- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
P. Subramaniam v. S. Pachamuthu And Others.
Factual and Procedural Background
This petition challenges an order of the Election Tribunal that disqualified a person who had been a voter in the panchayat electoral roll and who had been elected as President of the Panchayat, on the ground that he had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of nomination. The lower Court found that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 on the date of nomination. The present civil revision petition was filed seeking to set aside that order of the Election Tribunal. The question for decision is whether, given the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll and the statutory scheme governing revision of rolls and disqualification, the Election Tribunal could disqualify him on the ground of not having attained age 21 at nomination.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a person whose name appears in the panchayat electoral roll and who is elected as President can be disqualified by an Election Court on the ground that he had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of nomination.
- Whether the inclusion of the petitioner’s name in the assembly roll (and therefore in the panchayat roll) contrary to the age requirement of Article 326 of the Constitution renders the entry void for the purpose of disqualification.
- Whether, under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act (particularly Section 20 and Section 20(5)), the finality of the electoral roll as of the last date for filing nominations prevents the Election Tribunal from questioning the validity of a person's inclusion in the roll after that date, except under specified statutory disqualification provisions (Sections 25 and 26).
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent's Arguments (as recorded)
- One of the basic requirements for inclusion in the assembly electoral roll under Article 326 is attainment of 21 years; hence a person who has not attained 21 suffers a constitutional disability and cannot be included in the panchayat roll derived from the assembly roll.
- Even if the authorised officer did not omit the name under Section 20(2) within the prescribed time, a want of the basic qualification (age) would mean that the person is not entitled to vote and may be disqualified.
- Relied on precedents (Viswanathan v. Rangaswami and Goverdhanareddi v. Election Tribunal) to support the contention that entries infringing the Constitution or entries of under-21 persons are null and void.
Petitioner's Arguments (as recorded)
- The scheme of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act does not contain a provision corresponding to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act that would permit an Election Tribunal to void an election on the basis of constitutional non-compliance in the manner relied upon by the respondent.
- Section 20(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act provides that every person whose name appears in the electoral roll shall, so long as it remains in force and subject to revision and the other provisions of the Act, be entitled to vote; and no other provision of the Act enables the Tribunal to disqualify a person on the ground of not having attained 21 once the roll has remained unamended past the statutory date.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Viswanathan v. Rangaswami | Where an electoral roll for a municipality infringed the Constitution, that part of the roll was void and non-existent. | The decision was cited by the respondent to support the submission that constitutional infirmity in the roll renders entries void. The Court explicitly stated it could not concur with this decision for the purposes of the present statutory scheme under the Panchayats Act. |
| Goverdhanareddi v. Election Tribunal (Full Bench, Andhra Pradesh) | Held that where a person had not completed age 21 but his name was registered in the electoral roll, the entry was null and void (in the panchayat context). | Repeated in support of the respondent's contention, but the Court stated it could not agree with this Full Bench decision in the present case, distinguishing the statutory machinery under Section 20 and Section 25 of the Panchayats Act. |
| B.M. Ramaswami v. B.M. Krishnamurthy | Under the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act the voters list was final for the election and the Munsif could set aside an election only for reasons enumerated in that Act (Section 13(3)). No provision allowed setting aside an election because an entry had been included illegally in the list. | The Court relied on this Supreme Court decision to support the proposition that where statute makes the roll final for an election, the Election Tribunal cannot set aside the election on grounds of illegal inclusion in the roll unless the statute so provides. |
| Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto | Entries in an electoral roll as they stood on the last date for making nominations should be considered final for the purpose of that election (under Representation of the People Act scheme). | The Court treated this authority as supporting the finality principle for electoral rolls and reliance on the Representation of the People Act jurisprudence to show that roll entries as of the last date are final for election purposes. |
| Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh | Under the Representation of the People Act entries in the electoral roll as on the last date for making nominations are final and every person entered is entitled to vote unless prohibited by the Act; electoral roll entries were not open to challenge before a civil court or a tribunal considering the validity of an election. | The Court cited this case to underline that under the RPA scheme the roll entries are final and not open to collateral attack in election disputes; it used this reasoning by analogy to the Panchayats Act where no equivalent tribunal power existed. |
