Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1959. May 20. The judgment of B. P. Sinha, Jafar Imam, P. B. Ganjendragadkar and K.N. Wanchoo, JJ. was delivered by P. B. Gajendragadkar, J. J. L. Kapur, J. delivered a separate judgment.

GAJENDRAGADKARJ.-This appeal by special leave, arises from an election petition filed by Mr. V. V. Giri (hereinafter called the appellant) in which the validity of the election of Mr. Dippala Suri Dora (hereinafter called respondent 1) was challenged. The Parliamentary Constituency of Parvatipuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh is a double- member constituency; one seat is reserved for the scheduled tribes and the other is general. In the General Election to the House of the people held in 1957 four candidates had been nominated from the said constituency. The appellant and Mr. B. Satyanarayana Dora (hereinafter called respondent

2) were adopted by the Congress Party, while respondent 1 and Mr. 'V. Krishnamoorthy Naidu (hereinafter called respondent 3) were the candidates of the Socialist Party. For this constituency polling took place between February 25 and March 19, 1957, and the counting of votes disclosed that the appellant and the three respondents had secured 1,24,039, 1,24,604, 1,26,792 and 1,18,968 votes respectively. The result of the election was declared on March 19, 1957. It was announced that respondent 2 had been, elected to fill the reserved seat and respondent 1 the general seat. On April 16, 1957, the appellant filed the present election petition No. 83 of 1957 challenging the validity of respondent 1's election. He alleged that respondent I had offered himself as a candidate for the reserved seat and as such he was not entitled to be elected for the general seat. In the alternative he urged that respondent 1 was not a member of the scheduled tribe' at the material time and so the declaration made by him in that behalf was false. According to the appellant respondent 1's nomination had, therefore, been L improperly accepted and it had materially affected the election. That is why the appellant claimed a twofold declaration. He wanted the tribunal to declare that the election of respondent I under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act) was void and that he had himself been duly elected to the House of the People from the Parvatipuram Parliamentary Constituency for the general and non-reserved seat. These allegations were denied by respondent 1.

Thus it is clear that election to the House of the People even from a double-member constituency where one seat is reserved for the members of the scheduled tribes in one, and though the Constitution shows just anxiety to afford necessary protection to the members of the scheduled tribes, it deliberately refused to adopt the system of separate electorates. The constituency is one and election is held to the said constituency from one joint electoral roll prepared on the basis of qualifications which are of general and uniform application. In regard to double-member constituencies like Parvatipuram the Constitution has not even adopted the course of providing for a special constituency confined to the members of the scheduled tribe. All that is done is to provide for the reservation of seats for the members of the said tribes or castes in the manner already indicated. Even for the reserved seat all voters in the constituency are entitled to vote. The reservation of a seat in a double-member constituency cannot, therefore, affect the main basic position that the constituency is one and for returning representatives to the House of the People it is the same joint electorate that goes to the poll. Let us now proceed to consider the position under the relevant provisions of the Act. It is necessary to begin with the definitions of parliamentary constituency and election. Section 2(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 43 of 1950, defines a " parliamentary constituency " as meaning a constituency provided by law for the purpose of elections to the House of the People; whereas s. 2(d) of the Act defines "election-" to mean an election to fill a seat or seats inter alia in House of Parliament. These definitions show that it is a parliamentary constituency that sends the representatives to fill the seats in the House of the People. Elections are held from such constituencies and candidates declared duly elected fill the seats in the House of Parliament to which they are elected. Section 4 prescribes qualification for membership of the House of the People. Section 4(b) provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the House of the People unless in the case of a seat reserved for the scheduled tribes he is a member of any of the scheduled tribes and is an elector for any parliamentary constituency. This section expressly provides what was clearly implicit in the relevant articles of the Constitution that before a person can claim to be elected to fill a seat reserved for the scheduled tribes he must be a member of the said tribes besides being an elector for the parliamentary constituency in question. Section 32 deals with the nomination of candidates for election and it provides that any person may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a seat if he is qualified to be chosen to fill a seat under the provisions of the Constitution and the Act. The next section to consider is s. 33. It deals with the presentation of nomination papers and prescribes the requirements for a valid nomination. Section 33(2) is relevant for our purpose. It provides that any constituency where any seat is reserved a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to which the tribe is a scheduled tribe of the State. Section 33(6) lays down that nothing in this section shall prevent any candidate from being nominated by more than one nomination paper for election in the same constituency. The effect of s. 33(2) is that unless a member of the scheduled tribe makes the required declaration he would not be entitled to claim election to the reserved seat. In other words, if a member of the scheduled tribe does not want to be considered -for election to the reserved seat be need not make the said declaration; and in that case be would be entitled to contest the election only for the general seat. But it does not follow that if a scheduled tribe candidate makes the said declaration he forfeits his right to contest for the general seat. It is necessary to point out at this stage that the prescribed nomination paper (Form 24) is common to all the candidates. In regard to the candidates contesting for the reserved seat, however, the form prescribes the declaration which they are required to make. In the matter of deposits required by s. 34 another concession is made in favour of the members of the scheduled castes or tribes; whereas 'in the case of an election from a parliamentary constituency a candidate is required to make a deposit of Rs. 500 the amount is fixed at Rs. 250 in the case of members of scheduled castes or tribes. It is significant that this concession is not confined to members of the scheduled tribe contesting the election only for the reserved seat. It is available to them even if they want to contest only for the general seat. Section 35 requires a notice of nominations and a time and place for their scrutiny to be published; and s. 38 requires a list of contesting candidates to be published, The two prescribed forms for the said notices are Forms 3A and 4 ;_they make no reference to the two respective seats and give the particulars about all the candidates in the respective columns. It is true that in col. (6) of Form 3A particulars of caste or tribe of candidates belonging to scheduled castes or tribes are required to be mentioned. That is consistent with the requirement of s. 33(2). It would thus be seen that the scheme of the relevant provisions of the Act, like the scheme of the relevant articles of the Constitution, is clear. The election to the House of the People from a double-member constituency is held as an election from the whole of the constituency as such. It is on that basis that the nomination papers are required to be filed. The notifications about the nominations are published and the list of the validly nominated candidates is announced on the same basis. The counting of votes is similarly made by reference to all the candidates. It is only when the result of the election is prepared for declaration that the votes of candidates who have made the prescribed declarations are first taken into account and the result of the election in respect of the reserved seat is first determined, and then the votes secured by the remaining candidates are taken into account and the result of the election for the other general seat is determined and declared.

In the present case the party which set up Mr. Dippala Suri Dora set him up as a candidate for the Scheduled Caste constituency which is clear from the application on behalf of the party setting him up. The final list of candidates for Parliament Ext.P3(c) also shows that Mr. Dippala Suri Dora was a candidate -for the reserved seat in Parvatipuram double-member constituency. - The nomination papers filed by him also show that he was being nominated for election from the Parvatipuram reserved parliamentary constituency. Thus as far as Mr. Dippala Suri Dora was concerned he had made it quite clear to the electorate that he was seeking their suffrage for filling a reserved seat in the constituency and in this view of the matter as far as he and the electors were concerned the contest was for the reserved seat and not the general seat and the people voted for him for filling the reserved seat and not the general seat.