# • CHARAN LACSAHU & OTHERS v. GIANI ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1984] 2 S.C.R. 6
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984
- **Case number:** Election Petition Nos. 2 and 3 of 1982
- **Bench:** V.V. Chandrachud, N. Bhagwati, Amarendra Nath "Sen, D.P. Madon, M.P. Thakkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/charan-lacsahu-others-v-giani-zail-singh-another-8726
- **Pages:** 24

## Headnote

.. '.
ConSti~ution of 1t1Jia-1950:. A;ticles 71(1) and 84(a) Sec. 18(1) of Presidential ...
_and Vice-Piesidential Elections Act 1952-Whethef ultra vires Article 71(1).
Presidential election-Candidate co~tesiing such election-Whether to tuke
· oafh prescribed by A~ticle 84( a).
• -"_Presidential and Vice-P...,esidential Elections Act, 1952Secliou13(a) read with
section 14A (!)-:-'Candidate' at Presi«ential election-Who is-One •duly no111inated' ·
or_ who Claims to have been duly •nominated'-Who has locus standi to challenge
'election.
, Section ~8(1) and 19-Election petition-Whether Could be filed .. on Kround
that elected c.andltjate not q '_suil'!ible personj for holding the office.
•
Section 18(2}--Un_due influence ilnd bribery at an election-Canvassing for a
candidate-Whether amouliis tO undue.influence.
Pleading & Practice : Election
u,t1a11.tbiguous-Necessity for ..
Pctifions-Pleadings-Precise specific and
. -
.
indian Penal- Code-Section 171C-Undue influence at electio11s.;_Can·vassingWhether amounts to undue influence.
-"
· Words & Phi·ases-Meaning of
"Connivii'nCe" whether means "conseni".
For the election to the office of the Pfesiden'\ of India, the Returning officer
aeccPted the nominatiOn papers of two candidates only viz. Oiani Zail Singh
and Shri H·R. Khanna. The:election was held On July 12,1982, an·ci Giani zail
Sirigh was dec13.rcd as the suCcessful candidate.
ifhe petitioners in Election Petition Nos. 2 and 3 of 1982 who had filed
their nomination paPers, contested the election On vari_ous grounds and alleged
that Respondont 1. Giani zail Singh exercised undue infiueilce over the yotcrs
through his confidants.
'
·
t
•
i
-
;
•
r·
,y
•
J
·_jl
CHARAN LAL V. ZAIL SINGH
7
A preiiminary objection to the maintainability of these'petitioiis was raised
on behalf of Respondent no. l and the AttorneY General. It was contended
that neither of the two petitioners was a 'candidate' within the meaning of section
J3(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 and since
under section ·14A,·an election petition can be filed only by a persJn.who was
a candidate -~ t the election, the petitioners had no standing to :file thC petitiolls .
•
.
This Court framed the foJlowing prr.Iimin,ary issue : "Does the petitioner
have no locus stamii to maintain the petition on the ground that he-Was not
a ·'candidate' withi~. the meaning of .sect~On l 3(a) read wiih . section 14A of .
Presidential and ViceRPresidential Elect.ions Act 1952?
Election. Petition No. 4 Qf 1982 was filed by 27 Meclbers of Parlia111ent
challen"ging the electiOn of Respondent No. 1, Giani Zail Singh as. the President
of India. Contending that the petitioners jointly sponscred the can°didature Of
Shii H.R. Khanna,· a former Judge and that Giani zail Siilgh was 'not a
·"suitable' perso.n" for holding the· high office of the President of India, and
that : (1) Shri M.H. Beg former Chief Jus~ice and Chairman of the Minorities
Commission, was engaged by Respondent J and by the Prime Minister "for
influencing the Votes of the Minority Communities"; (2) that a Cabinet
Minister of the Union -Government, a 'suppdrter ·and cfose associate'. of
Respondent 1, exercised undue influence civer the voters by n1isusing the a·overnR
ment machinery and that a statement was issued by him through the Press ·
Information Bureau asking the voters to vote for Respondent 1, (3) that the
Prime ,Minister participated. in the election can1p.aign of ReSpondent 1 and·
misused the Government machinery for that purpose, ( 4) that th~ Prime
Minister made a conunu~al appeal to the Akali Dal that its members should
vote for Respondent J., and (5) that Govern1nent helicopt_ers arid cars weie
misused for the purpose of the election of Respondent 1, and that thesr various
acts were committed.by" supporters of Respondent 1 with his connivance.-
It was contended on behalf of ResP,ondent 1 that even assuming that
the.aforesaid <i:IJegation wefe true they did not disclose any cause of a

## Text

_Characters 0–39,981 of 63,129. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39981 for what follows._

;
•
A
6
B
c
D
G
H
•
CHARAN LACSAHU & OTHERS
..
v.
,
GIAN! ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER.
December 13, !983
(V.V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J P,N. BHAGWATI, AMARENDRA
NATH "SEN, D.P. MADON AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.)
.. '.
ConSti~ution of 1t1Jia-1950:. A;ticles 71(1) and 84(a) Sec. 18(1) of Presidential ...
_and Vice-Piesidential Elections Act 1952-Whethef ultra vires Article 71(1).
Presidential election-Candidate co~tesiing such election-Whether to tuke
· oafh prescribed by A~ticle 84( a).
• -"_Presidential and Vice-P...,esidential Elections Act, 1952Secliou13(a) read with
section 14A (!)-:-'Candidate' at Presi«ential election-Who is-One •duly no111inated' ·
or_ who Claims to have been duly •nominated'-Who has locus standi to challenge
'election.
, Section ~8(1) and 19-Election petition-Whether Could be filed .. on Kround
that elected c.andltjate not q '_suil'!ible personj for holding the office.
