http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: CHARAN LAL SAHU

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NEELAM SANJEEVA REDDY

DATE OF JUDGMENT15/02/1978

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. BHAGWATI, P.N. KRISHNAIYER, V.R. SINGH, JASWANT TULZAPURKAR, V.D. DESAI, D.A.

CITATION:  1978 AIR  499            1978 SCR  (3)   1  1978 SCC  (2) 500  CITATOR INFO :  R          1984 SC 309  (15)  F          1987 SC2371  (10)

ACT: Constitution  of India 1950, Arts. 54, 55, 58 and  71--Scope of  Art.  58--Whether  the  Presidential   Vice-Presidential Elections  Act  (Act 31), 1952 made under Art. 71(1)  is  in conflict with Art. 58. Constitution of India 1950--Article 14 whether ss. 5B and 5C of  the  Presidential and Vice-Presidential  Elections  Act, 1952 violates Art. 14. Candidates  for  elections  and his  locus  standi  to  file election   petition   under  the  Presidential   and   Vice- Presidential Elections Act, 1952--Scope of s. 13(a) r/w  ss. 5B,  5C and s. 14A r/w Order XXXIX rules 2, 5 and 34 of  the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.

HEADNOTE: The  petitioner filed his nomination papers as  a  candidate for  the  Presidential elections-held on  19th  July,  1977, which  was not supported by the deposit prescribed under  s. 5C  and not subscribed by any voter as a proposer and  as  a seconder, as required by s. 5B of the Presidential and Vice- Presidential  Elections Act (Act 31), 1952 made  under  Art. 71(1)  of the Constitution of India.  The Returning  Officer rejected  his nomination papers for non-compliance with  the provisions of ss. 5B and 5C of the Act.  The respondent  was duly elected and the petitioner challenged the said election u/s. 14 of the Act. Dismissing the petition the Court. HELD  :  1. Article 58 only provides the  qualifications  or conditions  for  the  eligibility of a  candidate.   It  has nothing  to  do  with the nomination of  a  candidate  which requires ten proposers and ten seconders.  In the case of an election  to such a high office as that of the President  of India,  it  is quite reasonable to lay down  the  conditions that  a person who is allowed to contest the election  as  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

candidate must have at least ten proposers and ten seconders from amongst hundreds of electors who are legislators.   The subject-matter  of  ss.  5B  and 5C of Act  31  of  1952  is completely  covered by the provisions of Art. 71 (1) of  the Constitution. [6 E-F] 2.   Sections  5B  and  5C  of  the  Presidential  or  Vice- Presidential  Elections Act, 1952 are not in  conflict  with Art.  14 of the Constitution.  The conditions laid  down  in ss. 5B and 5C apply to all persons who want to be candidates at a Presidential election without any discrimination.  They prima  facie impose reasonable conditions to be observed  by any Person who wants seriously to contest at a  Presidential election.  Hence, these provisions would be valid apart from Art. 71(3) of the Constitution. [6 F-G] 3.   The  impugned  amendment of the  Constitution  in  1974 introducing  Art.  71(3)  only  refers to  a  law  by  which Parliament   may   regulate  matters  connected   with   the Presidential election- including those relating to  election dispute arising out of such an election.  It cannot be  said to take away the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide any  matter which may be pending before it.  All it does  is to  provide that the validity of any law falling under  Art. 71 (1) win not be called in question in any Court.  Inasmuch as  Supreme  Court  has been constituted  the  authority  of Tribunal  before which the election of the President can  be questioned  the effect of Art. 71(3) is only to give  effect to a well-known 2 general  principle  which is applied by this  Court  that  a court or tribunal functioning or exercising its jurisdiction under  an enactment will not question the validity  of  that very  enactment  which  is the source of  its  powers.   The Supreme Court functions as an election tribunal set up under a  law  made  by  Parliament  under  Art.  71  (1)  of   the Constitution.   Sections  5B  and  5C of  the  Act  and  the Constitution Amendment 1974, which introduced Art. 71(3) are valid.  There is also no invasion of any basic structure  of the Constitution. [7 A-F] Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Rai Narain [1976] 2 SCR 347  referred to. 4.   In  an  election  petition, the  petitioner  must  come within  the  four  corners of the procedure  or  manner  for Questioning  the Presidential election, in order to  have  a locus  standi to challenge the Presidential election  to  be able  to  maintain the petition.  If he neither is  nor  can claim  to  be  a candidate, he would be  lacking  the  right question the election.  The effect of the provisions of  ss. 14(1),  14(2) and 14(3) and 14A(1) of the Act,  r/w.   Order XXXIX rules 2 and 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966  is that the petition, in this case, is barred  because the  petitioner  has not got the required  locus  standi  to maintain it.[7G-H, 8 A] 5.   In the instant case, the petitioner is not a  candidate within the meaning of s. 13  (a)  of  the Act  31  of  1952, either  duly  nominated  or one who could  claim  to  be  so nominated,  and  as such his nomination  paper  was  rightly rejected by the Returning Officer acting under s. 5E of  the Act. [6 A] 6.  It  is obligatory upon the Court to  reject  a  petition outright  and  not to waste any more time upon a  plaint  or petition  if  the  provisions of law bar  or  shown  to  bar proceedings.   Indeed, it is not even necessary to  issue  a notice  to  any opposite party or parties in  such  a  case. But,  where  the  petition or plaint of  the  petitioner  is rejected  under  Order XXHI Rule 7 of Supreme  Court  Rules,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

