# NARAYAN BHASKAR KHARE v. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

- **Citation:** [1957] 1 S.C.R. 1081
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1957-05-06
- **Bench:** S. R. DAS c. J
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/narayan-bhaskar-khare-v-the-election-commission-of-india-1301
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

BHAGWATI,
JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS,
J. L. KAPUR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
President, Election of-Doubts and Disputes relating to such
election-Jurisdiction and Power of Supreme Court, when can be
exercised-'Election', Meaning of-Constitution of India, Arts. 71,
62--The
Presidential
and Vice-Presidential Election Act,
1952
(XXXI of 1952), s. 14.
The petitioners entertained grave doubts as to the 'propriety
of holding the Presidential election before the general elections
had been completed throughout the entire territory of India and,
by applications filed under Aft. 71 (I ) of the Constitution as citizens.
of India, invoked the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court
thereunder ·to inquire into such doubts and sought for an order
restraining the .Election
Commission from
taking the
poll in
connection with the election of the President, fixed for May 6,
1957, till the general elections in the Union territory of Himachal
Pradesh and in two
Lok Sabha Constituencies of the State of
Punjab, which were still to be held, had been completed. The
expiry of the term of office of the then President which caused
the Presidential election was to come . about on the mid-night of
May 12, 1957. One of the petitioners alleged that he was a candidate for the Presidential election and the time intervening between
the date when he received his nomination paper and the date fixed
for the filing of it was too short to enable him to file it within time
and the case of the other was that he was a prospective candidate
for election to . the Lok Sabha from one of the Punjab Constituencic>, where election was yet to be held, and would be prevented
from exercising his right to vote for the election of the President.
Held, that the present petitions were premature and mmt
be dismissed.
The jurisdiction and power conferred o;i the Supreme Court
by Art. 71(1) of the Constitution
to inquire into and decide
doubts and disputes arising out of and in connection with the
elccti::>n of the President can be ex~rdsed only after a particular
candidat~ has been declared elected and on an election petition
filed
under
s.
14
of the Presidential
and
Vice-Presidential
Ekction Act of 1952.
The word 'election' in Art. 71 of the Constitution is used in the
wider sense to denote the entire process of election
culminating
3-81 S. C. India/59
1957
Mays.
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Jr hare
v.
The Election
Commission of
India
Dase. 7,
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
in a candidate being declared elected
and
doubts and
disputes
arising out of and in connection with such election must include
all doubts and disputes relating to any particular stage of it.
N. ·P. Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer,
Namakkal
Constituency, (1952) S.C.R. 218, referred to.
It is a well recognised principle of the law of election that an
election cannot be held up to facilitate the ventilation of individual
grievances in derogation of the interest of the people in general
and Art. 62 of the Constitution, which requires that the election
of President must be completed within the time fixed by it and
has been conceived in such interest, is mandatory in character.
ORIGINAL
JuR1smcnoN :
Petitions No. 63 and 64
of 1957.
Petitions under Article 71 ( l) of the Constitution of
India for clarification of doubts in connection with
the election of the President.
R. V. S. Mani and /. R. V. Sastri, for the petitioner in Petition No. 63 of 1957.
R. Patnaik, for the petitioner m Petition No. 64 of
1957.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, G. N.
Joshi, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents ( Caveators) in both the petitions.
1957. May 3: The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs C. J.-The petitioners in the above petitions
have moved this Court to exercise the jurisdiction and
power vested in it by and under Art. 71 ( l) of the Constitution of India and to inquire into and decide what
has been described as a "grave doubt" in connection
with the 'election of the President of India and t

## Text

S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS.
1081
NARAYAN BHASKAR KHARE
v.
THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
(and connected petition)
(S. R.
DAS c. J.,
BHAGWATI,
JAFER IMAM, s. K. DAS,
J. L. KAPUR, GAJENDRAGADKAR and
A. K. SARKAR JJ.)
President, Election of-Doubts and Disputes relating to such
election-Jurisdiction and Power of Supreme Court, when can be
exercised-'Election', Meaning of-Constitution of India, Arts. 71,
62--The
Presidential
and Vice-Presidential Election Act,
1952
(XXXI of 1952), s. 14.
