1979 (5) TMI 157 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for candidature of an employee under the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC).
2. Interpretation of Regulation 25(4) of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960.
3. Applicability of Section 15(g) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948.
4. Validity of the election of the returned candidate.
5. Declaration of the next highest vote-getter as the duly elected candidate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for Candidature of an Employee under the LIC:
The appellant, a development officer under LIC, contested and won an election to the Corporation of the City of Nagpur. The respondent challenged this on the grounds of ineligibility under Regulation 25 of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960, which prohibits LIC employees from participating in elections without the Chairman's permission.

2. Interpretation of Regulation 25(4) of the LIC (Staff) Regulations, 1960:
Regulation 25(4) states, "No employee shall canvass or otherwise interfere or use his influence in connection with or take part in an election to any legislature or local authority," unless permitted by the Chairman. The core issue was whether this regulation imposed an electoral ineligibility or was merely a rule of conduct and discipline for employees.

3. Applicability of Section 15(g) of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948:
Section 15(g) states, "No person shall be eligible for election as a Councillor if he is under the provisions of any law for the time being in force, ineligible to be a member of any local authority." The Court had to determine whether Regulation 25(4) of the LIC Regulations constituted such a law rendering the appellant ineligible.

4. Validity of the Election of the Returned Candidate:
The Court examined whether the breach of Regulation 25(4) by the appellant, who did not seek the Chairman's permission, invalidated his election. The majority opinion held that Regulation 25(4) did not impose an electoral disqualification but was a disciplinary measure. Therefore, the appellant's election was valid.

5. Declaration of the Next Highest Vote-Getter as the Duly Elected Candidate:
The High Court initially declared the next highest vote-getter as the duly elected candidate, but this was contested. The Court concluded that there was no material evidence to show how voters would have cast their votes if they had known about the appellant's disqualification. Hence, the declaration of the next highest vote-getter was set aside.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Opinion:
The majority held that Regulation 25(4) is a disciplinary regulation and does not impose an electoral disqualification. Therefore, the appellant's election was valid. The appeal by the returned candidate was allowed, and the appeal by the election petitioner was dismissed.

Dissenting Opinion by V.D. Tulzapurkar, J.:
Justice Tulzapurkar dissented, arguing that Regulation 25(4) should be construed as imposing a disqualification for standing in elections. He believed both appeals should be dismissed, maintaining that the returned candidate was ineligible under Section 15(g) read with Regulation 25(4).

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed the appeal of the returned candidate and dismissed the appeal of the election petitioner. The returned candidate was restored to his position as the validly elected member of the Nagpur City Corporation. The judgment emphasized a purpose-oriented interpretation of Regulation 25(4), focusing on its disciplinary nature rather than treating it as an electoral disqualification.