1966,  the "Court shall record an order to that effect  with the reasons for the order." [3 G-H, 4 A] In  the  instant  case,  the  petition  is  barred  by   the provisions of ss. 14(1) and (3)    r/w.  ss. 5B and  5C,  s. 14A of the Act and Order XXXIX rules 2 and 5 of the  Supreme Court Rules 1966 framed under Part III mentioned in s. 14(3) of the    Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections  Act, 1952. [8 C] State  of  Rajasthan  v. Union of India [1978] 1  SCR  p.  1 followed : Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed  Election Petition  No.   1 of 1974 dated  14-10-74  reiterated:  Nazi Ahmed v. Emperor AIR 1936 P.C. 256(2) referred to.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Election Petition No. 1 of 1977. Charan Lal Sahu (in person) P.   Ram  Reddy, O.C. Mathur, J. B. Dadachanji,  C.S.R.  Rao and A.    V. V. Nair for the respondent. S.   V. Gupte, Attorney-General and R. N. Sachthey. for  the Attorney-General & Returning Officer. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG,  C.J.  This  is a petition under  section  14  of.  the Presidential  and  Vice-Presidential  Elections  Act,   1952 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Act),  challenging  the election  of, Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as a  President  of India at the Presidential election held on 19th July,  1977. Section  14 and the relevant part of section 14A of the  Act read as follows 3               "14.  (1)  No  election  shall  be  called  in               question  except  by  presenting  an  election               petition  to the authority specified  in  sub-               section (2).               (2)   The authority having jurisdiction to try               an  election  petition shall  be  the  Supreme               Court.               (3)   Every   election   petition   shall   be               presented to such authority in accordance with               the  provisions of this Part and of the  rules               made by the Supreme Court under article 145.               14A.  An election petition calling in question               an election may be presented on one or more of               the  grounds specified in sub-section  (1)  of               section  18  and section 19,  to  the  Supreme               Court by any candidate at such election, or-               (1)   in the case of Presidential election, by               twenty  or  more electors joined  together  as               petitioners."               Among the rules made by this Court, Part  VII,               Order   XXXIX  contains  rules   relating   to               election  petitions made under Part  III  men-               tioned in section 14(3) of the Act, Rule 2  of               Order XXXIX lays down :               "2.  An  application calling  in  question  an               election shall only be by a petition made  and               presented in accordance with the provisions of               this Order."               Rule 5 of order XXXIX provides               "5. The petition shall state the right of  the               petitioner under the Act to petition the Court               and  briefly set forth the facts  and  grounds               relied  on  by  him  to  sustain  the  reliefs               claimed by him."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

