9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Qualification of the appellant to be a member of the Legislative Assembly. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Application of Article 329(b) of the Constitution. 4. Penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution for sitting and voting when not qualified. Detailed Analysis: 1. Qualification of the Appellant to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly The Division Bench of the High Court declared that the appellant was not qualified to sit as a member of the Legislative Assembly in Tamil Nadu as he did not possess the basic qualifications prescribed in Clause (c) of Article 173 of the Constitution read with Section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court found that the appellant was not an elector for the Lalgudi Assembly Constituency and thus did not meet the necessary qualifications. The appellant had impersonated another person of the same name in the electoral roll, which was deemed fraudulent and criminal. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution A single Judge of the High Court initially dismissed the writ petition challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that it was not maintainable under Article 226 due to the bar contained in Clause (b) of Article 329 of the Constitution. However, the Division Bench later held that the High Court was not powerless in exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 to declare the election of the appellant illegal, given that he did not possess the basic constitutional and statutory qualifications. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that Article 226 is couched in the widest possible terms and can be exercised unless there is a clear bar to jurisdiction. 3. Application of Article 329(b) of the Constitution The appellant contended that the High Court could not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the provisions of Article 329(b), which bars interference by courts in electoral matters except by an election petition presented in accordance with the Act. The Supreme Court referred to various precedents, including N.P. Punnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh, and Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, to analyze the scope of Article 329(b). The Court concluded that while Article 329(b) bars interference during the election process, it does not preclude the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 after the election process is over, particularly when the elected person lacks basic qualifications. 4. Penalty under Article 193 of the Constitution for Sitting and Voting When Not Qualified Article 193 of the Constitution provides a penalty for sitting and voting when a person is not qualified to be a member of the Legislative Assembly. The Supreme Court noted that the appellant, knowing he was disqualified, continued to sit and vote as a member of the Assembly, making him liable to a penalty of five hundred rupees for each day he so acted. The Court directed the State Government to recover this penalty from the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the appellant was not qualified to be a member of the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly and was liable for penalties under Article 193 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 to address violations of constitutional provisions, even after the election process is complete.
|
