1958 (11) TMI 23 - SC - Indian Laws

Scope of an enquiry in an election petition wherein election is called in question under s. 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) questioned on the ground that a nomination paper had been improperly rejected Held that - Allow the appeals, set aside the orders of the court below, and dismiss the writ petitions. The jurisdiction of the High Court to issue writs against orders of the Tribunal is undoubted; but then, it is well settled that where there is another remedy provided, the court may properly exercise its discretion in declining to interfere under Art. 226. It should be remembered that under the election law as it stood prior to the amendment in 1956, election petitions were dismissed on preliminary grounds and the correctness of the decision was challenged in applications under Art. 226 and in further appeals to this Court, with the result that by the time the matter was finally decided, the life of the legislatures for which the election was held would have itself very nearly come to an end thus rendering the proceedings infructuous.

Issues Involved:
1. Scope of enquiry in an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to consider grounds not raised before the Returning Officer.
3. Interpretation of "improperly rejected" in Section 100(1)(c) of the Act.
4. Admissibility of fresh evidence before the Tribunal.
5. Interference by High Courts in interlocutory orders under Article 226.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Scope of Enquiry in an Election Petition under Section 100(1)(c):
The judgment primarily addresses the scope of an enquiry in an election petition where the election is questioned on the ground of improper rejection of a nomination paper under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court examined whether the enquiry should be limited to the grounds raised before the Returning Officer or if it could encompass other grounds of disqualification.

2. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to Consider Grounds Not Raised Before the Returning Officer:
The Tribunal held that it could consider grounds of disqualification not raised before the Returning Officer. The High Court, however, restricted the Tribunal's jurisdiction to the objections considered by the Returning Officer. The Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court, stating that the Tribunal's enquiry should extend to all matters of qualification and disqualification under Section 36(2) of the Act, not just those raised before the Returning Officer.

3. Interpretation of "Improperly Rejected" in Section 100(1)(c):
The Supreme Court interpreted "improperly rejected" in Section 100(1)(c) to mean that the rejection of a nomination paper is improper if the candidate is qualified and not disqualified under Section 36(2). The court concluded that the enquiry before the Tribunal must embrace all matters of qualification and disqualification mentioned in Section 36(2), and not be limited to the specific ground of disqualification taken before the Returning Officer.

4. Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Before the Tribunal:
The court held that the Tribunal could admit fresh evidence on the matter in issue. The proceedings before the Tribunal are original and not in the nature of an appeal against the Returning Officer's decision. Therefore, it is open to the parties to put forward all grounds in support of or negation of the claim, subject to the Act's limitations. The court emphasized that the right to challenge the propriety of an order of rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper would become illusory if the Tribunal's decision were based only on the materials placed before the Returning Officer.

5. Interference by High Courts in Interlocutory Orders under Article 226:
The Supreme Court addressed the propriety of High Courts interfering with interlocutory orders passed by the Election Tribunal under Article 226. The court noted that the legislature provided a right of appeal against the Tribunal's decision to the High Court under Section 116-A to ensure expedited proceedings without interruption. Therefore, it would be a proper exercise of discretion under Article 226 to decline to interfere with interlocutory orders.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondent. The court concluded that the Tribunal's enquiry should not be limited to the grounds raised before the Returning Officer and that fresh evidence could be admitted. The judgment emphasized the importance of a comprehensive enquiry into the candidate's qualifications and disqualifications to ensure the proper exercise and enforcement of substantive rights under the Act.

← Previous Next →