The petitioners entertained grave doubts as to the 'propriety
of holding the Presidential election before the general elections
had been completed throughout the entire territory of India and,
by applications filed under Aft. 71 (I ) of the Constitution as citizens.
of India, invoked the jurisdiction and power of the Supreme Court
thereunder ·to inquire into such doubts and sought for an order
restraining the .Election
Commission from
taking the
poll in
connection with the election of the President, fixed for May 6,
1957, till the general elections in the Union territory of Himachal
Pradesh and in two
Lok Sabha Constituencies of the State of
Punjab, which were still to be held, had been completed. The
expiry of the term of office of the then President which caused
the Presidential election was to come . about on the mid-night of
May 12, 1957. One of the petitioners alleged that he was a candidate for the Presidential election and the time intervening between
the date when he received his nomination paper and the date fixed
for the filing of it was too short to enable him to file it within time
and the case of the other was that he was a prospective candidate
for election to . the Lok Sabha from one of the Punjab Constituencic>, where election was yet to be held, and would be prevented
from exercising his right to vote for the election of the President.
Held, that the present petitions were premature and mmt
be dismissed.
The jurisdiction and power conferred o;i the Supreme Court
by Art. 71(1) of the Constitution
to inquire into and decide
doubts and disputes arising out of and in connection with the
elccti::>n of the President can be ex~rdsed only after a particular
candidat~ has been declared elected and on an election petition
filed
under
s.
14
of the Presidential
and
Vice-Presidential
Ekction Act of 1952.
The word 'election' in Art. 71 of the Constitution is used in the
wider sense to denote the entire process of election
culminating
3-81 S. C. India/59
1957
Mays.
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Jr hare
v.
The Election
Commission of
India
Dase. 7,
1082
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
in a candidate being declared elected
and
doubts and
disputes
arising out of and in connection with such election must include
all doubts and disputes relating to any particular stage of it.
N. ·P. Ponnuswamy v. Returning Officer,
Namakkal
Constituency, (1952) S.C.R. 218, referred to.
It is a well recognised principle of the law of election that an
election cannot be held up to facilitate the ventilation of individual
grievances in derogation of the interest of the people in general
and Art. 62 of the Constitution, which requires that the election
of President must be completed within the time fixed by it and
has been conceived in such interest, is mandatory in character.
ORIGINAL
JuR1smcnoN :
Petitions No. 63 and 64
of 1957.
Petitions under Article 71 ( l) of the Constitution of
India for clarification of doubts in connection with
the election of the President.
R. V. S. Mani and /. R. V. Sastri, for the petitioner in Petition No. 63 of 1957.
R. Patnaik, for the petitioner m Petition No. 64 of
1957.
M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, G. N.
Joshi, Porus A. Mehta and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondents ( Caveators) in both the petitions.
1957. May 3: The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
DAs C. J.-The petitioners in the above petitions
have moved this Court to exercise the jurisdiction and
power vested in it by and under Art. 71 ( l) of the Constitution of India and to inquire into and decide what
has been described as a "grave doubt" in connection
with the 'election of the President of India and to direct
the Election Commission not to proceed with the polling in connection with the said election which has been
fixed for May 6, 1957, but to hold the same after duly
completing all the elections to the Lok Sabha and the
Legislatures in all the States of
the
Indian
Union
including the Union territory. The first main petition
was presented on April 26. 1957, and the second on
April 29, 1957. Alo:-ig with each of the said petitions
has been filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition asking for
a stay of the polling for the Presidential election fixed
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1083
for May 6, 1957. In the first main petition the Returning Officer has not been made a party, but in the
second petition he has been impleaded as a respondent.
The. learned Attorney-General has appeared on behalf
of the Election Commission and has waived the service
of notice. We can, therefore, dispose of all the petitions before us.
