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:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

      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

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

      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.