SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(All) 304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
K. C. AGRAWAL, D. S. SINHA
UDAINARAIN SINHA - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 12684 Of 1987
Decided On : 07/16/1987

Advocates Appeared:
SARASWATI PRASAD, SUDHAKAR PANDEY, UDAI NARAIN SINHA

Challenges to the election of the President can only be made through an election petition before the Supreme Court.

Headnote:

Mandamus - Presidential Election - The court dismissed the petition seeking a Mandamus to exclude votes of the Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly of U. P. cast at the Presidential Election, as it found the petition to be misconceived and frivolous.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeking a Mandamus to exclude votes of the Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly of U. P. cast at the Presidential Election, alleging that the current government of U. P. is lawless and the Members of Parliament have no constitutional sanction to cast vote in the Presidential Election.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petition to be misconceived and frivolous, as it failed to establish any illegality in the elections of Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly of U. P. and was filed just before the counting of votes and declaration of results.

Issues: The issues raised in the petition were the alleged illegality of the elections of Members of Parliament and Members of the Legislative Assembly of U. P. and the claim that they do not have the right to cast vote at the Presidential Election.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the provisions of the Constitution, the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and previous judicial decisions to dismiss the petition, emphasizing that challenges to the election of the President can only be made through an election petition before the Supreme Court.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed summarily with cost fixed at Rs. 500/- for payment to the Senior Standing Counsel for Union of India, and three months' time was given to the petitioner.

K. C. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution has been filed for a Mandamus directing the Election Commissioner of India to exclude votes of the Members of Parliament elected from U. P. and also of the Members of the Legislative Assembly of that State cast at the Presidential Election which took place on the 13th July 1987. The grounds for claiming the relief mentioned above are these : (a) Current Government of U. P. is lawless fiat and has no right to exercise the right of franchise in Presidential Election, (b) Current Members of Parliament have no constitutional sanction to cast vote in Presidential Election. The grounds taken for the relief claimed are incoherent, unintelligible and confused.

( 2 ) THE petitioner urged that as the elections of Members of Parliament in the State of U. P. as well as of those who were elected for the U. P. State Assembly were illegal, they do not have a right to cast vote at the Presidential Election. The petitioner was unable to satisfy us about the grounds on which he alleged to be so. The Members from U. P. far the Parliament were elected by the General Election held in February, 1985 in the same manner as in other parts of India after dissolution of the Lok Sabha. Election of the Members of the Legislative Assembly were held in June, 1985.

( 3 ) NO illegality in either of the two elections could be brought to our notice. It is our regret that this petition was filed at 6. 30 P. M. at the residence of one of us on the 15-7-1987 when 16th July had already been fixed for counting of votes and declaration of results. The petitioner claimed it to be a public interest litigation. To us, it appears that it was a publication-interest litigation.

( 4 ) THE petition is misconceived and frivolous. Article 56 of the Constitution provides :-"the President shall hold office for a term of five years from the date on which he enters upon his office. " under Art. 62 of the Constitution, an election to fill the vacancy cased by the expiration of the term is required to be completed before its expiration. As the term of the present President is expiring on the 26th July, 1987, the elections took place on the 13th June, 1987, in all the 25 States. The Election Commissioner appointed the date under S. 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952 for the election. After notification, nominations were filed and elections took place in accordance with S. 10 of the Act aforesaid. 16th July, 1987 was fixed by the Returning Officer for counting of votes Section 11 of the, aforesaid Act lays down. :-"when the counting of the votes has been completed the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare the result of the election in the manner provided by this Act. " in pursuance of this provision, result has to be declared by the Returning Officer. These two Ss. 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Act are mandatory.

( 5 ) IN re Presidential Election, AIR 1974 SC 1682 Supreme Court held :-"the election to the Office of the President must be held before expiration of the term of the President notwithstanding the fact that at the time of such election. . . . . " Article 71 provides that if there is any dispute or doubt with regard to the election, the same shall be enquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be final. Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 lays down that an election petition can be filed challenging the election of the President.

( 6 ) THE Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 provides for the presentation of the Election petition by a candidate at the election. It is settled that an election of the President can be challenged only by means of an election petition before the Supreme Court raising doubt or dispute of its validity. A person filing the petition, as stated above, should be person entitled to apply for the same. If he is not entitled the petition may not be entertained.

( 7 ) IN Dr. N. B. Khare v. Election





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top