There is no dispute as to the material facts which
may shortly be stated as follows :
After the general elections in all the States and
Union territories of India, except in the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh, which
is to return four
members to the Lok Sabha and in two constituencies
in the State of Punjab, the old Lok Sabha was dissolved
on April 4, 1957 and the New Lok Sabha was constituted on April 5, 1957, under s. 73 of the Representation of the People Act (XLIII of 1951). As
required
by s. 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), the Election Commission issued a notification in the official Gazette appointing April 16, 1957, as the last date for making nominations, April 17, 1957, as the date for the scrutiny of the
nominations, April 20, 1957, as the last date for the
withdrawal of candidatures, May 6, 1957, as the polling
date and May 10, 1957, as the date for the counting of
the 'votes and the declaration of the result. The terin
of office of the present President is due to expire on the
mid-night of May 12, 1957. The reason for fixing the
abn\'e time schedule obviously was that the Presidential
election should he completed before the term of office
of the present President expired.
After the notification
constituting the new Lok
Sabha was published in the Press on April 7, 1957, the
petitioner in the first petition applied to the Election
Commission for the supply of the nomination papers,
which he eventually received at Nagpur in the afternoon of April 10, 1957. This left a period of five days
for the filing of the nomination
paper before
the
Returning Officer at New Delhi. The petitioner submits
that the time was too short and he was prevented from
filing his nomination paper due to want of time. He
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Khare
y.
The Election
Commission of
Indio
Das C.J.
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
n-
...
T.~t Ekcti<nl
Commission of
lrulia
Das G. :J.
1084
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957}
has filed the petition as a citizen of India and as an
"intending candidate" for the Presidential election.
The petitioner in the second petition is a member
of the Hindu Mahasabha and is contesting the election to the Lok Sabha as an independent candidate
from Kangra Parliamentary constituency in the State
of Punjab. He filed his nomination paper on January
28, 1957, as originally the polling was
scheduled to
commence in
that
constituency
on
February
24,
1957. The polling, however, has since been postponed
and fixed for June 2, 1957. l-Ie has filed the petition
as a citizen of India and as a prospective member
of Lok Sabha and contends that if the Presidential
election is held on May 6, 1957, he will be deprived
of his right to vote for the election of the President
of the Union.
He has also complained of discrimination offending against Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Under Art. 56 of the Constitution the President
holds office for a term of five years from the date
on
which he
enters upon
his office.
The present
incumbent of the high office entered upon his office on
May 12, 1952, and, as already stated, his term is due
to expire on the mid-night of May 12, 1957. Article
62( I) peremptorily requires that the election to fill the
vacancy caused by the expiration of the term of office
of the Preoident shall be completed before the
e~pira
tion of the term. It is necessarv to bear in mind this
clear mandatory
provision
of , the
Constitution.
For
ascertaining how such election of President is
to be
held. we have to go back to Art. 54, which runs thus :
"S 1. The President shall be elected by
the
members of ·an electoral college consioting of-
( a) the elected members of both Houses of Parliament: and
.(b) the elected members of the Legi>lative Assemblies of the States."
On 0'1e side it is said that the electoral college is to
consist of those members falling under clauses (a) and
(b), who are elected at· the crucial date. that !s to sa':,
the date when the election is to take place. Suppose,
it is said, that the term of the President's office expires
during the currency of the life of Parliament. as
it
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1085
may well do in cases contemplated by Art. 62(2) and
suppose there are vacancies in Parliament or in the
Legislature of one or more States, surely the election
of the President required by Art. 62(1) to be held
before the expiry of the term of the outgoing President cannot be held up until the vacancies are filled
up. On the other hand it is contended that the
electoral college must be constituted after the elections
in all States and Union territories are completed and
should consist of all the elected members falling within both the categories.
Inasmuch
as
elections
have
not taken place at all in Himachal Pradesh and in
two constituencies of the State of Punjab, the electoral
college cannot be constituted until after those members
are also elected, It is pointed out that though on the
present occasiolil
only four members
of
Himachal
Pradesh and only two members in the State of Punjab
have not been elected, nevertheless, if the objection
of the petitioners is not now heeded any party in
power may in future arrange for the election of its
own nominee as President by postponing the elections
in several States, where. it may not expect to get a
majority of seats. It is said that on March 28, 1957
some members of the then Lok Sabha had raised a
question as to the danger and impropriety of holding
the election of the President before the completion of
the elections throughout the territory of India.