•
Section 18(2}--Un_due influence ilnd bribery at an election-Canvassing for a
candidate-Whether amouliis tO undue.influence.
Pleading & Practice : Election
u,t1a11.tbiguous-Necessity for ..
Pctifions-Pleadings-Precise specific and
. -
.
indian Penal- Code-Section 171C-Undue influence at electio11s.;_Can·vassingWhether amounts to undue influence.
-"
· Words & Phi·ases-Meaning of
"Connivii'nCe" whether means "conseni".
For the election to the office of the Pfesiden'\ of India, the Returning officer
aeccPted the nominatiOn papers of two candidates only viz. Oiani Zail Singh
and Shri H·R. Khanna. The:election was held On July 12,1982, an·ci Giani zail
Sirigh was dec13.rcd as the suCcessful candidate.
ifhe petitioners in Election Petition Nos. 2 and 3 of 1982 who had filed
their nomination paPers, contested the election On vari_ous grounds and alleged
that Respondont 1. Giani zail Singh exercised undue infiueilce over the yotcrs
through his confidants.
'
·
t
•
i
-
;
•
r·
,y
•
J
·_jl
CHARAN LAL V. ZAIL SINGH
7
A preiiminary objection to the maintainability of these'petitioiis was raised
on behalf of Respondent no. l and the AttorneY General. It was contended
that neither of the two petitioners was a 'candidate' within the meaning of section
J3(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 and since
under section ·14A,·an election petition can be filed only by a persJn.who was
a candidate -~ t the election, the petitioners had no standing to :file thC petitiolls .
•
.
This Court framed the foJlowing prr.Iimin,ary issue : "Does the petitioner
have no locus stamii to maintain the petition on the ground that he-Was not
a ·'candidate' withi~. the meaning of .sect~On l 3(a) read wiih . section 14A of .
Presidential and ViceRPresidential Elect.ions Act 1952?
Election. Petition No. 4 Qf 1982 was filed by 27 Meclbers of Parlia111ent
challen"ging the electiOn of Respondent No. 1, Giani Zail Singh as. the President
of India. Contending that the petitioners jointly sponscred the can°didature Of
Shii H.R. Khanna,· a former Judge and that Giani zail Siilgh was 'not a
·"suitable' perso.n" for holding the· high office of the President of India, and
that : (1) Shri M.H. Beg former Chief Jus~ice and Chairman of the Minorities
Commission, was engaged by Respondent J and by the Prime Minister "for
influencing the Votes of the Minority Communities"; (2) that a Cabinet
Minister of the Union -Government, a 'suppdrter ·and cfose associate'. of
Respondent 1, exercised undue influence civer the voters by n1isusing the a·overnR
ment machinery and that a statement was issued by him through the Press ·
Information Bureau asking the voters to vote for Respondent 1, (3) that the
Prime ,Minister participated. in the election can1p.aign of ReSpondent 1 and·
misused the Government machinery for that purpose, ( 4) that th~ Prime
Minister made a conunu~al appeal to the Akali Dal that its members should
vote for Respondent J., and (5) that Govern1nent helicopt_ers arid cars weie
misused for the purpose of the election of Respondent 1, and that thesr various
acts were committed.by" supporters of Respondent 1 with his connivance.-
It was contended on behalf of ResP,ondent 1 that even assuming that
the.aforesaid <i:IJegation wefe true they did not disclose any cause of action·
for setting ~side vie i:lection of respondent 1.
This Court framed the following issue'j.: (I) "can the election ofa
candidate to the office of the Pres.ic.le~t o(Indi:i be cha!langed ·l'>n .the. ground
that he is not a sutitable person for holding that office'', (2) '.'whether the
"averments iri the EleCtion :Petition, assuming them to be true and c;:orrect-,
disclose any cause of action for setting aside the election of the returned
candidate (Respondent 1) on the grounds stated in section 18 (l)(a) of the
Act".
Dismissing the election Petitions,
I
HELD:
0/ection Petitions Nos.i & 3of1982.
•
1. The petitioners have no locus standi to file_theelection _petitions
sincethey were neither duly nominated rior can they clain1 to have been dulx
'
'
ominarg as candidates at the Presidential election. [16 HJ·
A
B
c
•
D .·
E
't'
F
H
•
A.
B
c
D
E
••
F
8
. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984) 2 S.C.R .
2. Three pre-conditions govern an election petitio.n-by which a PresiC:enM
· tiaf election is challanged. In the first place such a petition has to be filed
in the Supreme_Coui_t. SeCopdly, th~ petition mUst disclose a c)Jallange to the
election on one or·more grounds specified in su bMsection (.J) ·of secfion 18 or
section 19. ~Thirdly' an cleC'.tion petition can -be preseiited only by a person
who was a candidate at the presidential election or by twenty or rr:.ore e1ect0rs
joined together as.petitioners: [14 E~FJ
...
•.
3. ·The definition of the ~ord 'candidate.> in srction 13 (~) of the Act
consists of two parts. 'Canclidate' means a _per.son who has. either _been duly
nominated as a candidate·at a Presidential election or a person who claims to
have b~n duly nominate4.· Section SB (1) ·(a) of the Act provides th"at on or
beforo the date appc)inted for rnakfng nominations·, each can.di date shall· deliver
to the Returning Officer a nomination paper completed i.n the prescribed
form, subscribed by the cand.idate as assenting to the noni.il,1ation, and '~in the
case of Presidential election, also by, at least ten electors as proposei;s and at
least ten c_lectors as seconders". [14 0-H; tS AJ
In the instant case, neither ""of the t"wo petitioners was duly nominated .
