9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal under Article 133(3) of the Constitution. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to issue writs to authorities outside its territorial limits. 3. Applicability of Article 192(1) of the Constitution to pre-existing disqualifications of elected members. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Appeal under Article 133(3): The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the appeal from the judgment of a single Judge was barred under Article 133(3) of the Constitution despite the certificate granted under Article 132. The argument was that Article 133(1)(c) overlaps Article 132(1) and thus the exercise of power under Article 132 should be deemed to arise under Article 133(1)(c), making the appeal from a single Judge's judgment barred by Article 133(3). The court overruled this objection, stating that Article 132 allows an appeal from "any judgment, decree or final order of a High Court" provided the requisite certificate is given, without restriction based on the number of Judges. The court emphasized that questions relating to the interpretation of the Constitution are placed in a special category, allowing a right of appeal of the widest amplitude in cases involving such questions. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226: The court examined whether the High Court of Madras had jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ to the Election Commission located in New Delhi. Article 226 confers wide powers on High Courts to issue directions, orders, or writs, but limits their exercise to "throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction," implying that the person or authority must be within those territories. The court held that the High Court of Madras had no jurisdiction to issue writs to the Election Commission located in Delhi, as the Commission was not within the territorial limits of the High Court's jurisdiction. The court rejected the argument that the High Court could issue writs if the cause of action arose within its jurisdiction, emphasizing that Article 226 requires the presence or location of the person or authority within the court's jurisdiction. 3. Applicability of Article 192(1) to Pre-existing Disqualifications: The court addressed whether Article 192(1) applies only to members who become subject to a disqualification after their election or also to those with pre-existing disqualifications. Article 192(1) states that if any question arises as to whether a member has become subject to any disqualification, it shall be referred to the Governor for decision. The court concluded that Articles 190(3) and 192(1) apply only to disqualifications incurred after election. The language "becomes subject" indicates a change in the member's status after election. The court noted that the provision for the seat to become vacant upon disqualification reinforces this interpretation, as it implies a change in status during the member's tenure. The court rejected the argument that Articles 190(3) and 192(1) should cover both pre-existing and supervening disqualifications, stating that if the legislature intended such an interpretation, it would have used the word "is" instead of "becomes." Conclusion: The court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court of Madras was not competent under Article 226 to issue a writ to the Election Commission located in New Delhi. The writ of prohibition issued by the learned Judge was quashed. The court agreed with the lower court's interpretation that Articles 190(3) and 192(1) apply only to disqualifications incurred after election, but this did not affect the outcome due to the jurisdictional issue. No order as to costs was made.
|