Both
the petitioners share the same view and contend that
a. "grave doubt" has arisen
in connection with the
dection of the President and that such a doubt must,
under Art. 71, be inquired into and decided by this
Court. The extreme contention put forward on behalf
of the petitioners is that it does not matter whether
the doubt is well founded or not or whether it is good,
had or indifferent; this Court is bound to inquire into
:11HI decide the same as soon as a doubt arises and a
citizen brings it before this Court for resolution thereof. For the purpose of this case it is not necessary
for m to express any opinion on the merits of the
respective
contentions for these
petitions may well
be disposed of on a narrower preliminary ground.
1957
JtfOTqan Bha.rkOT
Klun
Y.
T Ju Eltailln
Commission of
India
Das C.].
1957
N ar<rvan Bhaskar
Kha"re
v.
The Election
Commission of
India
DasC.].
1086
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957}
Article 71 (1) undoubtedly confers jurisdiction and
power on this Court to inquire into and decide "all
doubts and disputes arising out of or in
connection
with the election of President or Vice-President" and
this Court will have to inquire into and decide the
same.
But the question is whether there is anything
in the Constitution indicating the time at which and
the manner in which 5Uch doubts and disputes have
to be inquired into and decided. Under Art. 324 the
superintendence, direction
and control
of the
preparation of the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all
elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every
State and of elections to
the office of President and
Vice-President held under this Constitution, including
the appointment of election tribunals for
the decision
of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection
with elections to Parliament and the Legislatures of
States shall be vested in the Election Commission.
lt
will be noticed that identical words are used, namely,
"doubts and disputes am111g out of or in connection
with elections" which are also to be found
in
Art.
71 (!). By Art. 327,
Parliament
was
authorised
to
make provision with respect to all matters
"relating
to or in connection with elections" to Parliament or
to the Legislat.ures of the States.
Art. 329 provides,
amongst other things, that notwithstanding anything
in this Constitution no election to either House of
Parliament or either House of Legislature of a State
shall be called in question except by an election Petition presented to such authority and in such manner
as may be provided for by or under any law made by
the proper
legislature. In exercise of
powers thus
conferred on it, Parliament enacted the Representation
of the People Act, 1951, providing how elections arc
to be held and how and on what grounds such elections
may be called in question. It also set up a special
forum called Election Tribunal for the decision· of
"doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection
with such elections." In N. P. Ponnuswami
v.
Returninz Officer, Namakkal Constituency( 1 )
the 'Returning
Officer
for
that
constituency
had
rejected
the
(1j (1902) S. C.R. 218.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1087
nomination paper of the
appellant. Thereupon · the
appellant applied to the High Court of Madras under
Art. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari to ·
quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his
nomination paper and to direct the Returning Officer to · ·
include his name in the list of valid nominations to be
published. The High Court of Madras dismissed
the
petition and the appellant brought an appeal to this
Court. The Full Court held that in view of the provisions of Art. 329 (b) of the Constitution and s. 80
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
the
High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the
order of the Returning Officer. The main controversy
in the appeal centred round the words "no election
shall be called in question except by an election
petition"
occurring
in
Art.
329 (b ).
The
most
important question for determination by
this
Court
was the meaning to be given to the word "election'' in
Art. 329 (b). This Court said at page 226 : ·
"That word has by long usage in connection with
the process of selection of proper representatives
in
democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a
narrow meaning. In the narrow sense,
it is used to
mean the final selection of a candidate which may
embrace the result of the poll when there is polling or
a particular candidate being returned unopposed when
there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used
to connote the entire process culminating in a candidate being declared elected."
After referring to the cases of Srinivasalu .v. K"ppu- .
swamiL') and Sat Narain v. Hanuman Prasad(') and
a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England, 2nd edition,
Volume 12, page 237, this Court took the view that.·
the word "election" could be and had been properly
used with respect to the entire process which consisted .
of several stages and embraced many steps some of
which might have an important bearing on the remit
of the process and, therefore, held that in view of the
provisions of Art. 329 (b) of the Constitution and s. 80
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the
High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with . the
(t) A. I. R. (1928) Ma~. 253, 255.