The nomination paper~ filed by them ·y,rere not eubscribeU by ten eiectOrs . '"
a.!I proposers and ten electors as. seconders." It was precisely for this reason
that their nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Since the
nomination papers of the two petitioners were ·not subscribed as required
by Section SB (l) (a) of the Act, it follows that they \Vere not duh; Dominated
as "candidates·· at the electi6n. ·[15 A-BJ
·
4. The. occasion for a person to make a claim that he was duly nominated
can arise only if the nomination paper complies with the statutofy reqμirements
· which govern the filing of rt0Il,1ination ·papers arid not other.wise. The claim
that he was 'duly' nominated necessarily implies and inyolves the claim that
hi.s nomfnaiion paper col):forme~ to the requirements of the- statute. A contestant. whose .nomination paper is not su·b~cribed. by ·at least ten electors" as
proposers and ten electors as ·seconders, as required by S. 58 (1) (a) of the
Act, cannot therefore claim to have been duly nom'ina_ted, any more than ii
Cop.testant who had not, subscri~eci his assent to his own nomina,tion can. The
claim of a contestant that he was duly nominated must arise out of his com-·
pliance w.ith ·provision of the Act, and not out of the vii;>lation of the Act.. Other- ,
wise, a person: who had not filed any nomination paper at all but who had 9nly
informed the· Returning Officer oralfy that he desired to contest the election
could also contend that he "claims to have beeh duly nominated as· a candidate·~ [15 F-H; 16 A]
o
G
In the instant case, the nomination papers of the petitioners were rightly .
H
rejected on· the groundeof n,on~corp.plia·nce with ~he mandatOJ.'Y requirement" of
'· 58 (1) (a) of th~ Act. Their claim [that they have been duly nominated is
not' within the framework of the Act but.is dehors ihe Act. It Cannrit the"refore
be entertained. {16 q
Charan Lal Sahu v. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed, (A.I.R.) 1975 S.C. 12S8;
Ch;ran Lill Sahuv. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3 SC~ J, referred to.
•
..
• •
CHARAN LAL V. ZAIL SINGH
9
5. It is o(tli~ essence of the functioning of a democra"cy tha:t CJections. to
public office~ must -be open to the Scrutiny of an independent Tribunal.~ [17 Di
.
.
In the instant cases, it is• regrettable that eiection petitions challenging the·
~. election • .fo. the high office of the President of In_dia should be filed in a
• cavalier'Tashioil. The petitions- have an extempore appeti?ance and not even a
second look. ap:pears· to hiive been· given to the manner of drafting these petitions
or to the contents raised ther~in. The cOurt · refrained from passing any order
of Costs and, instead expressed disap°proval .of-~he. light hearted and indifferent
manner in which these petitions were filed. [17 B-C]
·
election Petition l:io. 4 of 1982.
I. The rights arising .out of electio.ns, inclllding the 'right to _contest or·
challenge an election. are not common ·iaw· rights. They are creatures of the~
..
A
statutes which create, confer or limit those rights. Therefcre, for deciding the
C
•
question whether an election call be set as_ide on. any alleged ground, the courts
have to consult the provisions-of law governing the particular election. They •
qave to fUnctiDn_ within the framework of that law and canno~ t.ravel beyond it.
Only those~ persOns on· whom the right of franchise is conferred by the statute
Ca~ vote at the ~teCtion. [19 F-GJ
• '
In ·the instant case, that right is conferred on every 'elector' as defined
in section 2( d) cf the Act. Only those person who are qualified t.o be elected
to ihe particular office ca.n contest the election. That' right is regulated by
section 5A Of the Act. The election can be calle.d into· question in the manner
·prescribed by the stature and not ·in any other manner.· Sectic·n 14( 1) of the·
Act provides that no t'.lection shall ·be called iri question except by presenting:
an el~tion petitio~ to the authority specified in sub-section (2) which: is the
Supreme.Court. The grounds for setting aside the election. to th.e Office of thl-_
Presid6nt or the Vice-President and the ground on Which a candidate other
than the returned candidate may be. dci:Iared to have .been f'fected are laid .
down in sections 1S and 19 of the Act. The election can neither be questioned
nor set aside on any othef grollnd. Therefore,. tbe challenge to the election
. of the r~turned candidate on the ground _pf his want of suitability :to .occupy
the offi~ of the President cannot be entrrtaine~ a~d mU~t be.r:ejected. [20 i;~E] •
K. Venkateswdra Rao v. Bekkam Na~simha Reddy [1969] l SCR. 679 at 684
and Charan Lal Sahu v. NandkisRore Bhatt, [J974] 1 SCR 294 at 296 referred to .
•
2. Suitability of a candidate is for the electorate to judge and not for the
cOurt tO decide. The cou·rt cannot Substitute-its own assessment of the suitability
-0f a candidate for the verdict returned by the electorate._ The verdiCt of the·
electorate is a verdict on the suitability· of the Candidate. 'Suitability' is a
&uid concept of uncertaih import. The .b•l.lot-box is, or has to be assumed to
be, its sole judge. [20 G-21 Al
3. It is not operi to a petitioner in an Election•Petition to plead in terms
ofSynonyms. In Election Petitions pleadingS have to be precise, specific 8.nd
unambiguous s.o as to pUt the respondent on notice. · The rule of pleadinas that
facts constituting the cause of action must be 1pecifically pleaded i1 a1 fund•-
1\lC\\.tll.\l\ it i~ eleme11.t~ry. [23 Al
D
E
F
• •
•
A
B
c
D
E
F
•
G
H
\
•
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984] 2 s.c:R .
. 4. :· _'.Co~Vance• 1naj. in OOrt.ain ~ituC'tions amou1~t 'to 'consent'. DictioR
nanes gi~e fconsf'nt' as One of the meanings ·of the word 'conriivancC·. BUt·it iS
not .true to say. that '.connivance' invt1:riably and necessarily- ffieans. or a1nounts
to 'consent', tha~ is to· say, irrespective Of t~ conteXt of the given situation.
