Back
Madras High Court
NATESAN
Krishnamurthi Aiyar - Appellant
Versus
Govindaswami Pillai - Respondent
Decided On : 09/03/1965
ELECTION - ELECTION COURT - JURISDICTION - COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATE - NO POWER - ELECTION COURT CANNOT ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATE - ELECTION COURT HAS NO INHERENT POWER TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - INHERENT POWER CANNOT BE EXERCISED IN A MANNER WHICH WILL BE CONTRARY TO OR DIFFERENT FROM THE PROCEDURE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THE CODE - RIGHT TO PERSONAL LIBERTY - ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION - NO STATUTORY PROVISION OR RULE EMPOWERING ELECTION COURT TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT INVOKE PROVISIONS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE OR EVIDENCE ACT TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT RELY ON OBSERVATIONS IN GEORGE SWAMIDOSS JOSEPH V. SUNDARI EDWARD (1954) 67 MAD LW 676 TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT RELY ON PASSAGES FROM WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT RELY ON DECISIONS OF SUPREME COURT IN JAGANNATH V. JASWANT SINGH, AIR 1954 SC 210 AND HARISCHANDRA V. TRILOKI SINGH, (S) AIR 1957 SC 444 TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT RELY ON DECISION OF JUDICIAL COMMITTEE IN SARDAR GURBAKSH, J. GURDIAL SINGH, AIR 1927 PC 230 TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST CANDIDATE FOR REFUSING TO UNDERGO COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION - ELECTION COURT CANNOT ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATE EVEN IF CANDIDATE IS SUFFERING FROM LEPROSY - LEPROSY IS A STATUTORY DISABILITY - ELECTION COURT CANNOT EXERCISE ITS JURISDICTION TO ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATE TO DETERMINE WHETHER CANDIDATE IS SUFFERING FROM LEPROSY - ELECTION COURT CANNOT ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATE TO ASCERTAIN THE FACT WHETHER CANDIDATE IS SUFFERING FROM LEPROSY - ELECTION COURT CANNOT ORDER COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CANDIDATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASCERTAINING THE FACT WHETHER CANDIDATE IS SUFFERING FROM LEPROSY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a successful candidate in an election for a seat in the Srinushnam Town Panchayat, South Arcot Dt., challenged the election of the respondent, who was the first respondent in the election petition, on the ground that he was suffering from leprosy and therefore disqualified under Section 25(2)(a) of the Panchayat Act. The respondent filed an application before the Election Court under Rule 6(2)(a) and (f) praying that he may be directed to appear in Court in person on a given date for a personal inspection and discovery both by the Court and by the Medical Officer referred to in his affidavit. The Election Court (District Munsif, Vridhachalam) took the view that "suffering from leprosy" was a statutory disability and by necessary implication the Court was clothed with such power to have it determined and it would be possible to so determine only by exercising the Court's jurisdiction in ordering the medical examination of the petitioner herein and test by the Government medical officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that there is no warrant in the procedure now obtaining in the Civil Courts under the Code for an order for compulsory medical examination of a party against the wish of the party. The court further held that the Election Court has no inherent power to order compulsory medical examination and that inherent power cannot be exercised in a manner which will be contrary to or different from the procedure expressly provided in the Code.
Issues: Whether the Election Court has the jurisdiction to order compulsory medical examination of a candidate?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Election Court has no jurisdiction to order compulsory medical examination of a candidate. The court relied on the following grounds: * There is no statutory provision or rule empowering the Election Court to order compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot invoke the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code or the Evidence Act to order compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot rely on observations in George Swamidoss Joseph v. Sundari Edward (1954) 67 Mad LW 676 to order compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot rely on passages from Wigmore on Evidence to order compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot rely on decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagannath v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1954 SC 210 and Harischandra v. Triloki Singh, (S) AIR 1957 SC 444 to order compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot rely on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Sardar Gurbakhsh, J. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1927 PC 230 to order compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot draw an adverse inference against a candidate for refusing to undergo compulsory medical examination. * The Election Court cannot order compulsory medical examination of a candidate even if the candidate is suffering from leprosy. * Leprosy is a statutory disability and the Election Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction to order compulsory medical examination of a candidate to determine whether the candidate is suffering from leprosy.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition and set aside the order of the Election Court directing the petitioner to undergo compulsory medical examination.
ORDER :- This application under Art. 227 of the Constitution has been preferred questioning the legality and regularity of an order passed by the Election Court under the Madras Panchayats Act 1958, pending an Election petition under the Act at the instance of the first respondent herein. By the impugned proceeding, the Election Court has directed the petitioner herein to appear before the Medical Officer, Government Leprosy Subsidiary centre. Vridhachalam, and submit himself for medical examination, for the purpose of ascertaining the fact whether he was suffering from leprosy. The petitioner herein is the first respondent in the Election petition above referred to and the successful candidate as against the first respondent herein in the election held for one seat for the Srinushnam Town Panchayat, South Arcot Dt. The election of the petitioner is challenged inter alia on the ground that he was suffering from leprosy mid therefore, disqualified under Section 25(2)(a) of the Panchayat Act. Under the rules framed pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 178(2) of the Act, the District Munsif having territorial jurisdiction over the place in which the office of the Panchayat in situated is the Election Court and Rule 3 specifically provides that the District Munsif exercising jurisdiction under the rules shall be deemed to exercise such jurisdiction as persona designate and not in his capacity as a munsif.
2. In this case the first respondent herein, (hereinafter referred to as the respondent), the other party being only a pro forma party, filed before the Election Court an application purporting to be under Rule 6(2)(a) and (f) praying that the respondent may be directed to appear in Court in person on a given date for a personal inspection and discovery both by the Court and by the Medical Officer referred to in his affidavit. In his affidavit, the respondent stated that the order is necessary for examination of the blood by a medical officer and after necessary discovery and inspection the medical officer may be examined on his result about the inspection. The present petitioner, the successful candidate and the first respondent in the Election petition, denied that he was suffering from leprosy, averred that it is a false and vexatious plea, and contended inter alia that there was no provision of law or procedure under which he could be compelled to submit himself for medical examination and test. He, however, produced a medical certificate to show that he was not disqualified. The Election Court (District Munsif, Vridhachalam) took the view that ''suffering from leprosy" was a statutory disability and by necessary implication the Court was clothed with such power to have it determined and it would be possible to so determine only by exercising the Court's jurisdiction in ordering the medical examination of the petitioner herein and test by the Government medical officer. Certain observations in George Swamidoss Joseph v. Sundari Edward (1954) 67 Mad LW 676, a case under the Indian Divorce Act, are relied upon for arriving at the conclusion that the Court could compel the petitioner to submit himself for medical examination and test.
3. Mr. K. Gopalachari learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the election Court, which in this case had not even all the powers of an ordinary Court, the District Munsif functioning as Election authority only as persona designate, had absolutely no jurisdiction whatsoever to order compulsory medical examination of the respondent in an election petition. Learned counsel contends that such power had not been given to the election Court either by statute or by rules and that no other law warrants such interference with the liberty of the person and the sanctity of the human body. Neither the Evidence Act nor the Civil Procedure Code provide for such compulsory medical examination and against a party respondent at the instance of a petitioner. I shall immediately r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