             Rule 34 of Order XXXIX says:               "34.  Subject to the provisions of this  order               or  any  special order or  directions  of  the               Court,  the procedure on an election  petition               shall  follow,  as  nearly  as  may  be,   the               procedure  in proceedings before the Court  in               the exercise of its original jurisdictions Thus  the  procedure contained in Part III of the  Rules  of this   Court,   including  Order  XXIII  relating   to   the institution of suits by plaints, applies to the  proceedings commenced  by  election  petitions after  reading  the  word "petition" for "plaint".  Among these rules is rule 6  which provides  that  this  Court  after,  the  plaint  has   been presented  to the Registrar and numbered, shall  reject  the plaint  "where it does not disclose a cause of  action",  or where "the suit appears from the statement in the plaint  to be  barred by any law".  It is obligatory upon the Court  to reject  it  outright and not to waste any more time  upon  a plaint or petition if the provisions of law bar or shewn  to bar proceedings.  Indeed, it is not even necessary to  issue a  notice to any opposite party or parties in such  a  case. But where the petition or plaint of the 4 petitioner  is rejected, Order XXIII, rule 7  requires  that "the  Court  hall record an order to that  effect  with  the reasons for the order." It  is  only after the issue and service  of  summons  under Order XXIV and the filing of a written statement under Order XXV  that  the question of framing issues need  arise  in  a case.   However,  as notice was issued and an  affidavit  in opposition  was filed by Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy  himself in   this   case  where  preliminary   objections   to   the maintainability of the election petition were taken, and the petitioner  asked for issue to be framed, this Court  framed issues  on  these,  preliminary objections.,  They  were  as follows :               (1)   Has  the  petitioner a locus  standi  to               maintain  his election petition, or, in  other               words,  is  he a duly nominated  candidate  in               accordance  with provisions of section 5B  and               5C  Of the Presidential and  Vice-Presidential               Elections, Act?               (2)   Is the petition maintainable ?               (3)   Is   it  open  to  the   petitioner   to               challenge the validity of section 5B and 5C of               the Act?               (4)   If so, are the two provisions  mentioned               in issue No. 3 valid? If,  however, the petitioner could not get beyond the  stage of  the  first  issue on his locus standi,  it  was  no  use considering  other issues.  In this case, however, the  four issues   or   questions  in  issue  framed  above   are   so interconnected that we propose to deal with them by means of a  single judgment and order stating our reasons for  coming to  the  conclusion  that this petition  is  barred  by  the provisions  of  law  so that it must  be  rejected  on  this ground.   We are also of opinion that it is neither open  to the  petitioner to challenge the validity of section 5B  and 5C  of the Act nor are these provisions in any way  invalid. The  petitioner went so far as to challenge the  validity.of the constitutional amendment introduced in 1974 by which the jurisdiction of any Court to question the validity of an Act made  under  Article 71(1) of the Constitution  was  barred. The relevant constitutional provisions and the provisions of the Act are set out below

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

             Article 54 lays down as follows :               "54.   Elections  of  President-The  President               shall   be  elected  by  the  members  of   an               electoral college consisting of-               (a)   The  elected members of both  Houses  of               Parliament : and               (b)   the  elected members of the  Legislative               Assemblies of the States."               The  manner of election of the  President,  in               accordance  with  the system  of  proportional               representation   by   means   of   a    single               transferable   vote  by  secret   ballot,   is               provided  for by Art. 55 of the  Constitution.               The first three clauses of Art. 71 lay down as               follows:-               5               "71.   Matters relating to or  connected  with               the election of a President or Vice-President-               (1)   Subject  to  the  provisions   of   this               Constitution,  Parliament may by law  regulate               any  matter relating to or connected  with-the               election  of  a President or  Vice  President,               including  the grounds on which such  election               may be questioned;               Provided  that  the election of  a  person  as               President  or  Vice-President  shall  not   be               called  in  question  on  the  ground  of  the               existence  of any vacancy for whatever  reason               among  the  members of the  electoral  college               electing him.               (2)   All  doubts and disputes arising out  of               or  in  connection  with  the  election  of  a               President or Vice-President shall be  inquired               into and decided by such authority or body and               in  such manner as may be provided for  by  or               under any law referred to in clause (1).               (3)   The  validity  of  any such  law  as  is               referred to in clause (1) and the decision  of               any authority or body under such law shall not               be called in question in any Court."               To  carry out the purposes of Art. 71  (1)  of               the  Constitution the Presidential  and  Vice-               Presidential Election Act 1952 was enacted  by               Parliament.  The grounds on which the election               can  be  questioned  as well as  the  mode  of               questioning  it  were laid down  by  the  Act.               Section  14A  of  the Act  provides  the  only               manner  in which the election of  a  President               can  be  called  in question  by  an  election               petition presented to the Supreme Court either               by  a  candidate  or by 20  or  more  electors               joined as petitioner.               Section 13 (a) of the Act says               "Candidate  ’means  a person who has  been  or               claims  to  have  been  duly  nominated  as  a               candidate at an election’ ".               The  petitioner admits in his plaint  that  he               was not nominated as provided by section 5B of               the Act which enacts that each candidate shall               "deliver to the Returning Officer at the place               specified in this behalf in the public  notice               issued  under  section 5  a  nomination  paper               completed   in   the   prescribed   form   and               subscribed  by the candidate as  assenting  to               the nomination, and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