The two cannot, therefore, be equated. Consent implies that parties are ad
idem._ Connivance does not beceSsarily imply that · t1arties ate_ of·. one mind.
They .may or may not be, depending'\tpon the. facts of the sit.uation. [23- B-Cj
.
.
.
\
.
5.
Precision~ i1~ pleadings particularl:Y. in Election Petitions is necessary.
The ht1.porta~Ce of a. specific pleading in election PetitiOn~ ·caJ1 be 3:PPrecia:ted
only if.it is rea.Jis~d that the absence of a specific. plea puts the. respondent at a·
· great disadvantage.' He m.us~ ~now what .case hC has to 'meet. He canpot be
kept guessing .whether tμe petitioner means what he says. The petitioner canno't
be allowed_ to keep his Options op~n until .the trial and adduce srich eviden~ as
seems· cbnvei1ient and comes handy. It is therefore inlperffiissible· to substitute
· tJie wOrd 'c0nsent' for the word 'C_<?nQi~ance' which occurs in the p_leadingS of the
petitioners. [23 F; D-E]
-
· ·.
..
'
'
*
'
(;. "In theabsenCeof ·a pleading that the offence of.undue influerice-was
Committed with the "consent" oftP,e returned candidate, one of the.main ingredients of section 18(1) (a) remains unsatisfied. [21 CJ
·
.
.
.
.
.
7, .WhentheAct wa.s passe<lin 1952,sectiqnl8(l)(a)providedthatthe
Supreme Court ·shall declare the election of the returned candidate void if
.
-
...
.
'
it·is of opinion that the offence of .bribery or undue influence has been com
mitted by i'he returned 'candidite or by any person "with the connivance:' of the
returned candidate. This sub-sectio~ waS afriended by sectiori 7 Of the Presiden
. .
.
'
.
. .
. .
tial and ViCe~Presid~ntial Election .(Amendinent) Act, 5 of 1974, :The word~
'connivance' ~was substituted by the word 'c·onsent' by the. Amendment Act.
· 1r 'connivance' carried 'the same meaning as 'consent' and if one was the same
as the other, tI{e Parliament would not h.ave -'taken the deliberate steP of.
deleting the word 'connivance' and substituting it by the word 'consent'. The
Ainendment shows that 'conii.ivance' and 'consent' connote diS:tinct. concepts
for the ~urpose of section 18 (1) (a). [23 G-24 BJ
8. ·The mei:.e ·.A.ct of canvassing for a candida~ cannot amtiunt to
un<!_ue influence within the rn,eap.ing of Section 171C of the Penal ~de. [26 C]
·,
Bab~rao pai~l ·v. Dr . . Zakir ·Hussain [1968] 2 SC~ 133; Shiv Ktrpal Singh
v. Shri V. V Giri [1971] 2 SCR 197, 320, 321; and Ram Dial v. Sant Lal [1959]
Suppl. 2SCR 748 at 758, 759 referred to.
9. The laws of eiectiOn are· self-contained codes and the rist!ts arjsin8 .
Out or election's a.re the off springs of th~se laws. The provisio"ns Of the
Representation o(ihe People Act 19~1 cannot be en!l;rafted upon the.Presidential
and Vic~-PresidentialiElections Act 1952, 'to enlarge the scope of an election
petition filed to challenge a Presidential· or Vice-Pre~idential election. -Such
an electioii can be set as'ide onlY on the grounds· specified in section 18 (1) of
~~ct.~~
.
.
,
•
•
* 10. The use of Government mac.hinery, abuse· of official position and
appeal to communal sentiments so long as such appeal does not amOunt to
.,
•
v •
"t
fl
--
"
("
•
•
•
...
'
-
. '!'-. -
-.
•
•
CHARAN LAL v. ZAiL SINGH
. ii
•
undue inftuence,~fe not considered by the Legislf!,ture to be circumstan_ces which
A
would invalidate a Presidential or ·a v·ice-Presiderltial·election. [27 M; 28 A]
, ·1 I. The· Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it
·lim·its :!he challenge ~o th~ Pre,sidential and Vice-Plesidentiai" Election tO the
g'.rou'nds set for.th in section 18 (1). While enacting a law in pursuance of·. the
Dower conferred by Artic\e 71
(_3),
Parliament is entitled to specify t~C
praticular kind _of doubts or disputes which shall be inquired into and d~cided
by the Supreme .Court. If every kind of fanCiful doubt or frivolous cloubt
will have to be inquired-into by this Cour:t, electioii petitions ,.will beCame
a fertile ground for fighting political battles. (28 F; 28 G·H]
.
· 12. A candidate who, .wan!s t<? co~test the el~ction. for the office.of thC
President canno.t take tpe oath in any of the forms prescribed by the Third Sche- ·
B
. dule to.the Constitu.tion. That Schedule· do€"s ·not prescribe. any form' of oath. ·c
. for a person who desires to :contest a~Presic.lenti~l election. [29 E] ·.
·
In the instant case, the avennents in the Election petition,_ assuming the1n)
t( l:ie·true and correct, do not disclose any .cause of·actiori for .setting asicte ihe_ .- -
election of the returned can<lidJl.te on· the ground stated in section 1.8 (1) (a) of .
tlie-i\ct. [28 Pl
¢>
·
. .
.
·
CiVJL APPELLATE JuRISDICTlON: Election Petition No. 2 of 1982
D
.
.
(Petition under Article 71 of ihe Constitution.)
AND
B!ection .Petition No.'"3 of-1982.
·(Petition under Article 71 of the Constitution.)
...
WITH;
•.
Election Petitio~ No. 4 of )982 .
