9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Misjoinder of parties and causes of action. 2. Jurisdiction to decide the validity of entries in the electoral roll. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Misjoinder of parties and causes of action The appellant did not challenge the High Court's finding on this issue, and no arguments were addressed regarding its correctness. Therefore, this issue is not discussed further in the appeal. Issue 5: Jurisdiction to decide the validity of entries in the electoral roll The main contention was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the electoral roll entries for respondents 4 and 5, who were alleged not to be ordinarily resident in any parliamentary constituency in Gujarat. The High Court had found that it did have jurisdiction to review whether respondents 4 and 5 were ordinarily resident in the constituencies, as this was a condition precedent for the registering officer to enter their names in the electoral roll. Legal Provisions and Precedents: - Article 326 of the Constitution: Provides for elections based on adult suffrage. - Article 327: Empowers Parliament to make laws regarding elections, including the preparation of electoral rolls. - Section 3 of the Representation of People Act, 1951: Specifies the qualifications for membership in the Council of States. - Section 2(1)(e) of the 1951 Act: Defines an "elector" as a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll and who is not subject to disqualifications under Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. - Section 16 of the 1950 Act: Lists disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. - Section 19 of the 1950 Act: Specifies conditions for registration, including ordinary residence. - Section 30 of the 1950 Act: Bars civil courts from adjudicating questions regarding the entitlement to be registered in an electoral roll. - Section 100(1)(a) and (d) of the 1951 Act: Grounds for declaring an election void. Relevant Case Law: - B. M. Ramaswamy v. B. M. Krishnamurthy: Held that civil courts cannot question the legality of decisions by electoral registration officers. - Baidyanath Panjiar v. Sita Ram Mahto: Held that violation of Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act regarding electoral roll entries could be reviewed by courts. - Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh: Confirmed that courts could review the validity of votes cast by persons whose names were entered in violation of Section 23(3). - P. R. Belagali v. B. D. Jatti: Held that questions of ordinary residence for electoral roll entries could not be reviewed by courts, emphasizing that the electoral roll is final. - Wopansao v. N. L. Odyuo: Reiterated that lack of power in electoral registration could lead to improper reception or rejection of votes, thus voiding an election. Court's Analysis: The Court concluded that the electoral roll is final and not open to challenge regarding ordinary residence. The preparation and maintenance of electoral rolls are governed by a complete code under the 1950 Act, which excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts and election tribunals from reviewing such matters. The Court emphasized that Parliament has the authority to prescribe the mode of preparation of electoral rolls and to exclude judicial review except as provided by the Act. The Court distinguished between lack of power and erroneous exercise of power, noting that while some decisions (like Baidyanath Panjiar) allowed for judicial review in cases of lack of power, this principle could not be extended to questions of ordinary residence. The Court held that ordinary residence is not a jurisdictional fact that can be reviewed judicially. Conclusion: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's finding on issue No. 5, holding that the High Court did not have jurisdiction to review the question of ordinary residence for electoral roll entries. The appeal was partly allowed, and the findings of the High Court on other issues were upheld. No order as to costs was made.
|
