Back
2012 Supreme(SC) 873
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir, , CJI., P. Sathasivam & Surinder Singh Nijjar, J. Chelameshwar, Ranjan Gogoi, JJ.
Purno Agitok Sangma
Vs.
Pranab Mukherjee
Election Petition No.1 of 2012
Decided On : 05 December, 2012
Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, Mr. A.G. Ram Jethmalani, Mr. Satya Pal Jain, Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Pravin H. Parekh, Mr. Sr. Advocates, Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, Mrs. Lata Krishnamurthi, Miss P.R. Mala, Mr. Subhashish R. Soren, Mr. Pranav Diesh, Mr. Karan Kalia, Mr. Ashish Dixit, Mr. V.M. Vishnu, Mr. Bharat Sood, Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Mr. Devandan Kamat, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Anoopam N. Prasad, Mr. Nizam Pasha, Mr. Anandh Kannan, Mr. Sameer Parekh, Mr. E.R. Kumar, Ms. Sonali Basu Parekh, Mr. Rajat Nair, Mr. Vishal Prasad, Mr. Utsav Trivedi, Mr. Abhishek Vinod Deshmukh (for M/s Parekh & Co.) and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Advocates, with them, for the appearing parties.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 141 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 87 - Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - Rule 13 - Order XXXIX – Election - Composite and homogenous scheme - Petitioner at time of filing nomination papers as candidate for Presidential elections Respondent Office of Chairman of Council of Indian Statistical Institute Calcutta referred to as Institute which according to him was an office of profit - Appears that at time of scrutiny of nomination papers on July an objection to that effect had been raised before Returning Officer by Petitioners authorized representative who urged that nomination papers of Respondent were liable to be rejected - Response to submission representative of Respondent sought two days time to file reply to objections raised by Petitioner – Held, Explanations to both Articles and contain provisions by virtue of which certain offices are deemed not to be offices of profit - Similarities as well as differences between two provisions of Constitution are too conspicuous to be ignored or over looked - In situation where Article specifically empowers Parliament to enact law to remove disqualification incurred for being Member of Parliament by virtue of holding of an office of profit and in absence of any such provision in Article will be impossible to read Article along with Article to comprehend composite constitutional scheme - Keeping in view that words in Constitution should be read in their ordinary and natural meaning so that construction which brings out true legislative intent is achieved Article has to be read independently of Articles and purport of two sets of Constitutional provisions have to be understood to be independent of each other. In fact such a view finds expression in an earlier opinion of this Court rendered in which is only being reiterated - Net result of above discussion is that Parliament Prevention of Disqualification Act as amended by Amendment has no application insofar as election to office of President is concerned – Order accordingly
JUDGMENT
Altamas Kabir, CJI
1. The Petitioner herein was a candidate in the Presidential elections held on 19th July, 2012, the results whereof were declared on 22nd July, 2012. The Petitioner and the Respondent were the only two duly nominated candidates. The Respondent received votes of the value of 7,13,763 and was declared elected to the Office of the President of India. On the other hand, the Petitioner received votes of the value of 3,15,987.
2. The Petitioner has challenged the election of the Respondent as President of India on the ground that he was not eligible to contest the Presidential election in view of the provisions of Article 58 of the Constitution of India, which is extracted hereinbelow :-
58. Qualifications for election as President.- (1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he -
(a) is a citizen of India,
(b) has completed the age of thirty-five years, and
(c) is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.
2) A person shall not be eligible for election as President if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.
Explanation.-For the purposes of this article, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice President of the Union or the Governor of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for any State.
3. According to the Petitioner, at the time of filing the nomination papers as a candidate for the Presidential elections, the Respondent held the Office of Chairman of the Council of Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, hereinafter referred to as the Institute, which, according to him, was an office of profit. It appears that at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers on 2nd July, 2012, an objection to that effect had been raised before the Returning Officer by the Petitioner's authorized representative, who urged that the nomination papers of the Respondent were liable to be rejected. In response to the said submission, the representative of the Respondent sought two days' time to file a reply to the objections raised by the Petitioner. Thereafter, on 3rd July, 2012, a written reply was submitted on behalf of the Respondent to the objections raised by the Petitioner before the Returning Officer, along with a copy of a resignation letter dated 20th June, 2012, whereby the Respondent claimed to have resigned from the Chairmanship of the Institute. A reply was also filed on behalf of the Respondent to the objections raised by Shri Charan Lal Sahu. The matter was, thereafter, considered by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers on 3rd July, 2012, when the Petitioner's representative even questioned the genuineness of the resignation letter submitted by the Respondent to the President of the Council of the Institute, Prof. M.G.K. Menon.
4. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the Returning Officer, by his order dated 3rd July, 2012, rejected the Petitioner's objections as well as the objections raised by Shri Charan Lal Sahu, and accepted the Respondent's nomination papers. Accordingly, on 3rd July, 2012, the Petitioner and the Respondent were declared to be the only two duly nominated candidates for the Presidential election.
5. Immediately after the rejection of the Petitioner's objection to the Respondent's candidature for the Presidential elections, on 9th July, 2012, a petition was submitted to the Election Commission of India, under Article 324 of the Constitution, praying for directions to the Returning Officer to re-scrutinize the nomination papers of the Respondent and to decide the matter afresh after hearing the Petitioner. The Election Commission rejected the said petition as not being maintainable before the Election Commission, since all disputes relating to Presidential elections could be inqui