             (a)   in  the case of  Presidential  election,               also by at least ten electors as proposers and               at least ten electors as seconders."               Again, section 5C provides that               "A  candidate shall not be deemed to  be  duly               nominated  for election unless he deposits  or               causes  to be deposited a sum of two  thousand               five hundred rupees."               Now,   the  petitioner  also  admits  in   his               petition that he had not deposited this sum of               money  as required by section 5C of  the  Act.               Thus, on the very, admissions in the  petition               or plaint, the petitioner was not               6               a  candidate either duly nominated or one  who               could  claim to be so nominated.   Hence,  his               nomination  paper was rightly rejected by  the               Returning:Officer  acting under section 5E  of               the Act.               Now,   the  petitioners  contention  is   that               Article  58 of the Constitution lays down  the               qualifications  for a candidate to be  elected               so  that a law made under Article 71(1)  could               not  be in conflict with what is  provided  by               Article 58, which reads as follows :               "(1) No person shall be eligible for  election               as :President unless he               (a)   is a citizen of India               (b)   has  completed  the age  of  thirty-five               years, and               (c)   is qualified for election as a member of               the House of the People.               (2)   A  person  shall  not  be  eligible  for               election as               President  if  he holds any office  of  profit               under  the Government. of India or  Government               of  any  State  or under any  local  or  other               authority subject to the control of any of the               said Governments.               Explanation-For the purposes of this  article,               a  person  shall  not be deemed  to  hold  any               office of profit by reason only that he is the               President  or Vice-President of the  Union  or               the  Governor  of any State or is  a  Minister               either for the Union or for any State." It  is  clear  to  us that  Article  58  only  provides  the qualifications  or  conditions  for  the  eligibility  of  a candidate.   It has nothing to do with the nomination  of  a candidate  which requires ten proposers and  ten  seconders. We  think  that in the case of an election to  such  a  high office  as  that  of the President of  India,  it  is  quite reasonable  to lay down the condition that a person  who  is allowed to contest the election as a candidate must have  at least ten proposers and ten seconders from amongst  hundreds of electors who ire legislators.  We think that the  subject matter  of sections 5B and 5C is completely covered  by  the provisions  of  Article 71(1) of the  Constitution  set  out above.   We  also  think  that there  is  no  force  in  the contention  that  sections  5B  and 5C of  the  Act  are  in conflict   with  Article  14  of  the   Constitution.    The conditions  laid  down in sections 5B and 5C  apply  to  all persons who want to be candidates at a Presidential election without   any  discrimination.   The  Prima   facie   impose reasonable conditions to be observed by any person who wants seriously  to  contest at a Presidential  election.   Hence,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

