2010 (12) TMI 1298 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory or directory.
2. Whether Section 151A is subject to Article 324 of the Constitution.
3. The effect of pending election petitions on the obligation to hold bye-elections under Section 151A.
4. The interpretation and harmonization of Sections 84, 98, 101, and 151A of the 1951 Act with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether Section 151A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is mandatory or directory:
The Supreme Court examined whether the provisions of Section 151A, which mandates holding bye-elections within six months of a vacancy, are mandatory or directory. The High Court had held that Section 151A is mandatory, emphasizing that the literal rule of interpretation should be applied. However, the Supreme Court concluded that Section 151A is directory, not mandatory, because it does not override the provisions of Sections 84, 98(c), and 101(b), which deal with election petitions and the declaration of election results. The Court noted that Section 151A should not render these other sections otiose, indicating that the legislature did not intend for Section 151A to be absolute.

2. Whether Section 151A is subject to Article 324 of the Constitution:
The Court addressed whether the Election Commission's powers under Article 324 of the Constitution, which grants it the authority to supervise and conduct elections, are limited by Section 151A. The High Court had ruled that Section 151A's non-obstante clause meant it was not subject to Article 324. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that Article 324's broad powers must be harmonized with Section 151A. The Court emphasized that the Election Commission retains its discretion to decide when to hold elections, particularly in cases where election petitions are pending.

3. The effect of pending election petitions on the obligation to hold bye-elections under Section 151A:
The Supreme Court examined the impact of pending election petitions on the requirement to hold bye-elections. The High Court had directed the Election Commission to hold bye-elections despite pending petitions, asserting that Section 151A's time limit was mandatory. The Supreme Court, however, found that pending election petitions must be resolved before holding bye-elections. It referenced the decision in D. Sanjeevayya's case, which held that vacancies are not available for bye-elections until election petitions are resolved. The Court reiterated that a vacancy must be "available for being filled up," which is not the case when an election petition is pending.

4. The interpretation and harmonization of Sections 84, 98, 101, and 151A of the 1951 Act with Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution:
The Court analyzed the apparent conflict between Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution, which provides for the resignation of a member and the resultant vacancy, and Sections 84, 98, 101, and 151A of the 1951 Act. The High Court had ruled that once a resignation is accepted and a vacancy is declared, Section 151A mandates a bye-election within six months. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the vacancy does not become "available for being filled up" until the resolution of any pending election petitions. The Court emphasized the need for harmonious construction, ensuring that Section 151A does not nullify the provisions allowing for election petitions and declarations of election results under Sections 84, 98, and 101.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that Section 151A is directory and not mandatory, and that the Election Commission is not compelled to hold bye-elections while election petitions are pending. The Court emphasized the need to harmonize Section 151A with other provisions of the 1951 Act and the Constitution, ensuring that vacancies are only filled when they are genuinely available for bye-elections. The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition for holding bye-elections in the contested constituencies was dismissed.