| Wopansao v. N.L. Odyuo | Observations to a similar effect regarding finality of electoral rolls and the limited forum and manner in which roll entries may be questioned. | The Court referenced this case as consonant with the principle that entries in electoral rolls are challengeable only by the machinery provided and not before an Election Tribunal considering election validity (absent constitutional violation under statutory provisions). |
| Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali v. B.D. Jatti | The entries made in an electoral roll can only be challenged in accordance with the statutory machinery (Representation of the People Act); tribunals have powers under specified sections (e.g., Section 100(1)(d)(v) as referred) and elections could be void where there was non-compliance with the Constitution or the Act. | The Court relied on this decision for the principle that electoral roll entries are challengeable only under the statutory scheme and that tribunals can declare elections void for non-compliance with constitutional provisions when the statute permits (reference to Section 100-type provisions under the RPA). |
| Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh (A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 1 F.B.) | Related to disqualification of a person whose name was in the electoral roll on the ground that he had not attained the age of 21. | Referred to by the Court as one of the authorities dealing with the question of age disqualification; noted in context but the present Court emphasized that the Panchayats Act lacks a corresponding provision to the RPA's Section 100 enabling such a challenge by the Tribunal. |
| Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghunaj Singh | Under the Representation of the People Act, an election could be declared void where a candidate suffered a constitutional disqualification (e.g., not having attained age 21); such cases fall under provisions like Section 100(2)(c) (corresponding to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) in the present Act references). | The Court relied on this decision to acknowledge that under the RPA an election tribunal/high court could void an election on constitutional-disqualification grounds, but stressed that the Panchayats Act contains no equivalent provision enabling the same remedy in the present statutory framework. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court's analysis proceeds from the constitutional and statutory provisions and from precedent. It begins with Article 326 of the Constitution which requires that a voter be not less than twenty-one years of age and concludes that the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the assembly roll (and thus in the panchayat roll) was not in accordance with Article 326 if he had not attained 21 by the relevant date. The Court then examines the statutory machinery under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act:
- Section 20(1) provides that only persons qualified to be included in the relevant part of the assembly electoral roll are entitled to be included in the panchayat roll. Thus, on the face of it, the petitioner's inclusion was not in accordance with Section 20(1) if he was under 21.
- Section 20(2) authorises the authorised officer to prepare and publish the electoral roll and to omit names who are dead or disqualified; the proviso to Section 20(2) provides that no alteration to the electoral roll shall be published after the last date for filing nominations and before the notification of results. Thus, the statutory scheme sets a deadline for correction of the roll before nominations close.
- Section 20(5) states that every person whose name appears in the electoral roll for the panchayat shall, so long as the roll remains in force and subject to any revision and to other provisions of the Act, be entitled to vote. The Court interprets this to mean that if a name remains in the roll past the revision stage (i.e., past the date fixed by Section 20(2)'s proviso), the person is entitled to vote subject only to statutory disqualifications set out elsewhere in the Act.
- Sections 25 and 26 enumerate disqualifications and cessation of office; however, none of the disqualifications set out in those sections refers to the requirement that a person should have attained 21 years by the date of nomination. Therefore, the Election Tribunal could not strictly rely on Sections 25 or 26 to invalidate the election on the age ground.
The Court then considered the line of authorities under the Representation of the People Act and other statutes. It noted that the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that electoral roll entries as they stand on the last date for nominations are final for the purposes of that election and that tribunals generally cannot question the validity of voting by a person whose name is on the roll, except where the statute expressly permits challenge (for example, provisions equivalent to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the RPA which allow elections to be declared void for non-compliance with the Constitution or the Act). The Court found these authorities persuasive for the proposition of finality of rolls and the limited circumstances in which election validity may be challenged for constitutional non-compliance.
Applying this reasoning to the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, the Court concluded that because the Act does not contain a provision corresponding to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, and because Section 20(5) confers a statutory right to vote while the roll remains in force post-finalization, the Election Tribunal was not entitled to disqualify the petitioner on the ground of his not having attained 21 once the electoral roll had remained unaltered past the statutory date for revisions and the petitioner's name remained in the roll.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the Election Tribunal is set aside.
