9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Alleged discrimination in the constitution of election tribunals. 2. Appointment of multiple election tribunals within the same area. 3. Jurisdictional concerns regarding the appellate process. Detailed Analysis: 1. Alleged Discrimination in the Constitution of Election Tribunals: The petitioner argued that the appointment of different individuals to election tribunals at Allahabad, specifically retired High Court Judges and District Judges, constituted discrimination. The court examined this issue from two perspectives: whether the difference in qualifications of tribunal members constituted discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, and whether such discrimination, if present, was based on reasonable classification. The court noted that under Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an election tribunal is to consist of one member, typically a District Judge, unless the Election Commission deems it expedient to appoint a retired High Court Judge. The powers and functions of these tribunals are identical regardless of the individual presiding. The court emphasized that Article 14 guarantees that cases of similar nature must be tried by tribunals exercising the same powers and functions, but it does not require the individuals constituting these tribunals to be identical. The court further analyzed whether the classification of appointing District Judges for some petitions and retired High Court Judges for others was reasonable. It was found that the Election Commission likely appointed retired High Court Judges for petitions involving State and Central Ministers to avoid any potential bias, as District Judges are under the control of State Governments. This classification was deemed reasonable and not in violation of Article 14. 2. Appointment of Multiple Election Tribunals within the Same Area: The petitioner contended that all election petitions at Allahabad should have been entrusted to a single tribunal to avoid discrimination. The court rejected this argument, stating that Article 324 of the Constitution allows for the appointment of multiple election tribunals. The court highlighted that having multiple tribunals is necessary for considerations such as convenience of parties, expeditious disposal of petitions, and availability of qualified individuals. Therefore, the appointment of multiple tribunals within the same area does not constitute discrimination. 3. Jurisdictional Concerns Regarding the Appellate Process: The petitioner raised concerns that the Election Commission could direct an election petition to be tried in a different state, potentially conferring appellate jurisdiction to a High Court other than the one where the election occurred, which might contravene Article 225 of the Constitution. The court found this argument inapplicable to the present case, as the election in question took place within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. On the merits, the court noted that the appellate jurisdiction of a High Court is determined by the location of the tribunal, not the cause of action. Articles 225 to 227 of the Constitution and Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, support this principle. The Election Commission's power to direct where a tribunal should function does not alter the jurisdiction of the High Court. The court concluded that there is no constitutional or legal requirement for a tribunal to sit at the place where the cause of action arose, and the automatic vesting of jurisdiction in the High Court where the tribunal is situated is valid. Conclusion: The petition was dismissed as the court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner. The constitution of election tribunals, appointment of multiple tribunals within the same area, and jurisdictional concerns regarding the appellate process were all addressed in accordance with constitutional provisions and statutory law.
|
