JUDGMENT

CHANDRACHUD, CJI.:— Respondent I, Shri N. G. Ranga, was declared elected to the Lok Sabha on April 28, 1967 in a bye-election from Srikakulam Constituency, defeating respondent 3, Shri B. Rajagopalarao. The Election Commission of India, the appellant herein, called upon respondent 1 by a notice dated July, 7, 1967 to show cause why he should not be disqualified for failure to lodge the account of his election expenses within the time and in the manner required by law. Accepting the explanation submitted by Respondent 1, the appellant condoned the delay caused in submitting the account of election expenses and sent a communication dated Aug. 16, 1967 informing respondent 1 that it was decided not to take any further action in the matter.

2. Respondent 2, who is a voter in the Srikakulam Constituency, thereafter submitted a petition to the President of India under Arts. 84, 101, 102, 103 and 104 of the Constitution alleging that respondent 1, who was a sitting member of the Lok Sabha, had become subject to the disqualifications mentioned in Article 102 (1). The President, exercising his powers under Art. 103 (2) of the Constitution, sought the opinion of the appellant by an order dated May 18, 1968. The appellant issued a notice dated June 6, 1968 to respondent 1 calling upon him to submit his reply to the allegations contained in respondent 2s petition to the President.

3. On June 26, 1968 respondent I filed writ petition No. 2763 of 1968 i the High Court of Andhra Pradesh asking for a writ of prohibition forbidding the appellant from taking further steps pursuant to the June 6 notice and for a declaration that the appellant had no jurisdiction to inquire into the petition submitted by respondent 2 to the President of India. By its judgment dated Jan. 3, 1969 the High Court allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of prohibition as prayed for. It has granted to the Election Commission a certificate of fitness under Art. 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution to appeal to this Court.

4. The narrow question for consideration is whether the appellant had jurisdiction to issue the notice to respondent 1 calling upon him to submit his explanation in regard to the allegations contained in the petition presented by respondent 2 to the President of India who, in turn, had referred the petition for the opinion of the appellant. Article 103 of the Constitution read thus at the relevant time:

"103 (1) If any question arises as to whether a member of either House of Parliament has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Cl. (1) of Art. 102,the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final.

(2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and shall act according to such opinion."

5. Upon the presentation of a petition by respondent 2 to the President of India, alleging that respondent 1 had become subject to the disqualifications mentioned in Art. 102 (1) of the Constitution, a question clearly arose as to whether respondent 1 had truly become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in that article. By Cl. (2) of Article 103, the President was bound to obtain the opinion of the appellant before giving his decision on the question. Not only that, but the President was further bound to act according to the opinion given by the appellant. The President therefore acted both in the exercise of constitutional authority and in the discharge of his constitutional obligation in referring the question raised by respondent 2s petition for the opinion of the appellant.

6. The next question for consideration is whether, on receiving the Presidents communication asking for its opinion, the appellant committed any error of law or acted beyond its jurisdiction in seeking the explanation of respondent 1. The Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951, "the Act" confers extensive powers on the Election Commission i