Back
2003 Supreme(Pat) 258
PATNA HIGH COURT
Ravi S.Dhavan and R.N.Prasad JJ.
Ramayan Singh
Versus
Union Of India
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 2362 of 2003 ;
Decided On : MARCH 04, 2003
The Parliament has the authority to lay down the criteria for participating in elections, as authorized by the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Section 34 - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court held that the requirement of a deposit as enacted by the Parliament is legal and within the authority of the Parliament.
Fact of the Case:
The petition challenged the constitutionality of section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which requires a deposit for candidates seeking election to the Assembly or Council of Parliament.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Parliament has the authority to lay down the criteria for participating in elections, as authorized by the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issue was whether section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, requiring a deposit for candidates seeking election, is ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Parliament has been sufficiently endowed with powers to lay down the criteria for participating in elections, and therefore, the provision is not ultra vires.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the requirement for a deposit as enacted by the Parliament.
1. This petition filed by five persons Messrs. Ramayan Singh, Deveshwar Manjhi, Shankar Manjhi, Krishna Manjhi and Anil Kumar Srivastava, all from the District of Siwan, in effect, submitted that section 34 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in so far as it requires that a certain deposit shall be made before a candidate seeks ejection, Assembly or Council of Parliament, is ultra vires to the Constitution of India.
2. The contention of the learned counsel is that the requirement of a deposit as enacted by the Parliament is illegal and the Parliament has no authority to do so or that the Parliament has exceeded its limits in enacting the law.
3. The facts are that the Constitution of India has authorised the Parliament for the conduct of elections with provisions giving sufficient guidance under Part-XV "Elections" between Article 324 to Article 329. The Parliament has been sufficiently endowed with powers to lay down the criteria for participating in elections whether to the State Legislature or the Parliament.
4. Just for the askance, the court cannot declare the provision, as pleaded, as ultra vires.
5. Dismissed.