(Petition under Article 71 of the Constitution.)
Petitioner in person in ~lection Petition No. 2/82.
Hari Shanker Jain and K.K. Gupta for the Petitioner i.n Election
Petition_ No.3/82. ·
• •
·
Shujaatu//ah Khan. and K.K. Gupta
Petition No.4/82 .
for the Petitioner i.n Election
\
•
: O.P Sharma, R.C. Gubrele, K.R Gupta and R.C. Bhatia_ for the .
Respondents in Ele6tion Petition No.2/82.
.
'
'
.
~
.,
P.R. Mridul, A'1r. Sen. O.P._ Sharma, R.c: Gubre/e, K,R Gupta··
and R.C. Bhatia 'for the respondent in Election Petition No.3/82.
.
..
A..K. Sen, 1.$. Basu, O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gubrel'- K.R Gupta and·
R..C.' Bhatia for the respondent in Eleftion Petition No. 4/82 .
. ...
E
F
G
•
...
'.
..
,.
12
SUPREME COURT REPORT~ .
[1984] 2 s.c:11..
.
' .
A·
:. K Para<aran, Att .General :and R.D ..• Agarwalti. in all the.
B.·
c
D,·1
. E
. F
G
H
Election Petitions.
P.N Duda, H.L Tikkum, D.S. Narula, Vijay Pandit and ll.C.
Agarwafa for. the Intervenors>
· ·
·. A.S. Pundir for the Jnter.venor..
•
. '
: D.B. Vo/zra fot the Interveriors. ·.
The.Judgment oft.he· Court was delivered by .
·,.
. C:,HANDRACHUD, C.J. : These three Election petitions are filed
under. section 14 of the Presidential and Vice·Presidential Electfons
.Act, j 952 .to' (:hallenge the election of Respondent L Oiani Zail Singh,·
as the President.of India. The election to tqe office of the President
of India was held ·Ori
J~lv 12, 1982. in all, 36 candidats had filed·
.
.
... "
~
'!:nomination papers· including Shri Charan Lal. Sahu who is tht; peti-
·. ti01i.er in Petition No. 2 of 1982 anci Shri Nerri Chandra Jain who is
. ~the pe\itioner in el~tion'Petition No. 3 of 1982. The Retu~ning officer
accepted the nomination papers of two candidates only : Gaini Zail
Singh and Sh~i H.R. Khanna~ a retired Judge ofthis Court. The result
of the election was published iii the Extraordinary Gazette of India on
July 15. 1982 declarinjl Giani Zail Singh as the successful candidate .
Ho t.ook oatli of offiee on July 25, 1982,
·
•
. .
.
'
.
We will first take ~P for conside~ation Election Petitions 2 and
/;., .
. .
' ,.._
3 of 1982 which. are filed respectively liy Shri Charan Lal Sahu and
~~
Shri Neni Chandra Jain both o(whi>m, incidentally, are Advocates .
.
Election Petitions Nos. 2 I< 3 of 1982.:
(
.. •.
Jn.Petition No. 2 of !982; the petitioner asks f6r the followini: · ·
~~=
.
·. "(!) That the Constitutional Eieventh Amendment Act 19•1 ·
be declared ultra-vires of the Constitutiort. ·
.
.
'
...
· (2) That the sections 5 (B) <;and 5 (c) 21 (3) of the Presidential ·
and Vice.Presidential Election· Act 1952 (Amended) wi.th
Electio'll. Rules 1974 be • declared, illegal, void and
u~conatitutional, under Article 58 of the Con•iitution. '.
.
.
•
•
"
·""'.
-
••
..
. (3)
.·
CHARAN LAL v. ZAIL SINGH ((;handrachud,•c.J.)
13
•
. That is the post. of Prime Minister and other Ministers
be deCiared. that, they· are in. office of profit hence they
have played.uitdue influence in the .election of the returned .
Can:lidate.
· ·
(4) That the·.etection of the (Returned Candidate) Respondent No. 1 be declared void and nDmination of respon-·
dent· No. 2 be declared illegally accepted thus the ·
· . petitioner be declared as elected as President under the
· Constitution, as stated in the petition u/s 18 ef the
- .
Act.
·
. (5) That the above sys_tem of eleetion of President is bad
· and unconstitutional the,refcire, it should be held directly ·
'in future by· all the electotals and Union of India be ·
directed to arnond Articles 54, 55 and 56 of the the
Constitution of India.
(6) That sections 4(1) (2), 5, '6, .?, & II of the Salaries and.
Allowances of Ministers Act. I~ 52 (Act No. 58 of 19 52}
along with sections 3; 4, 5, 6, 7, ll, and 9 of the Salaries
. and Aliowances of Members of Parliament. Act,. J 95.o!
be declared. void .and ·unconstitutional." (Advisedly, we
have .not touched up the prayer"Clauses.J
In Petition No. 3 of :1982, the. petitioner prays· that the erection
of Respondent 1 ·be .et aside on the various ground• mentionCd. ill
. the Retition. ·
Apart from making several vague, loooe and olfhand allegationl,
tht petitioners allege that Respondent I.exercised undue in:fluence over
• the v;iters through his confidants. We do not consider it necessary.
to reproduce those allegations·since we are of the opinion thac tl;iesc
petitions are not maintainable.
··
· '
· A preliminary objection is taken to the maintainability ·of
these petitions by Shri Asoke Sen who appears on behalf. of Respon-
. dent l and by th~ learned Attorney General. They contend that neither
of the two petitioners was .a 'candidate' within the meaning of section ·
13{1 ). of. tlie . .Act. and since, Ynder s.ectii::m l4A, Jin.election petition can·
. bo filed only· by a· person who was a candidate at the election,., th•
petitio~er; have no standing to file the petitiom ana ·thereforo,,,the
-·R_~t~~~M n;J.4$1 rl),e-,4i~Sflli¥s«i: a~r'~p~·:J;Q:~·j·tltil;ljq~~le;~ "-'i :.i ;ii.fi-,.< ·r1 t
·!~~·;i'f1 (;
...