Implications:
- Direct effect: The Election Tribunal's order disqualifying the petitioner on the ground that he had not attained 21 years on the date of nomination was set aside by the revising court.
- Statutory limitation on tribunal review: Under the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act as interpreted in this opinion, once the electoral roll remains in force past the statutory revision period prescribed by Section 20(2), and absent a specific statutory provision analogous to Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, an Election Tribunal is not entitled to disqualify a person on the ground of age merely because his name should not have been included in the roll.
- Scope of precedent: The Court distinguished and declined to follow certain authorities (as applied by the respondent) that would treat entries infringing the Constitution as automatically void for election purposes, while relying on Supreme Court authorities establishing the finality of electoral roll entries and the limited statutory avenues for challenge. The opinion does not assert that it is creating a novel precedent beyond applying the statutory scheme and the cited decisions to the facts before it.
This summary is restricted to, and faithfully reflects, the content and reasoning contained in the provided opinion. No additional facts or inferences beyond the text have been introduced.
1. The question that arises in this petition is whether a person who had been a voter in the roll of panchayat and had been elected as the President of the Panchayat could be disqualified by the election Court on the ground that on the date of nomination he had not attained the age of 21. So far as the fact whether the petitioner has attained the age of 21 on the date of nomination, there is now no dispute for the finding of the lower Court that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 cannot be seriously disputed. Therefore the question arises whether on the finding that the petitioner had not attained the age of 21 years on the date of nomination and whether after this being elected as the President, he could be disqualified by the election court.
2. The preparation of the electoral roll for the panchayat is by incorporating the electoral roll for the assembly constituency, so far as. the village, is concerned.
3. Article 326 of the Constitution provides that "the elections to the House of the People and to the Legislative Assembly of every State shall be on the basis of adult suffrage; that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and who is not less than twenty one years of age on such date as may be fixed in that behalf by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature and is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, un-soundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice, shall be entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election." The one specific requirement under this Article is that the person should not be less than 21 years of age. Therefore, the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the assembly roll is not in accordance with the requirement of Article 326 of the Constitution of India. The pro-| visions that relate to the preparation and publication of electoral roll and qualification for inclusion therein is incorporated in Section 20 of the Panchayats Act. Section 20(1) as amended under Tamil Nadu Act (VI of 1968) is that every person who is qualified to be included in such part of the electoral roll for any assembly constituency as relates to the village or town or any portion of the said village or (town shall be entitled to be included in the electoral roll for the panchayat, and no other person shall be entitled to be included therein. Whatever the position might have been before the amendment, after the amendment the only persons that are entitled to be included in the electoral roll are those who are qualified to be included and the Section also provides that no other person shall be entitled to be included therein. This Section would therefore disentitle the person to be included in the roll of the panchayat unless he is qualified to be included in the assembly roll and therefore the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the electoral roll of the panchayat is not in accordance with Section 20(1) of the Act. Having thus found in favour of the respondent, the question arises as to how and when the electoral roll could be revised or modified. Section 20(2) enables the authorised officer to prepare and publish in such manner and at such times as the Government may direct, the electoral roll for the panchayat. The proviso to this Section states that no alteration to the electoral roll shall be published after the last date for filing of nominations and before the notification of the results of election. The explanation provides that "the power conferred by this Sub-section on the person so authorised shall include the power to omit in the manner and at the times aforesaid, from the electoral roll, for the panchayat published under this Sub-section the name of any person who is dead or who is disqualified to be included in such part of the electoral roll for any Assembly Constituency as relates to the village or town or any portion of the said village or town". Sub-section (2) of Section 20 therefore enables the authorised officer to prepare and publish in such manner the electoral roll and to modify and to omit names of persons who are not qualified to be included in the voters list. But the proviso states that no alteration to the electoral roll shall be published after the last date for filing of nomination and before the notification of the result of election. Thus, the proviso sets a deadline for correction of the electoral roll i.e., the correction can only be made before the last date for filing of the nomination. The point that is contended by the respondent is that even though the last date for correcting the electoral roll has expired the validity of the inclusion of a person's name in the electoral roll can be questioned on the ground that he is not qualified to be included in the electoral roll of the panchayat. Section 20(5) may also be referred to in this connection, which runs as follows:
Every person whose name appears in the electoral roll for the panchayat shall so long as it remains in force and subject to any revision thereof which might have taken place and subject also to the other provisions of this At, be entitled to vote at an election; and no person whose name does not appear in such roll shall vote at an election.
