9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of a judge appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Authority of the Chief Justice to reallocate an election petition from one judge to another after the trial has commenced. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of a judge appointed under Article 224A: The primary question was whether a person sitting and acting as a judge of the High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution can exercise the jurisdiction to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court examined the language of Article 224A, which allows the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the previous consent of the President, to request any person who has held the office of a judge of that or any other High Court to sit and act as a judge of the High Court for that State. Such a person, while sitting and acting, has all the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a judge of the High Court but shall not otherwise be deemed to be a judge of that High Court. The court concluded that the words "while so sitting and acting" indicate that the person has the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a judge of the High Court during the period they are requested to sit and act. The phrase "but shall not otherwise be deemed to be a judge of that High Court" implies that for purposes other than jurisdiction, powers, and privileges, the person requested is not considered a judge of that Court. Therefore, for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 80A of the Act, a person appointed under Article 224A is considered a judge of the High Court. 2. Authority of the Chief Justice to reallocate an election petition: The second issue was whether the Chief Justice could reallocate an election petition from one judge to another after the trial had commenced. The court noted that after the initial allocation of the election petition to Vyas J., the Chief Justice directed Vyas J. to sit on the Gwalior Bench, and Vyas J. himself requested that the election petition be heard by someone at Indore to avoid his visits and ensure early disposal. The Chief Justice subsequently entrusted the election petition to Surajbhan J. The court found no legal infirmity in the Chief Justice's order reallocating the election petition. There is nothing in Section 80A of the Act or any other provision preventing the Chief Justice from relieving a judge from the task of trying an election petition upon the judge's request. The court referred to the case of Zikar v. The State, which held that the Chief Justice has no power to withdraw and transfer a case from a division bench without concurrence but did not indicate that the Chief Justice is powerless to withdraw a case from a judge upon the judge's request. Conclusion: The court concluded that a person requested to sit and act as a judge under Article 224A is a judge of the High Court for the purpose of Section 80A of the Act. Additionally, the Chief Justice has the authority to reallocate an election petition from one judge to another, especially upon the request of the judge initially assigned. However, in the interest of justice, the court directed that the election petition be tried by a permanent judge of the High Court assigned by the Chief Justice, setting aside the previous order dated August 20, 1973. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.
|
