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the President and Vice President Elections Act, 1952 or Rules 1974. His election petition as well as SLP are liable to be dismissed with heavy costs.

Headnote:(i) President and Vice President Elections Act, 1952-Sections 18, 19, 5B(a) and 5C(1) and 13(a) and 14A(1)-Election petition to be filed either by candidates or requisite number of electors-Petitioner/Appellant filing election petition-His nomination paper was rejected on grounds of not supported by requisite number of proposers and seconders and for non-deposit of requisite security amount-Does petitioner has a locus standi to maintain his election petition? (No, as he is not a duly nominated candidate in accordance with provisions of Section 5B(a) and 5C(1) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act)-Case Law discussed.
       Held : In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this Court the petitioner cannot be regarded as a person who had been nominated or can claim to have been duly nominated as candidate at the election in question. His nomination papers were thus rightly rejected by the returning officer and the petition on his behalf is, therefore, not maintainable. (Para 20)
       (ii) President and Vice President Elections Act, 1952-Sections 5B(a) and 5C(1)-(After 1997 amendment)-Requisite number of proposers and seconders for nomination raised to 50 from 10 by 1997 amendment and security deposit raised from 2500/- to 15000/- Constitutional validity of various provisions of Act and Rules and Section 29A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenged as violative of Articles 14, 21, 38, 54, 71(1)(3), 79, 80(1) and 354 of the Constitution before Delhi High Court-Rejected-Appeal against-Has the petition put a valid challenge to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the Act or any other provisions of the Act and the Rules? (No)-Appeal SLP as well as election petition dismissed-Case law discussed.
       Held : Every conceivable challenge of these provisions has already been upheld by this Court in the aforesaid three judgments in the petitioner s own case and in Mithilesh Kumar Sinha vs. Returning Officer for Presidential Election, 1993 (Supp. (4) SCC 386. We need not examine these points any further in view of the consistent view of this Court with which we respectfully agree. Another contention which just needs to be noticed and rejected is regarding the validity of the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules for holding the election of the President and Vice-President or its being ultra vires the Constitution of India. The procedure laid under the Act and the Rules has already been upheld in the judgments, already referred to. (Paras 23 to 24)
       (iii) President and Vice-President Election Act, 1952-Sections 18 and 19-Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Rules, 1974-Election petition challenging presidential election on ground that nomination papers filed by respondent 1 were invalid-Whether maintainable? (No).
       Held : Objections to the validity of the nomination paper filed by respondent No.1 which was rejected by the returning officer are so frivolous that they do not require attention of this Court. In our opinion, returning officer rightly overruled the objections filed by the petitioner questioning the validity of the nomination paper filed by respondent No.1. (Para 25)
       Held also : That before filing the said election petition the petitioner had earlier filed four election petitions challenging the election of the returned candidates in the Presidential elections held in the years 1974, 1977, 1982 and 1997. All these election petitions were dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the election petition. (Para 26)
       That is why we have begun the judgment with the observation that such a conduct on the part of the petitioner who happens to be an advocate is regrettable. We hope he does not do so again. (Para 27)
       Held finally : For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit either in the election petition or in the special leave petition against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi and dismiss them with costs which are assessed on Rs.25,000/- in each case. The costs so deposited shall be transferred to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. It is also directed that no petition filed by the petitioner-in-person shall be entertained in this Court till the amount of costs imposed is deposited. (Para 28)

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-It is regrettable that in spite of being cautioned four times by this Court not to challenge election of the President of India in a cavalier and light hearted manner, the petitioner, who is an advocate has filed the present election petition challenging the election of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam (respondent No.1) as President of India on the same similar grounds of challenge which stand concluded against him in petitioner s own cases by several decisions of this Court. Our regret is compounded by the fact that petitioner is an advocate. He does, we presume, know the value of earlier binding precedents declaring the law by the highest court of the land.

2. This judgment shall dispose of Election Petition No. 1 of 2002 and Special Leave Petition No.22385 of 2002. The facts are being stated from the Election Petition which covers and takes care of the points raised in the special leave petition as well.

3. Petitioner has challenged the election of Respondent No.1 to the office of the President of India which was held in pursuance to the notification dated 11th June, 2002 published by the Returning Officer Shri R.C. Tripathi, Secretary General, Rajya Sabha. The said election was conducted under the provisions of Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), and the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ).

4. In all 54 nomination papers were filed within the time prescribed. Respondent No.1 was nominated by the ruling National Democratic Alliance and its allies and the main opposition party, i.e., the Indian National Congress (I) and its allies whereas Captain Lakshmi Sehgal, respondent No. 2, was sponsored and nominated by CPI (M) and its allied parties.

5. Scrutiny of the nomination papers in connection with the Presidential Election, 2002 was conducted on 26th of June, 2002 by the Returning Officer. Nomination papers of all candidates other than respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were rejected. Nomination paper of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the same was not accompanied by a certified copy of the entry relating to the candidate in the electoral roll and that the requirements of law were incomplete for want of proposers and seconders. Petitioner had filed his written objections to the two sets of nomination papers filed by respondent No.1 which were duly considered and rejected being without any substance. The poll for the contest between respondent Nos. 1 & 2 took place on 15th July, 2002. Respondent No.1 was declared elected as the President of India having received majority of votes. The result of the said election was declared in extraordinary gazette of India of 18th July, 2002 declaring Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, respondent No.1, as elected to the office of the President of India. Respondent No.1 took oath of the office of the President of India on 25th July, 2002.

6. On 10th of July, 2002, petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 4119 of 2002 under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of Judicature at New Delhi challenging the rejection of his nomination paper and the acceptance of the nomination papers of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein and the constitutional validity of various provisions of the Act and the Rules and Section 29A of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 being violative of Articles 14, 21, 38, 54, 71(1)(3), 79, 80(1) and 324 of the Constitution of India. The said writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi by a detailed order on 12th July, 2002. Special leave petition (Civil) No. 22385 of 2002 arises from the said decision of the High Court of Delhi.

7. The election petition No. 1 of 2002 has been filed seeking a declaration that the result of the election declaring respondent No.1 as the duly elected President of India be declared void for illegal rejection of the nomination paper of the petitioner and the illegal acceptance of the nomination

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 1221

Cases Referred (4)