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

1999 Supreme(SC) 556

D.P.WADHWA, N.S.HEGDE
K. Venkatachalam – Appellant
Versus
A. Swamickan – Respondent


Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by its judgment dated April 23, 1986 in Writ Appeal declared that K. Venkatachalam, appellant before us, was not qualified to sit as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Tamil Nadu as he did not possess the basic qualifications prescribed in Clause (c) of Article 173 of the Constitution read with Section 5 of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). The Division Bench held that the appellant was not an elector for Lalgudi Assembly Constituency and, therefore, did not possess the necessary qualification to be chosen from that constituency. High Court passed the impugned judgment in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. A single Judge of the High Court had, however, earlier dismissed the writ petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that it was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of bar contained in Clause (b) of Article 329 of the Constitu­tion.

2. General elections to the Legislative Assembly in Tamil Nadu were held in December, 1984 and both Venkatachalam, the appellant and Swamickan, respondent wer



































































































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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top