1. Appeal against dismissal of election petition — Challenge to election of returned candidate — Disqualification and corrupt practice allegations. (Para 1 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2001 Supreme(SC) 1262
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., Ashok Bhan : R.C.Lahoti, JJ.
P.H.Pandian
Versus
P.Veldurai
Case No. : 7457 of 2000
Date of Decision : 9/11/01
Long delays in pronouncing judgments and delivering certified copies in election petitions are objectionable. Furthermore, courts will not adjudicate upon legal challenges that have become purely academic because the assembly's term ended and fresh elections were conducted.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 9-A, 116-A and 123(6) - Delay in pronouncing judgment in election petition - Judgment reserved for 22 months and certified copy supplied 11 months after pronouncement - Such long delay in pronouncing judgments in election petitions is not proper, gives rise to avoidable criticisms, and is highly objectionable, especially when a major part of the legislative assembly's term expires during court proceedings - Courts must guard against such delays. (Paras 4, 5)
(B) Academic questions - It is settled practice of the Court not to pronounce upon matters which are only of an academic interest, particularly where fresh elections have already taken place and the previous assembly is no longer in existence. (Para 8)
Facts of the case:
An election petition was filed challenging the election of a candidate to the legislative assembly on two grounds: first, that the returned candidate was a government contractor and thus disqualified under section 9-A of the Act; and second, that the candidate committed corrupt practices by incurring expenditure in excess of prescribed limits under section 123(6) of the Act. The High Court dismissed the petition after evidence was led. However, the judgment remained reserved for 22 months and the certified copy was supplied 11 months after pronouncement, during which time the term of the assembly largely expired and fresh elections were held.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence regarding corrupt practices under section 123(6) was scanty and non-conclusive. Regarding the disqualification under section 9-A, the court declined to adjudicate as the matter had become academic due to the conduct of fresh elections.
Issues: Whether the delayed pronouncement of the judgment and delivery of certified copies were justifiable and whether the returned candidate was disqualified under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The delivery of judgments and certified copies in election petitions must be timely to avoid rendering the proceedings meaningless. The Court will not decide on legal issues that have become purely academic after the term of the house has ended and fresh elections have occurred.
Result: Appeal disposed of; order imposing costs on the appellant set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- election law
Table of Contents
2. Appellant alleged disqualification under Section 9-A and corrupt practice under Section 123(6) of the Act; respondent denied all allegations. (Para 3 )
3. High Court caused unjustifiable 22-month delay in pronouncing judgment and 11-month delay in supplying certified copy; such delays are highly objectionable. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. Court will not pronounce on academic issues when fresh elections have rendered substantive part of appeal infructuous. (Para 6 , 8 )
5. Appeal disposed of as infructuous; order imposing costs on appellant set aside; parties to bear own costs. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
6. Is a 22-month delay in pronouncing judgment after reservation permissible in election petitions?
No, such a long delay is not at all proper and gives rise to avoidable criticisms; courts must guard against it. (Para 4 , 6 )
7. Is an 11-month delay in supplying a certified copy of judgment acceptable?
No, it is a poor reflection on the administration of the High Court and is highly objectionable. (Para 5 )
8. Will the Supreme Court decide an appeal on a disqualification issue when fresh elections have been held?
No, it is settled practice not to pronounce upon matters which are only of academic interest. (Para 8 )
9. Can costs be imposed on the appellant when the appeal is rendered infructuous due to court delays?
The order imposing costs was set aside in the facts and circumstances where the court noted the High Court's casual handling of the election petition. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
A.S.ANAND, CJI.
(1) This appeal, under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, calls in question final judgment and order made by the High Court of Madras in election petition no. 1 of 1996 on 29/12/1999.
(2) Though, fresh elections have since been held to Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and to an extent this appeal has been rendered infructuous, the manner in which the election petition was dealt with by the High Court causes us concern and that necessitates our making reference to some salient facts.
(3) The appellant was a candidate from 220 Charenmahadevi assembly constituency of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly at the elections held in 1996. He had represented that constituency, according to averments made in the election petition, for four consecutive terms between 1977 and 1991. In the elections held on 27/04/1996 he lost to respondent no. 1. He filed an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate - respondent no. 1, mainly on two grounds: firstly, that the respondent was a government contractor who had a subsisting contract with panchayat union and the state government and was therefore, disqualified to be chosen as a member of the assembly under section 9-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter "the Act"); and secondly, the returned candidate had incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the limits prescribed under the Act and had, thus, committed a corrupt practice under section 123(6) of the Act. The respondent resisted the election petition and denied all the allegations. By the impugned judgment and order the election petition was dismissed, after evidence had been led by the parties.
(4) Now to the disquieting feature: Results of elections, held on 27/04/1996, were declared on 11/05/1996. The Legislative Assembly was summoned soon thereafter. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent no. 1 on 24/06/1996. The trial of the election petition continued before the learned designated judge till 24/02/1998, when judgment was reserved. The election petition remained pending in the High Court during trial for almost 20 months. After that judgment was reserved on 24/02/1998, we find that the judgment was pronounced only on29/12/1999, i.e. 22 months after the judgment had been reserved. Such a long delay in pronouncing the judgment, in an election petition, to say the least was not at all proper. We find no justification whatsoever for the judgment to have remained reserved for 22 months. Such long delay in pronouncing judgments gives rise to avoidable criticisms. Courts must guard against it.
(5) That however, is not all. There is yet another infirmity brought to our notice by learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant applied for a certified copy of the judgment within about six days of the pronouncement of the judgment, on 3/01/2000. It appears that the appellant was called upon to deposit stamps for copy of the judgment, 11 months later, on 5/12/2000 only and certified copy of the judgment was actually made available to the appellant on December, 2000. The total term of an assembly is. five years. The period spent for the trial of the election petition and from when the Judgment remained reserved and the time spent in supplying certified copy, 53 months had expired. Thus, a major part of the entire term of the assembly was spent in court proceedings. We are at loss to understand why the election petition was dealt with so casually in the High Court. That 11 months time was taken for supplying certified copy of the judgment is itself a poor reflection on the administration of the High Court. We find it proper to request the Honble Chief Justice of the High Court of Madras to look into this aspect because such delays in delivery of certified copies of judgments in all cases, and more particularly the election petition, is highly objectionable. Why and how it happened is for th