This Sub-section contemplates that a person whose name appears in the electoral roll of the panchayat shall so long as it remains in force be entitled to vote at an election subject to two conditions laid down in the Sub-section viz., (1) subject to the revision thereof which might have taken place; and (2) subject to the other provisions of the Act. The provision as to revision of the electoral roll is provided for under Section 20(2). So far as the other provisions are concerned, there is no indication that a person whose name has been wrongly included can be excluded from the electoral roll after the last date for filing of nomination by amendment of the electoral roll. In my view, therefore, where a person's name has been rightly or wrongly included in the electoral roll and has not been revised under Sub-section(2) of Section 20 till the last date of the filing of the nomination, he shall be entitled to vote at an election subject to the other provisions of the Act. It is not disputed by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there is no other specific provision in the Act which could disable the person whose name has been included in the panchayat electoral roll though erroneously from his right to vote.
4. This petition is filed for disqualifying the petitioner who has been elected as the President on the ground that he had not attained the age of 21 yesars on the date of nomination. Section 25 enumerates the disqualification of members and Section 26 provides that subject to the provisions of section 28 a member shall cease to hold office under any of the grounds mentioned in Sub-sections (a) to (j) of Section 26. This being an election petition questioning the validity of the election of the petitioner Section 25 is applicable; Section 26 also will be applicable because he has taken office. But none of the disqualifications mentioned 'refer to the requirement that the person should have attained the age of 21 years on the date of the nomination. So strictly the validity of the election cannot be questioned on any ground mentioned under Section 25 or 26 of the Act.
5. Mr. T.R. Mani, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that one of the basic requirements of a person being included in the electoral roll of the assembly under Article 326 of the Constitution is that he should have attained the age of 21 years on such date as may be notified and that no person who is not qualified to be included in the electoral roll of the assembly can be included in the electoral roll of the panchayat. Thus, want of qualification being basic even though the name had not been omitted by the authorised officer under Section 20(2) within the time prescribed he will not be entitled to vote. In support of his contention a decision of the Bench of this Court in Viswanathan v. Rangaswami is cited. The Court held where the electoral roll for the municipality (that case related to municipal roll) infringed the Constitution in any respect, in respect of that part it was void and was non-eat. The Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh in Goverdhanareddi v. Election Tribunal has held that when a person has not completed the age of 21 years and when his name is registered in the electoral roll he suffers a constitutional disability and therefore the very entry of his namin the electoral roll is null and void and is non-eat. This decision is given in. relation to the electoral roll in the panchayat. The two decisions cited are in support of the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. But, I regret,. I am not able to concur with the two1 decisions for in my view Sub-section (2) to Section 20 and Section 25 would not enable the election Court to go into the question when once the electoral roll had been finalised under Section 20(2) and when the petitioner's name continues to remain in the electoral roll without having been revised and without coming under disqualification under any other provisions of the Act as stated in Section 25 of the Act. Tie right to vote is one conferred under the statute and the question that a person's name has been wrongly included cannot be gone into after the stage mentioned in Section 20 (2) of the Act except in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 of the Act.
6. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that when once the name of a person is properly included in the electoral roll and he is allowed to vote, such voting cannot be questioned before the Election Tribunal. In B.M. Ramaswami v. B.M. Krishnamurthy which related to an election under the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, the Supreme Court held that the Mysore Act proceeded on the basis that the voters list was final for the purpose of election, that the Act conferred a special jurisdiction on the Munsif to set aside an election and that he could do so only for the reasons mentioned in Section 13(3) of that Act. The Supreme Court referred to Section 13(3)(a)(d)(1) of that Act which related to the improper acceptance of nomination and pointed out that there was no improper acceptance of the nomination of the person, for his name was in the list of the voters and he was qualified, to be elected as a member of the Panchayat. It was also observed that there was no provision in that Act which, enabled the High Court to s t aside an. election on the ground that, though the name of a candidate was in the list, it had been included therein illegally.
