Back
2000 Supreme(Del) 876
High Court Of Delhi
BALJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA - Respondent
Civil Writ 1599 of 1997
Decided On : 10/16/2000
K.K.Sud, PINKY ANAND
Headnote:a) It was adjudged that under Articles 84(a), 99, 326, 152, 173(a), 188 and 171(3)(a)(b) and (c) of the Constitution of India, role of courts is limited to the questions related to qualification or disqualification of candidates or elected representatives as laid down in the relevant statute – It was also stated that the Court could not add or infer educational qualification from certain articles – In the instant case, there was no requirement of literacy at the time when the elected candidate had taken an oath after filing the nomination under Rule 2(ii) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 b) The case dealt with the meaning of the word ‘Electorate’ under Article 171(3) of the Constitution of India – It was held that the meaning of the word is confined to the group of person who elect – The group of persons electing representatives from among themselves does not come under the ambit of the said word – Thus, the use of term ‘electorate’ under Article 171(3) of the Constitution does not impose a limit upon the filed of choice of members c) The case discussed the effect of hardship or inconvenience while interpreting the statutes - It was held that it could not alter the meaning of the language used by the legislature, if such meaning would be clear on the face of the statute or rules d) The case dealt with the meaning of the word ‘democracy’ – It means that the democracy is a concept, a political philosophy, an ideal practiced by resorting to governance by representatives of the people elected directly or indirectly
( 1 ) CONSIDERING the importance of questions raised by the petitioner the matter was placed before a Full Bench. Following questions were formulated on hearing learned counsel for parties :
1. Whether the literacy or alleged standard thereof is inherent in the requirement to "make and subscribe" the oath or affirmation postulated in Articles 84 and 99 of the Constitution or in the transaction of "business of Parliament", for a person to be qualified to be member, of either House of Parliament?" 2. If question No. 1 is answered in affirmative, whether there is any person disqualified for being a Member of either house of Parliament and liable to be so declared by the Court?" As a corollary, is there a requirement as indicated in Question No. 1 for member- ship of State Legislature in terms of Articles 173 and 188 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short, the Constitution ).
( 2 ) IN a nutshell, the petitioner s case is that Articles 84 and 173 of the Constitu- tion have to be read in a manner that persons who are unable to comprehend their requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation in terms of Article 84,99, 173 and 188 of the Constitution are ineligible to become Members of Parliament and Legislature of a State. To put it differently, according to the petitioner, the words "makes and subscribes" under Articles 84 (a) and 173 (a) not only imply that a person qualified to be a candidate to fill a seat in Parliament should be a citizen of India and not less then 25 years of age in the case of being elected to the House of People and not less than 30 years of age on being elected as member of Council of States but also should have sufficient knowledge of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, in order to make the requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation to the Constitution meaningful and purposeful. It is submitted by The petitioner that the roles of Legislature are very vital for proper governance of the country in formulating policy decisions and making of laws on varied subjects. A person who is not literate and does not have basic knowledge of the Constitution cannot be said to have fulfilled the requirement of making and subscribing to the Constitution. Thus, according to the petitioner, use of the expression" make and subscribe" under Articles 84 ( a) and 173 (a) also makes the legislative intent clear that adequate knowledge of law and spirit of the Constitution in inherent in the provisions. Since he is unaware of what is being legislated, the law making power delegated to him by the Constitution really results in mindless participation and more so when enactment of a statute comes up for consideration of the law making bodies. The Constitution makers were conscious of this position as their deliberations clearly reflect. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the propositions advanced by the petitioner are incapable of being worked out and the interpretation put to Articles 84 (a) and 173 (a) of the Constitution would result in absurd results.
( 3 ) ARTICLES 84 (a), 99,173 (a) and 188 read as follows:
84. Qualification for membership of Parliament A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in Parliament unless he - (a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person authorized in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule; 99. Every member of either House of Parliament shall, before taking his seat, make and subscribe before the president, or some person appointed in that behalf by him, an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the third schedule. 173. Qualification for membership of the State Legislature- A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he - (a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person authorized in that beh
