N.B Khare Doctor Petitioner- v. Election Commission Of India ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Neutral Citations

1957 INSC 84

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

(Appeal under Order 5 Rule 3, Supreme Court Rules).,C. M.P No. 915 of 1957, decided on 14th day of October, 1957.

Disposition

dismissed

Attorney(S)

For the Petitioner: R.V.S Mani and Ganpat Rai, Advocates.

Judges

DAS
SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)
AIYYAR
T.L. VENKATARAMA
DAS
S.K.
KAPUR
J.L.
BOSE
VIVIAN

Acts

Section 14 of Act XXXI of 1952
Article 71(1)
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952)
Article 71(3)
Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India
s. 14 of the Act

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On 6 May 1957, an election was held for the office of the President of India, resulting in the declaration of Shri Rajendra Prasad as elected. Dr. N. B. Khare, styling himself as an “intending candidate,” filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Article 71(1) of the Constitution alleging constitutional violations and praying that the “grave doubts” surrounding the election be investigated and the entire election proceedings be quashed.

The Registrar of the Supreme Court returned the petition because it was not presented in conformity with the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (Act XXXI of 1952), and Order XXXVII-A of the Supreme Court Rules, 1950. Specifically, Dr. Khare was neither a candidate nor a group of ten electors as required by section 14 of the Act, and he had not complied with the court-fee and security-deposit requirements under Rules 3 and 12 of Order XXXVII-A. Dr. Khare appealed against the Registrar’s order, leading to the present decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a petition based on “doubts” about the validity of a Presidential election falls outside the scope of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and the Supreme Court Rules.
Whether the Act and the accompanying Rules are ultra vires because they allegedly derogate from the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 71(1) of the Constitution.
Whether a citizen possesses an independent constitutional right, apart from the statute, to approach the Supreme Court to challenge a Presidential election conducted in breach of constitutional provisions.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petition concerns only “doubts” about the election’s validity, not a “dispute,” and therefore is outside the purview of Act XXXI of 1952 and Order XXXVII-A.
Sections of the Act (notably section 18) and the Rules restrict the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction by limiting grounds for setting aside the election; hence they are void for violating Article 71(1).
Independently of statute, every citizen has a right to invoke Article 71(1) whenever a Presidential election violates constitutional provisions.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent’s legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court rejected the petitioner’s characterisation of his application as falling outside the statute, holding that once an election is held, any “doubt” about its validity is necessarily a ground for setting aside the election and therefore squarely attracts section 14 of Act XXXI of 1952 and Order XXXVII-A.

Addressing the constitutional challenge, the Court explained that Article 71(1) merely designates the Supreme Court as the forum for resolving disputes regarding Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections; it does not itself create the right to contest an election or prescribe the conditions for such contest. Under Article 71(3), Parliament is empowered to legislate on matters connected with these elections. Act XXXI of 1952 is such legislation, and it validly confers—and limits—the right to challenge an election. Consequently, the statutory conditions (candidate or ten electors, court-fee, and security deposit) are mandatory.

The Court emphasised that the right to stand for election and to seek its invalidation are statutory, not common-law or constitutional rights. Therefore, any challenge must “strictly” satisfy the Act’s provisions; there is no residual right under Article 71(1) for a citizen acting outside the statute.

Because Dr. Khare did not qualify under section 14, nor comply with the procedural requirements of Rules 3 and 12, the Registrar correctly refused to entertain the petition, and no ground existed to overturn that decision.

Holding and Implications

Appeal dismissed; petition dismissed.

The decision affirms the validity of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and Order XXXVII-A of the Supreme Court Rules. It clarifies that challenges to Presidential elections can be initiated only by those persons and on those grounds authorised by Parliament under Article 71(3). The ruling leaves no scope for citizens to bypass statutory requirements when questioning the validity of such elections, but it does not establish any new substantive precedent beyond reinforcing the primacy of statutory procedure in election disputes.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

N.B Khare Doctor Petitioner- v. Election Commission Of India .

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3

PETITIONER:

DR. N. B. KHARE

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

14/10/1957

BENCH:

AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA

BENCH:

AIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA

BOSE, VIVIAN

DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)

DAS, S.K.

KAPUR, J.L.

CITATION:

1958 AIR 139 1958 SCR 648

ACT:

Presidential Election-Validity of Election-Enquiry into dis- putes-Forum and Procedure-Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (XXXI Of 1952),ss. 14, 18- Supreme Court Rules, 1950, Or. XXXVII-A, Rr. 3,12-Constitution of India,Art. 71 (1) (3).

