Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"The entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and the amplitude of its provisions show that the entries made in an electoral roll of a constituency can only be challenged in accordance with the machinery provided by it and not in any other manner or before any other forum unless some question of violation of the provisions of the Constitution is involved."

43. In the same paragraph 7, the Court also pointed out that its earlier decision in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh [AIR 1954 SC 520], involved an allegation of non compliance with the provisions of Article 173 of the Constitution and that therefore, an Election Tribunal could declare an election to be void, if there was a violation of the constitutional provisions.

44. Under Article 173(a) of the Constitution, a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislature of a State, unless he is a citizen of India. Therefore, if an allegation of violation of the Constitutional provision is made in an election petition, it cannot be contended that the machinery provided under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, alone could rectify the entry contained in the electoral roll. Apart from making it clear at least in two portions of paragraph 7 of its judgment in Belagali that a violation of the provisions of the Constitution is an exception to the exclusion of jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal, the Supreme Court also said the following towards the end of paragraph 8: "It does not entitle the Court in an election petition to set aside any election on the ground of non compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1950 or of any Rules made thereunder with the exception of Section 16". Therefore, it is clear from the decision in Belagali that an allegation of violation of Article 173(a) read with Section 16 of the 1950 Act, can be gone into by the Election Tribunal.

46. But, in paragraphs 30 and 31 of its decision, the Constitution Bench drew a clear distinction between an allegation of non compliance with the provisions of Section 19 of the 1950 Act and an allegation of disqualification under Section 16 of the 1950 Act. As pointed out earlier, Section 16 of the 1950 Act prescribes the disqualifications for registration in an electoral roll. But, Section 19 merely prescribes the conditions for registration. While the prescription under Section 16 relates to citizenship, which is traceable to the constitutional provisions (Article 173), the prescription under Section 19 relates only to residency and not traceable to any constitutional provisions. Therefore, the ouster of jurisdiction of civil Courts under Section 30(a) of the 1950 Act, which is confined only to the adjudication of any question about the entitlement of a person to be registered in an electoral roll, can be linked only to Section 19 and not to Section 16. As a matter of fact, the language of section 30 leaves no ambiguity. The jurisdiction of the civil Courts stands ousted under section 30, only with respect to two things. They are (i) the adjudication of any question about the entitlement of a person to be registered in an electoral roll; and (ii) the challenge to the legality of any action of the Electoral Registration Officer for the revision of any such roll.

50. In Sushil Kumar v. Rakesh Kumar [2003 (8) SCC 673], relied upon by Mr.S.Jayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, the election of the returned candidate was challenged on the sole ground that he had not completed 25 years of age on the date of filing his nomination. There was thus an allegation of violation of Article 173(b) of the Constitution. The Patna High Court dismissed the election petition and an appeal came up before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that since the issue related to a disqualification prescribed by Article 173(b) of the Constitution, the Election Tribunal was bound to consider the question. In paragraph 79 of the judgment, the Supreme Court held that the endeavour of the Court should be to see that a disqualified person should not be allowed to hold the office. While ensuring that the election of the representative of the people is not set aside on flimsy grounds, the Court has a duty, as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the same paragraph, to see that the Constitutional mandate is fulfilled.