JUDGMENT

BEG, C.J.I. :— This is a petition under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereinafter the election of Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as a President of India at the Presidential election held on 19th July, 1977. Section 14 and the relevant part of S. 14-A of the Act read as follows:

"14. (1) No election shall be called in question except by presenting an election petition to the authority specified in sub-s.(2).

(2) The authority having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the SC.

(3) Every election petition shall be presented to such authority in accordance with the provisions of this Part and of the rules made by the SC under Art. 145.

14-A. (1) An election petition calling in question an election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-s. (1) of S. 18 and S. 19, to the SC by any candidate at such election, or-

(i) in the case of Presidential election, by 20 or more electors joined together as petitioners."

2. Among the rules made by this Court, Part VII, O. 39 contains rules relating to election petitions made under Part III mentioned in S. 14 (3) of the Act. Rule 2 of O. 39 lays down:

"2. An application calling in question an election shall only be by a petition made and presented in accordance with the provisions of this order."

Rule 5 of O. 39 provides:

"5. The petition shall state the right of the petitioner under the Act of petition the Court and briefly set forth the facts and grounds relied on by him to sustain the reliefs claimed by him."

Rule 34 of O. 39 says:

"34. Subject to the provisions of this order or any special order or directions of the Court, the procedure on an election petition shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure in proceedings before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction."

3. Thus, the procedure, contained in Part III of the Rules of this Court, including O. 23 relating to the institution of suits by plaints, applies to the proceedings commenced by election petitions after reading the word "petition" for "plaint". Among these rules in R. 6 which provides that this Court after the plaint has been presented to the Registrar and numbered, shall reject the plaint "where it does not disclose a cause of action", or where "the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law". It is obligatory upon the Court to reject it outright and not to waste any more time upon a plaint or petition if the provisions of law are shown to bar proceedings. Indeed, it is not even necessary to issue a notice to any opposite party or parties in such a case. But, where the petition or plaint of the petitioner is rejected, O. 23, R. 7 requires that "the Court shall record an order to that effect with the reasons for the order."

4. It is only after the issue and service of summons under O. 24 and the filing of a written statement under O. 25 that the question of framing issues need arise in a case. However, as notice was issued and an affidavit in opposition was filed by Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy himself in this case where preliminary objections to the maintainability of the election petition were taken, and the petitioner asked for issues to be farmed, this court framed issues on these preliminary objections. They were as follows:

1. Has the petitioner a locus standi to maintain his election petition, or, in other words, is he a duly nominated candidate in accordance with provisions of Ss. 5-B and 5-C of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act?

2. Is the petition maintainable?

3. Is it open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of Ss. 5-B and 5-C of the Act?

4. If so, are the two provisions mentioned in issue No. 3 valid?

5. If, however, the petitioner could not get beyond the stage of the first issue on his locus standi, it was no use considering other issues. In this case, however, the four issues or questions in issue framed above are so inter-connected that we propose to deal with them by means