•
. .
.:B.
.C
.E
l}i'
·G
·iH·
•
A
c.
D
E
'F
.H
14
i
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1984] 2 S.C.J,l.
·Since the petitioners contested their alleged· lack of locus to file .
the petitions, the following issue was framed by us a preliminary issue
in ~ach. of the ·two election peiitions :
"Does ·the petitioner have nci locus standi to maintain ·the
petition on .the ground that be was not a 'candidate' within
the meaning·of section J3(a) read with sectl0n·l4A of the
.Presidential arid Vice-Presidential Elections Act, '1952 ? "
Section 14 of the Act provides by sub-sec(iot\ (I) that no election
.shall be called in question except by presen\ing an election petition to·.
the authority spedfied in sub-section (2). According to sub-section (2), •
the authority having jur.isdicti6n to .try .an election. petition is the
Supreme Court. By section 14A(l) of the Act, an election P,etiticn may
be presented on the grounds specified in section 18(1) and 19 "by any
·.candidate at such election" or; "in the ease of Presidential elelcticn'.'
by twenty or more electors joined together as petitioners". Section
.
.
13(a) of the ;}ct provides that unless the context otherwise requires,
'candidate' means a ·person "who has been or claims to. have been
duly nominated as a candidate. at an election".
.
.
·These provisions show that there are three pre-conditions ·which
govern an election petition by which a Presidential election.is challenged.
·In the firs.t place, such a petition has to be filed in the Supreme
·court. Secondly, the petition must disclose a challenge to the election
on one or rriore of the grounds specified in sub-s·e£tfon (1) of section
. 18 or section 19. •Thirdly, artd that is important for our purpose, 1n
election petitionc:in be presented only by.a person who was a candidate
at .the Presidential election or by twenty· or more electors joined
·together as petitioners. Since the two election petiti0n which are at
.. present tmder'our consideration have not.been filed by twenty or more
electors, the question which arises for our conside;ation is whether the
. two petitiOners.in the respective .election petitiOns Were .'candidate' at
the election hCld to the office of the President of Tnd.ia.
The definition. of the word: 'candidate' in section 13(a) of the
··Act consists of two parts. 'Candid1te' means a person who has ·either
.. been duly nominat.ed as a candidate at a presidential election or a
person·who claims to have been cluly nominated. Neither of the two
'petiti~ners was duly nominated. This is incontrovertible. Section SB
·(-!)(a) of.the Act provides thqt on or before the date appointed for
·making nominations, each. candidate shall ·deliver to the Ruturning
Officer a nomination· paper completed in tqe·prescibed form, sub-
' .
1'°'
;-
'
t'··
• . .
cl!ARAN LAL v. :i;AIL SINGH (Chandrachud, C.J,).
' 15
scribed by tli.e candid~te .as essenting to the nomination, a~d "in the
case of Presidential election, also by at least ten electors as· proposers
and at least ten electors as seconders". It is common groun,d that the
nomination papers· filed by the two petitioners we.re. not subscribed
by ten okctors .as proposers and ten electors as seconqers .. In fact, it
is precisely for·'that reason that the nomination papers filed by the
two petitioners were rejected by .the Returning Officer. Since the nom,ination.papers of the two petitioners 'were not su&scribed as required by'
section 5B (1) (a) of the Act, it must follow· that they were not>duly
. '
nominated as candidate al the ·election.
· ·
•
The pet1troners, however, contend that eve·n if it is bdd that
A
B
they were not duly nominated as candidates, their petitions cannot be
C
dismissed on that ground since they •claim to have been duly nomi·
nated', It is true that in the matter of claim to candidacy, a person
who claims to have been duly nominated 1 s on par with a person
. who, in fact; was duly nominated. But. the claim to have been duly.
nominated cannot be made by a person who_se ·nomination paper does
not comply with the mandatory re.quirements of section ·ss· (I} (a) of
D
the Act. Th.at is to say. a person whose nomination paper, admittedly,
was not suoscrihed by the tequisite number of electors as proposers
and seconders cannot claim that he was duly nominated: Such a clahn .
can only be made by a peson who can show that his nomination paper
conformed to the provisi
0
ons of section 58 and yet it was rejected, that
is,.wrongly rejected 'by the Returning Officer. To illustrate, if .the
·.E
,Returning Officer rejects a nomination paper on the ground that one
of the ten subscribers WhO' had proposed the nomination "is not an
elector, the petitioner can claim to have been duly nominated if he
proves that the said proposer was in.fact an 'elector' ..
Thus; .the· occasion for a person to make ·a claim that be was
·F
duly nominated can ar.ise only if his nomination paper· complies with ·
the statutory req.uirments which govern the filling of nomination
papers and ~ot otherwise. Th.e claim . that he was 'duly' nominated
·necssarily implies and involves the claim that his nomination paper
conformed to the requirments of the statute. Therefore, a contestant
wh~se.nomination paper is not subscribed by at, least ten electors as
. ·G
proposers and ten electors as seconders, as required by. section 58(1) (a)
of the Act, cannot claim to have been duly nominated, any more than
a contestant who. had not subscribed his assent to his own nomination
can. The claim of a contestant that he was duly nominated mus·t arise
..
out of bis compliance with the provisions pf the Act. .It cannot arise
H
out of the vblatiop of the Act. Otherwise, a person who had not filed
A
..... ;.