HEADNOTE:

The petitioner describing himself as an intending candidate for the Presidential Election filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Art. 71 (1) of the Constitution of India impugning the election of the President, but it was returned by the Registrar of the Court on the ground that it was not in conformity with the provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 152, and the Rules of the Supreme Court contained in Or. XXXVII-A. On appeal to the Court it was contended for the appellant that (1) the petition was founded upon doubts as to the validity of the election and, in consequence, was not covered either by the Act or the Rules of the Supreme Court, (2) the Act and the Rules in question were void on the ground that they derogate from the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Art. 71(1) and (3) in any case, the petitioner has a right as a citizen to approach this Court for relief whenever an election has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions.

Held that Art. 71(1) merely prescribes the forum in which doubts and disputes in connection with the election of the President and Vice-President would be enquired into, but the right to move the Supreme Court as well as the procedure therefor, are determined by the Act of Parliament as authorised by Art. 71 (3). Accordingly the Act and the Rules in question are valid, and the petitioner has no rights apart from those given by the statute to file an application for setting aside an election.

JUDGMENT:

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 915 of 1957.

Appeal under Order V, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules. R. V. S. Mani and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioner. 1957. October 14. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATARAMA AIYAR J.-This is a petition under Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India. On May 6, there was an election to the office of the President

649

and Shri Rajendra Prasad was declared elected. Thereafter Dr. N. B. Khare filed the present petition describing himself as an intending candidate and alleging that there had been violations of the provisions of the Constitution and that the election was in consequence not valid. The prayers in the petition are " that grave doubts that exist in connection with the Presidential election be enquired into, resolved and decided " and " the entire proceedings of the Presidential election be quashed as void ".

The Registrar of this Court returned the petition as not being in conformity with the provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), and as not satisfying the requirements of the Rules of this Court contained in 0. XXXVII-A Section 14 of Act XXXI of 1952 provides that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the Rules made by the Supreme Court under Art. 145 of the Constitution; and it further provides that it should be presented by any candidate at such election or by ten or more electors. The Rules framed by this Court with reference to this matter are contained in 0. XXXVII-A. Rule 3 prescribes that a court-fee of the value of Rs. 250 should be paid on the petition and r. 12 requires the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 in cash as security for the payment of costs that may become payable by him. The petitioner is not a person entitled to apply under s. 14 of the Act and his petition was also defective as it did not comply with the requirements of rr. 3 and 12. It was accordingly returned by the Registrar. Against that order, the present appeal has been brought.

It is firstly contended by Mr. Mani that the present petition is outside the purview of Act XXXI of 1952 and of

0. XXXVII-A of the Supreme Court Rules. It is argued that the Supreme Court is invested with jurisdiction to enquire into and decide all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of the President, that Act XXXI of 1952 and O. XXXVII-A apply only when there is a dispute

650

as to the election, but where the petition is founded upon doubts as to the validity of the election, it is not covered either by the Act or the Rules. We are unable to accept this contention. When once an election has been held, any doubt concerning its validity is material only as a ground for setting aside the election and that in fact is the prayer in the petition itself In substance the petition is one calling the election in question and it must satisfy the requirements of Act XXXI of 1952 and of the Rules in 0. XXXVII-A.

It is next contended that the Act and the Rules in question are void on the ground that they derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enquire into and decide all disputes and doubts arising out of or in connection with the election of the President or the Vice-President. It is argued that under s. 18, the election could be set aside

only on certain grounds and that further under clause (b) it could be done only if the result of the election is shown to have been materially affected, and that these are restrictions on the jurisdiction conferred by Art. 71(1) and are ultra vires. Article 71(1) merely prescribes the forum in which disputes in connection with the election of the President and Vice-President would be enquired into. It does not prescribe the conditions under which the petition for setting aside an election could be presented. Under Art. 71(3), it is Parliament that is authorised It( make law for regulating any matter relating to or connected with the election of the President or Vice President, and Act XXXI of 1952 has been passed by Parliament in accordance with this provision. The right to stand for election and the right to move for setting aside an election are not common law rights. They must be conferred by statute and can be enforced only in accordance with the conditions laid down therein. The contention that the Act and the Rules derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Art. 71(1) must accordingly be rejected. The petitioner has, therefore, no right to move for setting aside the election except in accordance with the provisions of Act XXXI of

1952.

651

And finally it is contended that the petitioner has a right as a citizen to approach this Court under Art. 71(1) whenever an election has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions. For the reasons already given, this contention must fail. The right of a person to file an application for setting aside an election must be determined by the statute which gives it, and that statute is Act XXXI of 1952 passed under Art. 71 (3). The petitioner must strictly bring himself within the four corners of that statute and has no rights apart from it. The order appealed against is clearly right and this appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed.

N.B Khare Doctor Petitioner- v. Election Commission Of India .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

N.B Khare Doctor Petitioner- v. Election Commission Of India .

Comments