9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of the candidate for election to the Graduates' Constituency. 2. Interpretation of Article 171 of the Constitution. 3. Legislative intent and statutory construction. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Qualification of the Candidate for Election to the Graduates' Constituency: The primary issue was whether the appellant, who had only passed the High School Leaving Examination and was not a graduate, was qualified to stand for election to the Graduates' Constituency. The High Court had set aside the appellant's election on the grounds that he did not possess the requisite educational qualifications. The respondent argued that Article 171 of the Constitution implied that only graduates could represent the Graduates' Constituency, emphasizing the need for "functional representation" by individuals with specific educational qualifications. 2. Interpretation of Article 171 of the Constitution: The Supreme Court examined the interpretation of Article 171, which outlines the composition of the Legislative Councils. Article 171(3)(b) specifies that one-twelfth of the members shall be elected by graduates who have held their degrees for at least three years. The Court highlighted that the term "electorate" used in Article 171 does not imply that the representatives must also be members of the electorate. The Court reiterated the principle of "plain meaning" or "literal" interpretation, emphasizing that the language of the statute should be the primary guide unless it leads to absurd results. 3. Legislative Intent and Statutory Construction: The Court delved into the legislative intent behind Article 171 and the Representation of People Act, 1951. It noted that the qualifications for electors and candidates are separately specified. Section 6 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, states that a candidate for the Legislative Council must be an elector for any Assembly constituency in the State, without requiring them to be graduates. The Court emphasized that legislative history and the deliberate omission of a requirement for candidates to be graduates indicated that no such qualification was intended. The Court cited various authorities on statutory construction, stressing that courts should not add or modify statutory provisions unless to avoid a patent absurdity. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant possessed all the qualifications laid down for a candidate from the Graduates' Constituency as per the Constitution and the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Court found that the High Court had erred in interpreting Article 171 to imply an additional qualification not expressly stated. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's election petition was dismissed. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout.
|