(2) A. T. R. (1~5) Tah.85.
1957
Narayan. BhaJkar
i.·hare
v.
The Election
Commission of
India
DasC.].
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Khare
,_
The Ekction
Commission of
India
n., c. J.
1088
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
order of the Re;urning Officer under Art. 226.
The
only way such an order could be called
in question
was as laid down in Art. 329(b) of the Constitution
and s. 80 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951,
and this could be
done only by
an
election
petition presented before
the
Election Tribunal after
the entire process of election culminating in a candidate
being declared elected had been gone through. On
such election petition being filed the Election Tribunal
would be properly bound to inquire into and decide
"all do,,bts and disputes arising out of or in connection
with the election" irrespective of the stage
in
the
entire election
process
to which
the "doubts and
disputes
relate". We now approach the construction
of Art. 71 in the light of decision of this Court.
As already indicated Art. 71 ( 1) confers jurisdiction
and power on this Court to inquire into and decide
"all doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection
with the election of a President or Vice-President".
The question is : Is there in this Article or in any
other part of the Constitution or anywhere else
any
indication as to the time when such inquiry is to be
held? In the first place, Art. 71 postulates an "ek.:tion
of tht Preside1n or Vice-President" and provides
for
inquiry into doubts and disputes arising out of or in
connection with
such
an
election.
What
is
the
meaning to be given to the word "election" as used
in tlus Article? If we give to the word "election"
occurring in Art. 71 (I) the same wide meaning as comprising the entire election process culminating in
a
candidate being declared
elected,
then clearly
the
inquiry is to be made after such completed election,
i.e., after a candidate is declarecl
to be elected :u
President or Vice-President as the case may be. We
see ho reason why this accepted meaning should not
be given _ to the critical word. In the second place,
under cl.' 3 of Art. 71, subject to the provisions of this
Constitution, Parliament may by
law
regulate
any
matter "relating to or connected with the election"
of a President or Vice-President. The
words
here
also are similar to those used in Art. 327 and are
equally wid.: enough to cover matters relating to or
(
' -
•tS.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1089
connected with any stage of the entire election process.
In exercise of powers conferred on it by Art. 71(3),
Parliament has enacted the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952) to regulate
certain matters relating to or connected with elections
to the office of President and Vice-President of India.
A glance through the provisions of this Act will indicate
that in the view of Parliament the time for· the exercise
of jurisdiction by this Court to inquire into and decide
doubts and disputes arising out of or in . connection
with
the
Presidential election is
after
the
entire
election process is completed. Under s. 14 of this Act,
which corresponds to s. 80 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, no election, meaning the election of
the President or Vice-President, shall
be called in
question except by an dection petition presented to
this Court in accordance 'with the provisions of Part III
of that Act and of the rules made by this Court under
Art. 145.
Section 18, which bys down
the grounds
for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be
void, runs as follows :
18. Grounds
for
declaring
the
election
of
a
returned candidate to be void :-If the Supreme Court
1s of opinion-
( a) t11at the offence of bribery or undue influence
at the election has been committed by the returned
candidate or by any person with the connivance of the
returned candidate; or
'
(b) that the result of the election has been materiallv affected-
.(i) bv reason that the offence of briberv or undue
influence ·at the election has been
committed by
any
person who is neither the returned candidate nor a
person acting with his connivance; or
(ii) by
the improper reception or refusal of a
vote, or
(iii) by the non-compliance with the provisions of
the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders
made under this Act; or
( c) that
the
nomination of any candidate has
been
wronglv
rejected
or
the
nomination
of
the
successful candidate or of any other candidate who has
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Khare
v
The Election
Commission of
India
DasC.J.
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Khare
••
The EltcJion
Commission of
India
DasC.J.
1090
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957J
not
withdrawn his
c~ndidature has
been wrongly
accepted;
the Supreme Court shall declare
the
election of
the
returned candidate to be void .