.C
D
F
G
H
•
•
16
SUPRBMI! COURT RBPORTS
· li984] 2 s.c.R.
any nomination paper at all but who had on!/ informed 'the ReturnYng ·
Officet orally that he desired to. contest the.election could also contend
that he '.'claims to have been duly nominat~d .as a c<indidate". · '
·
.
.
. .
His not. the' case of the peti.tioner~· that the Returning Officer
had wrongly rejected their'· nomination papers even t!:iough they wer~
subscribed by ten or more electors as prbposers and ten or more electqrs
·'.as seconders. Not only were the nominaiion papers rightly rej.ected on
the~round of non:compliance with . the mandatory requirement of
sec.tion 58(1) (a) Qf fhe Act, but the very c~se of the petitioners is that.
their nomination pqpers could not have been rejected by tlw Returning.
Officer on the ground of non-compli.ance with the aforesaid provision;
Thus, their claim that they. have bee I} du!~· nominated is .not within.··
.the .. framework of the 'Act bui iS' de hors the Act. 'It· cannot be
.entertained. , ·
""
.
.
In Charan Lal Sahuv. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmea,(1) the peti;io~er
Claimed' to have been duly nominated as a candidatr though his nqll)i- .
nation paper was rightly rejected on the ground of non-compliance
with the provisions of sections 5B and ·5c oC:the Act. It was held
:by this Court that merely because a candidate· is qualified under
Artide 58 of the Constitution, it does not follow that he is exempt
from compliance with the· requirements of law which. the Parliamenf
.- h~s enacted under Article 71(3j for regu·l~ting the mode and. the
manner in· which nominations sh6uld be (iled. Since the petiti"ner
did not comply with the proviSions of the aforesaid two sections, it
was held that.he could not claim to have been.duly nominated and
was therefore not a "ca.ndidate". In the result, the election petition
wa•,dismissed by the Court on the ground thai the 'petitioner did
not have the iocus standi to maintain ii:
•
.-The challenge of the petitioners,.to the.provisiol) contained .in
section 5B .(I°) (a) of the Act on the ground of its alleged unreasona .. ·
l>leness has no substance .in it. The .. validity of that provision was
·upheld by tliis Court in .Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjecva Reddy,C2)
Besides, if the petitoners have· no locus to file the election petiti9ns,
they cannot be heard on any of their contentions in these petitions. ..
.
Accordiiigiy, .our finding on the preliminary issue is against .the
>f .
. petitione:s ... We. hold. that they have 'no focus· standi to file the "election
. (I) AIR 1975 ·s.c 128$
. ,,,i :t(a)·t~.9.?~J.~I~~ .,11;0 r
,, '
..
'
' - '. . I. ! .
.. ti
..
-+' ..
-
.CHARAN LAL v. ZAIL SINGH (Chandrachud, C.J.)
17
petit!Ons since th~y were neither duly nominated no~ co.n they claim
to have been duly nominated as candidates at the presidential.,ele9tion.
In view of t~is finding, Election Petiiion Nos, 2 and 3 of 1982 are
dismissed .
It is rJ)grettable that election petitions challenging th•. electioa.
te the high Office of the President of India should be filed in a fashion
a cavalier as the one which charactei-iSes these two petitions.· The
petitions .have an extempore appearance a~d n~t even a .second ·look,
leave alone a second thought appears to have been given to' tho
manner of ,drafting these petitions or to . the contenti~n~ raised
therein. In order to discourage the filing: of such petitions, we would
have been justifkd in passing a heavy order of costs again5t .the ·two
petitioners. But that is like'ly to create a needless misconceptio.n that
this Couri, which has been constituted by the Act as the exclusivt
forum for deciding election peiiiions whereby a Presidential or VicePresidential election is challenged'. is loathe to enlertain such petitions.
It is of the essence of the functioning of a democracy that election
to public offices must be open to the scrutiny of an independent
tribunal. A heavy order of costs in these two petitions, howsoever
justified on their owq facts, should not result in nipping in the bud
a well-founded claim on.a future occasion. Therefore, we refrain from
passing any order of _costs and, instead, express our disapproval of tho
light-hearted and indifferent manner in which these two petitions aro
drafted and filed.
.
Election Petition No. 4 of 1982
This Ebction Petition is filed by 27. Members of the Parliament
.. f0 challenge the election of Giani Z1il Singh as the President of India ..
The peritioners belong to four Opposition Parties : The Lok Dal; Th•
Democratic:Socialist Party of India, the Bharatiya Janata Party and
the Jan:ita Party. , These parties had jointly sponsored the cand.idaturt
of Shri H.R. ,Khanaa, a former Judge of thi~Court.. <Jiani Zail Sin1h
. was returned as tbe succe~sful ·candidate hy a large margin of voto&.
A
D
...
The petitioners, being Members of the Parliament, were electora
at the Presidential election. Their standing to file this petition is
C
uaquestioned.
One of the principal challenges of the petitioners to the electio ..
of Oiani Zail Singh is that he is riot a "suitable person ... for holdin:
the high office of the President of India. The petitioners have givoil
their own reasons in support of this contention in paragraphs 5 t" I
ff
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
•
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ·
[1984] 2 s.c.R,.
of the petition .. No useful purpose' will be served by repeating those
. reasons ill this judgment since, we are of the opinion that the ekction
to the oftbj of the Presi'dent of India cannot be questfoned on the
_ground that the retu'rned candidate is not a suitable person for .holding that office·,
The following iss~e arises on the above contention raised b.Y
the petitioners : ..
..
.
. "Cao the election of a candidate to the office cif the
Presldenf0f India be challenged o~ the ground that he is not
a suitabl~ person for hold.ing that office?"·
·
. Section 18 of the Presidential and 'Vice-Presidential Election.s
. Act, 1952, which specioes the "grounds for declaring the electi.a.n. o.f.
a returned candidate to be voicl ", reads thus :
"18. (1) If the Supreme Court is of opinion,-.