this provision would be valid even apart from Article  71(3) of the Constitution. When  Article 71(3) of the Constitution was pointed  out  to the  petitioner, he contended that it was introduced  by  an amendment in 1974 which was invalid.  When we questioned the petitioner  about the grounds of its alleged invalidity,  he maintained  that  it constituted an invasion  of  the  basic structure of the Constitution, and contended that this Court had invalidated a similar amendment of the 7 Constitution in the case of Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi  v. Raj   Narain(1).    We   think   the   provisions   of   the Constitutional amendment which was invalidated there  cannot be said to be similar to Article 71(3) of the  Constitution. In  Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi’s case (supra), this  Court had  struck down Article 329A(4) of the Constitution  mainly on  the ground that it violated the basic structure  of  the Constitution  in as much as Parliament, in exercise  of  its powers of amendment of the Constitution, under Article  368, could not exercise a judicial power of decision of  election disputes  pending before this Court.  This Court had  struck down  a provision there which took away the jurisdiction  of this Court to decide disputes pending in appeals before  it, because  Parliament had,, after practically  deciding  these disputes, directed this Court to carry out whatever was laid down in the form of a Constitutional amendment.  This  Court refused to accept as valid what amounted to an  adjudication or  what  displaced  adjudication,  without  following   any judicial  or quasi-judicial procedure, by resorting to  what was   essentially  only  a  legislative  power   lodged   in Parliament.   The  basic  structure  of  the   Constitution, resting on the doctrine of a Separation of Powers, seemed to have been shaken rather rudely by Article 329A(4) which was, therefore,  declared  void.   In the  case  before  us,  the impugned amendment of the Constitution only refers to a  law by which Parliament may regulate matters connected with  the Presidential election, including those relating to  election disputes arising out of such an election.  It cannot be said to  take away the jurisdiction of this Court to  decide  any matter which may be pending before this Court.  All it  does is  to  provide that the validity of any law  falling  under Article 71 (1) will not be called in question in any  court. In as much as this Court has been constituted the  authority of  Tribunal before which the election of the President  can be  questioned the effect of Article 71 (3) is only to  give effect to a well known general principle which is applied by this   Court  that  a  Court  or  Tribunal  functioning   or exercising  its  jurisdiction under an  enactment  will  not question  the validity of that very enactment which  is  the source  of  its  powers.  This Court functions  here  as  an election  tribunal  set up under a law  made  by  Parliament under Article 71 (1) of the Constitution.  We are unable  to see  any  force in the attack upon the  validity  of  either section  5B  or section 5C of the Act or  of  the  amendment which introduced Article 71(3) of the Constitution. The  result  of  a  careful  consideration  by  us  of   the provisions  mentioned  above  is  that  we  think  that  the procedure   or  manner  for  questioning  the   Presidential election  having  been laid down, the petitioner  must  come within the four comers of that procedure in order to have  a locus  standi to challenge the Presidential election and  to be able to maintain this petition.  If he neither is nor can claim  to be a candidate, on assertions made by him  in  his petition  itself, he would be lacking the right to  question the  election of Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as President  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

India.  The effect of the provision (1)  [1976] 2 SCR 347. 8 of  section  14(1), 14(2) and 14(3) and 14A(1) of  the  Act, read  with Order XXXIX, rules 2 and 5 of the Rules  of  this Court, is that the petition before us is barred because  the petitioner has not got the required locus standi to maintain it. For  the  foregoing  reasons, we  decide  issues(1)  to  (4) against the petitioner. We  may mention here that in State of Rajasthan v. Union  of India(1)’,  this  Court had dismissed suits  filed  in  this Court   under  Article  ;131  of  the  Constitution   on   a preliminary  point without framing issues.  It  was  pointed out  there, by one of us (Beg, C.J.), that technically  more correct order to pass in those cases may have been to reject the  plaints  in limine under Order XXIII, ’Rule  6  of  the Rules of this Court. In the case before us, however, it is quite. clear that  the petition  is barred by the provisions of Section  14(1)  and (3) read with Section 5B and 5C and Sec. 14A of the Act  and Order XXXIX, Rules 2 and 5 of the Rules of this Court framed under Part III mentioned in section 14(3) of the Act. We are also in complete, and respectful agreement. with  the judgement  of  a Constitution Bench of this Court  given  on 14th  October,  1974,  on election Petition No.  1  of  1974 Charan  Lal  Sahu’  v. Fakhruddin Ali  Ahmed,  where,  on  a precisely  similar election petition by the very  petitioner now  before us against the former President Shri  Fakhruddin Ali  Ahmed,  this  Court ’had  dismissed  his  petition  and rejected  the very grounds now repeated before us.  In  that case  also  the  petitioner had  assailed  the  validity  of Section  5B and 5C of the Act and failed.  The petition  was dismissed in limine on a preliminary objection. It could be urged relying upon the well known principle laid down in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor (1936) (2) that, where a mode for  doing  something  is  laid  down,  any  other  mode  is necessarily  prohibited,  this  petition is  barred  by  the provisions  of law laying down the procedure for  filing  an election  petition and indicating who arc entitled to  main- tain  it.   On such a view the petition  could  be  rejected under Order XXIII Rule 6 of the Rules of the Court.  On  the other  band, it could be said, where he is  challenging  the very validity of the provisions which bar him from coming to the Court, that he has the locus standi to do that until his case   is   thrown  out  on  the   question   of   validity. Consequently,  we  think it safer in the case before  us  to hold that the petition is not maintainable on the view taken by us. Accordingly,  we dismiss this petition but make no order  as to costs. S.R. Petition dismissed. (1)  [1978] 1 SCR 1 (2)  AIR-P.S. 256 9