7. This decision has been referred to and followed by the Supreme Court in Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh and Wopansao v. N.L. Odyuo . Baidyanath Panjira v. Sita Ram Mahto relates to a case under the Representation of the People Act. The Supreme Court held that a fair reading of the various clauses in Section 27(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, would make it clear that the entries in an electoral roll of a constituency, as they stood on the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency should be considered as final for the purpose of that election.
8. In Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singk another case under the Representation of the People Act, the Supreme Court has lield that, in view of the provisions of Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act, every person who is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of a constituency as it stood on the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency is entitled to vote, unless it is shown that he is prohibited by any. of the provisions of the Act from exercising his vote. Their Lordships observe that the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, formed a complete code by themselves in the matter of preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls and that it was clear from the provisions that the entries found in the electoral roll were final and were not open to challenge either before a civil Court or betore a Tribunal which considered the validity of any election.
9. In Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali v. B.D. Jatti the Supreme Court held that the entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and the amplitude of its provisions showed that the entries made in an electoral roll of a constituency could only he challenged in accordance with the machinery provided by it and not in any other manner or before any other forum unless the question of violation of the provisions of the Constitution was involved. It will be noted that in this decision the Supreme Court refers to the powers of a Tribunal under Section 100(1)(d)(v) of the Representation of the People Act. The Supreme Court also approved of the decision of a Full Bench of the Punjab High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 1 F.B. which related to the disqualification of a person, whose name was found in the electoral roll, as he had not attained the age of 21.
10. To a similar effect are the observations of the Supreme Court in Wopansao v. N.L. Odyuo .
11. So far as disqualification due to age is concerned, Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuaj Singh deals with the question. That case was one under the Representation of the People Act, and the question was whether the Election Tribunal could go into the question whether a person, whose name was found in the electoral roll, could be disqualified on the ground that he had not attained the age of 21. The Supreme Court points out that the election should be held to be void on the ground of constitutional disqualification of the candidate and not on the ground that his nomination had been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. The Supreme Court expressed the view that case of this description would come under Sub-section (2)(c) of Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, corresponding to the present Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the Act and would amount to holding an election without complying with the provisions of the Constitution. The Sub-section provides that, if the High Court is of opinion that there was non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void. Thus, under the Representation of the People Act, the question whether a person is disqualified as not having attained the age of 21 could be gone into under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. This decision is referred to in Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali v. B.D. Jatti where the Supreme Court affirmed the view that the Election Tribunal could declare the election to be void by applying Sub-section 2(c) of Section 100 of the Act.
12. N.C. Raghavachari, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that he Supreme Court in Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali V. B.D. Jatti referred to and approved the decision in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh A.I.R. 1968 Punj. 1 (F.B.)which related to the question whether a person, whose name was found in the electoral roll, could be disqualified on the ground that he had not attained iheageof2i. This case can be decided on the basis that there is no provision in 1 he Panchayat Act, which corresponds lo Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act. On the. other hand, Section 20(5) of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act, 1958, provides that every person whose name appears in the elec-1 oral roll for the panchayat shall, so long as it remains in force and subject to any revision thereof which might have taken place and subject also to the other provisions of this Act, be entitled to vote at an election. As already stated, disqualification can only be subject to two conditions, namely, subject to any revision of the electoral roll which might have taken place and subject to the other provisions of that Act. The other provisions which enable the Tribunal to disqualify a person do not include the ground of a person not having attained the age of 21. In this view I am satisfied that the Tribunal is not entitled to go into the question as to whether a person, whose name has been included, should be disqualified on the ground that he has not attained the age of 21.
13. The civil revision petition is allowed and the order of the Election Tribunal is set aside.
Alert