(a:) that the offence of bribery"or undue influence at the
·e\ecti~1r haS hqcn C()mmitted by the rqtllrnCd candidate
. or by any person with the coment of the returneo candidato; or
·
(b) that tile
result
of the election has been materially·
affected-
(
(i) by the. impfc5per
recepti1J~1 0r refusal of.a vote) or
(ii) by any non .. compliance with the ·provisio.ns 'of the
Constitution 0r of this Act or of any niles or or4ers
made under this·Act; or
(iii) by ·reason of the fact that the nomination. of any
<;:andidntc (other than the succes~ful cnndidatc), .\vho has.
~ 'fiot \vithdr3Wii ~his. candidature, "has been
\Vron.fslY
(c) that the aominati.in of any ·;a'ndidate has been.wr01\gly
rejected or tn~ nbn1inition or the
succCs~furcan<lidate
has been wrongly accepted;
. '
.
" -
' , ....
.,-.
'
-
'-·
•
the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the returned
:'f
candidate kl be' void.
.
·
•
(2) FOr ihe purpose.s of this scc'ti9n, the offen~es ·of•
•
.
. . "
, r
CHARAN LAL v. ZAlL SINGH (Chandrachud, C.J.)
. 19 ..
bribery an<l undue influence at an election have the same
.m~aning as in"Chapter lXA of the Indian Penal Code,"
Section 19 of the Act which specifies the "grounds for· which a
candidate other than· the returned candidate may be declared to have
'
.
.
been elected" reads thus.:
"If any person who has lodged an electioh petition has,
in addition to calling in question the election of the returned
. candidate, claime:l a declaration that he himself or any other
cah<lidate has bCen July elected and the Supreme Court is of
opinion that in fact the petiiioncr or ·such other candidate
received a majority ·of the valid votes, the Supre!lle Court
shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate
to be."oid, declare the petitioner or S{tch other cartdidate," as
. the case may be, to have be.en duly elected :
Provided that the petitioner o"r such other candidate
oha11 not be declared to be duly elected ifit ·is proved that the
election of such candidate wou Id have been void if he had .
been the returiwd .candidate and a petition had been pr~-
. st::1~ted calling in question his election",.·
These being the on 1y provisions of the Act under which the
election of a returned candidate can be declared void, the qμestion
·as to 'whether the returned candidate is suitable for holding the' office
of tht President is· irrelevant for the purposes of this el.ection petition.
While dealing· vii th an ek~tion petition filed under section 14 of
the. Act,. this :Court cannot inquire into the question whether the
returned candidate is suitable for the office to which he. is dected. The
right> arising 0•1t ·of elections, including the right to contest or chalJenge all eletion, are not comn1on la\V rights.
They are creatures of.
the statutes which create, confer or limit those rights. Therefore, for
deciding the question whether a·n electitm can be set aside on any
alleged g1ound, the cornts have to consuli the provisions of l~w
g'uverning the particular elcctlon. They have to function within the
framewurk of that law and can00t travel beyond it. Only those
persons on whom ·the ·right of franchise is conforred by the statute
can vote. at the· election. In the instant ·case, that right is conferred
on every :elector' as defined in section 2(d) of.the Act, which provides:
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
" 'elector'. in relation to .a presidential election, mean·s a
H ·
member of the dectorarc~llege referred to in article 54, and
•
A
'B
c
.D
E
F
G
20
SUPREMl COUllT RlPORT!i
· (1984] 2 s:c.i..
in relation to a Vice-Presidential· election, means a m~mber
of the elec\oral college referred to in article 66''. ·
Only those persons who are qualified· to he 'elected to the particular office can contest the election. In the instant case, thafright is
regulated by section SA of the Act which provides :
"Any person may be rtomihated as a candidate for elec_tion to the office of President or Vice-President if he is
qualified to be by elected to that -office under the Constitu·
ti.on".
The election can he called into question in the m&nner
prescribed by the stntute. ·and. not in an~ other manner. In ·the instant
case, section 14(1) of the Act provides that no-election shall be·called
in question except by presenting an election petition to the authority
·specified in sub-section (2).
By sub-section (2) of section 14, the
Supreme Court is constituted the sole authority for trying an election
·petition. Finally, an election can be called.into question and set aside
on those gro•mds only which are prescribed by the statute. Jn the
instant case, the grounds for setting aside the election to the office
of the President or the Vice President and the grounds on which a
candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have
been elected are laid down in sections 18 and 19 of the· Act. The
electi011 can neither be questioned nor set. aside on any other ground.
· Therefore, the challenge to the election of the returned candidate
on the ground of his want of suitability to occupy the office of tl:e
President cannot be entertained and must be< rejected out of hand.
(See K. Venkateswa.ra ~ao v. Bekkam Narsimha Reddy"' & Charan Lal
Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt.1'')
,
· Apari from the legal position that 'the rights flowing put of an
·election are statutory and not commori law rights, it is impossible to ·
·conceive that any court ofl'aw. can arrogate to itself the po\ver to
dechre an eleciion void on the ground that the returned candidate is
not a suitable pet son to ho\d the office fo which he is elected. Suitability
of a candidate is for the ele.ctorate to judge and not for the court
to decide, •The Court cannot substitute iis own assessment of the
suitability of a candidate for the verdict returned by the elec!Nate.
The verdict of the electorate is a, verdict on the suitability of the
H
<1> [19691 1 scR 679 at 684
(2) [1974] I SCR 294 at 296
.·
'
;.
•
•
. ,
CHARAN LAL v. ZAIL SINGH ( Chandrachud, C.J.)
2.1
candidate. 'Suitability' is a fluid concept of uncertain import.