Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

29. Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 needs to be read with Article 329 (b), the former being a product of the later. The sweep of Section 100 spelling out the legislative intent would assist us in determining the span of Article 329 (b) though the fact remains that any legislative enactment cannot curtail or override the operation of a provision contained in the Constitution. Section 100 is the only provision within the scope of which an attack on the validity of the election must fall so as to be a ground available for avoiding an election and depriving the successful candidate of his victory at the polls. The Constitution Bench in Mohinder Singh Gills case (vide para 33) asks us to read Section 100 widely as covering the whole basket of grievances of the candidates. Sub-clause (iv) of clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 is a residual catch-all clause. Whenever there has been non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or of any rules or orders made thereunder if not specifically covered by any other preceding clause or sub-clause of the Section it shall be covered by sub-clause (iv). The result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate shall be set aside for any such non-compliance as abovesaid subject to such non-compliance also satisfying the requirement of the result of the election having been shown to have been materially affected insofar as a returned candidate is concerned. The conclusions which inevitably follow are: in the field of election jurisprudence, ignore such things as do not materially affect the result of the election unless the requirement of satisfying the test of material .

rt

30. To what extent Article 329 (b) has an overriding effect on Article 226 of the Constitution? The two Constitution Benches have held that Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for only one remedy; that remedy being by an election petition to be presented after the election is over and there is no remedy provided at any intermediate stage. The non- obstante clause with which Article 329 opens pushes out Article 226 where the dispute takes the form of calling in question an election (see para 25 of Mohinder Singh Gills case, supra). The provisions of the Constitution and the Act read together do not totally exclude the right of a citizen to approach the Court so as to have the wrong done remedied by invoking the judicial forum; nevertheless the lesson is that the election rights and remedies are statutory, ignore the trifles even if there are irregularities or illegalities, and knock the doors of the courts when the election proceedings in question are over. Two- pronged attack on anything done during the election proceedings is to be avoided--one during the course of the proceedings and the other at its termination, for such two pronged attack, if allowed, would unduly protract or obstruct the functioning of democracy.

31. The founding fathers of the Constitution have consciously employed use of the words no election shall be called in question in the body of Section 329 (b) and these words provide the determinative test for attracting applicability of Article 329 (b). If the petition presented to the Court calls in question an election the bar of Article 329 (b) is attracted. Else it is not."

High Court would in exercise of judicial restraint, postpone judicial review to a stage after the Election Tribunal adjudicates the election petition. Meaning thereby, that the Court unequivocally held that the High Court could not entertain a writ petition calling in of question elections once the elections have been notified.

31. rt In Association of Residents of Mhow (Rom) Vs. Delimitation Commission of India (2009) 5 SCC 404, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the scope of interference by the Courts in matters of delimitation and in view of clause A of Article 243-O held that the order under the Delimitation Act, 2002 is law made under Article 327 of the Constitution and cannot be called in question in any Court by virtue of Article 329 and therefore, the High Court rightly relied on this short ground, when it summarily dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 praying for writ of certiorari for quashing the notification issued in pursuance of Section 10 (1) of the Act. It was held that:-