Advocates:
0V. D. KHANNA

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 3

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 933 of 1994

PETITIONER:

RAGHBIR SINGH

RESPONDENT:

SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/08/1994

BENCH:

J.S VERMA & K.S. PARIPOORNAN

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

1994 SUPPL. (2) SCR 766

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VERMA, J. Pursuant to the notification to elect a Member for the Punjab

Vidhan Sabha to represent the Giddarbha Assembly Constituency, the

appellant Reghbir Singh filed his nomination on 1.2.1992 which was found

valid in the scrutiny on 2.2.1992, and he contested the election held on

19.2.1992 wherein he was declared only elected on 20.2.1992. There-after,

the respondent Surjit Singh, a voter from that constituency filed an

Election Petition for a declaration that the appellant’s election was void

on the ground that he was disqualified to be a candidate at the time of

election. The facts on which this ground is based are admitted.

The appellant was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326

read with Section 149, I.P.C. and sentenced to three years rigorous

imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100 in addition to his conviction and

sentence also under some other sections of the Indian Penal Code, by the

Trial Court on 15.11.1984. The appellant’s appeal against his conviction

and sentence was dismissed by the High Court on 10.4,1987 and the special

leave petition against the same was rejected by this Court on 30.11.1987.

The appellant was in jail to serve out his sentence from 8.9.1987 to

21.10.89 and again from 8.2.1988 to 14.11.1989. There is no dispute that in

accordance with the plain language of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "RPA

Act") the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate at the said election

held in February 1992 on this ground alone. The high Court has upheld this

contention of the respondent-election petitioner and allowed the election

petition declaring the appellant’s said election to be void. Hence this

appeal under Section 116A of the R.P. Act,

There being no controversy that according to the plain language of sub-

section (3) of Section 8 of the R.P. Act, the appellant was disqualified to

be a candidate at the said election held in February 1992, the appellant

has also filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 243 of 1994 along with this appeal

challenging the constitutional, it is obvious that the appeal also must

fail Thus, the only question for consideration by us is the constitutional

validity of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the R.P. Act.

The submission of Shri R.K. Jain. learned counsel for the appellant is that

the period of disqualification in sub-section (1) of Section 8 being only

six years from the date of such conviction, the longer period of

disqualification prescribed in sub-section (3) thereof extending to six

years since his release is discriminatory. The submission is that the

period of disqualification in sub-section (3) should also be read as six

years from the date of such conviction and not the longer period extending

to six years from the date of release. In short, the submission is that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 3

period of disqualification in sub-sections (!),. (2) and (3) of Section 8

should be identical and there is no rational basis for providing a

different period of disqualification in the different sub-sections of

Section 8. We are unable to accept this argument.

Section 8 prescribes disqualification on conviction for certain offences.

Sub-section (1) provides the disqualification for a period of six years

from the date of conviction for the offences specified in clauses (a) to

(i) thereof. In sub-section (1), the only reference is to conviction for

the specified offences irrespective of the sentence awarded on such

conviction. Sub- section (2) then prescribes that on conviction for the

offences specified therein and sentence to imprisonment for n