9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether a designated Election Judge of High Court can entertain and decide a plea relating to validity of any law. 2. Whether the plea that a returned candidate is not a citizen of India can be raised in an election petition before the High Court. 3. Whether a plea questioning the citizenship of the returned candidate is entertainable by the High Court hearing an election petition in spite of the returned candidate holding a certificate of citizenship granted u/s 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act. 4. Whether on the pleadings of the two election petitioners, a cause of action and a triable issue was raised which should have been put to trial calling upon the respondent to file her written statement. Summary: Issue 1: Validity of Law The Court examined whether a designated Election Judge could adjudicate on the validity of any law. Article 329(b) of the Constitution bars interference by courts in electoral matters except by an election petition. The Court held that the High Court, while hearing an election petition, retains its plenary powers and can adjudicate on the validity of any statutory provision if necessary for declaring an election void u/s 100 and for granting reliefs under Sections 98 and 99 of the RPA, 1951. The High Court does not lose its jurisdiction to examine the validity of any law during such proceedings. Issue 2 & 3: Citizenship Challenge The Court considered if the validity of a certificate of citizenship issued u/s 5(1)(c) of the Citizenship Act could be questioned in an election petition. It was held that the High Court can examine the correctness of the grant of citizenship, even if the certificate has not been cancelled. The Court referenced several precedents affirming that the High Court can adjudicate on whether a person is a citizen of India, despite being enrolled in the voters' list. The Court concluded that a certificate of citizenship carries a presumption of validity but is rebuttable. Issue 4: Cause of Action and Triable Issue The Court assessed whether the election petitions disclosed any cause of action or raised triable issues. Section 83(1)(a) of RPA, 1951 mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. The Court found that both petitions were vague, lacked material facts, and were verified as true to personal knowledge without proper basis. The allegations regarding Italian law were bald and unsupported by any authoritative source. The Court reiterated that material facts must be stated clearly to constitute a cause of action. Conclusion: The Court concluded that while a High Court can entertain and decide on the validity of laws and citizenship issues in an election petition, the petitions in question failed to meet the requirement of pleading material facts. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed for not disclosing a cause of action, although the Court disagreed with the High Court's reasoning. The appeals were dismissed without costs.
|