(2) For the purposes of this section, the offences of
bribery and undue influence at an election have the
same meaning as in Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal
Code (Act XLV of 1860).
It is quite clear from the language of the section that
any improper reception or refusal of a vote, or any
non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution
or of the Act or of any rules or orders made under the
Act or the improper acceptance or rejection of a
nomination paper may be made a ground for challenging the
election.
This means
that
all doubts
and
disputes relating to any stage of the entire
election
process is to
be canvassed
by
an
election
petition
presented to this Court after the election in its wide
sense is _concluded.
The above stated interpretation appea~s. to us to be
in consonance
with
the
other
prov1s1ons
of
the
Constitution and with good sense. If doubt or rlispute
arising out of or in connection with the election of a
President or Vice-President can be brought before this
Court before the whole election process is concluded
then conceivably the entire election may be held up till
after the expiry of the five years' term which
will
involve
a non-compliance
with
the
mandatory provisions of Art. 62. The well
recognised principle of
election law, Indian and English,
is
that
elections
should not be held up and that the person aggrieved
should not
be
permitted
to ventilate his individual
interest in derogation of the general interest of the
people, which requires that elections should be gone
through according to the time schedule. lt is, therefore, in consonance both with the provisions of Art. 62
and with good sense to hold that the word "election"
used in Art. 71 means the entire process of
election.
That is what Parliament understood to be the meaning
of Art. 71 as is apparent from the Presidential
and
Vice-Presidential Election Act, 1952. Again this Court
has framed
rules
under Art.
145
to regulate
the
1
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1091
procedure and a perusal of those rules will also indicate
. , that "all doubts and disputes arising out of or in
f connection with the election of a President or VicePresident" should be brought before the court after
the result of the entire election is declared, that is to
say, after a candidate is declared to be elected to the
office of President or Vice-President.
It is pointed out that if the petitioners are compelled
to wait until after the
entire
election
process
is
concluded and then to file election petitions, they will
have to show that the result of the election has been
materially affected as required by s. 18 of the Presi-
' dential and Vice-Presidential
Election
Act,
1952.
It
~ is contended that there is no reason why this extra
burden or hardship, which is not in terms imposed by
Art. 71, should be placed upon the petitioners. It is
not necessary for the purposes of disposing of these
petitions to express any opinion as to the validity or
otherwise of this requirement of s. 18 and we do not do
so. But the plea of alleged hardship brought about by
s. 18 cannot alter the true meaning and import· of
Art. 71. In our judgment Art. 71 postulates an election and
the word
"election"
occurring in Art.
71
means the entire election process culminating in a
candidate being declared
elected
and
doubts
and
.,..- disputes arising out of or in connection with any of the
stages of such completed election have to be inquired
into and decided by this Court which, in point of time,
must necessarily be after the completion of the entire
process compendiously called the election.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the
second petition raised an additional point that the
Election Commission by fixing the election on May 6,
1957, has arbitrarily deprived the members representing
territorial
constituencies like
Kangra and
Himachal
Pradesh of their right to exercise and enjoy other
_, privileges of membership of Parliament. This argument
was raised half heartedly at the fag end of his argument
in reply and was not seriously pressed. In any event
he did not advance any cogent argument showing how
the petitioner h:i.d been deprived of the eqml protection of the law. Elections have to be held in numerous
1957
N arU:Jan BhaskarKhar~
v.
The Election
Commission of
India
Dase.].
1957
Narayan Bhaskar
Khare
v.
Tk Election
Commission oj'
India
DasC.J.
1957
May6
1092
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1957]
constituencies and different dates have to be fixed for
holding the actual elections in different constituencies
according to the various
exigencies
relating
to
the
particular lccalities in which
the constituencies
are
situate. No good
ground has been established for
holding that there has been anv discrimination such as
is prohibited by Art. 14 of the Constitution. In so far
as the alleged discrimination, if any, in breach of the
equal protection clause of the Constitution may be said
to be calculated to raise anv doubt in connection with
the election of the President it will, at best, be a noncompliance with the
prov1s10ns
of
the
Constitution
which may or may not, after the conclusion of the entire
election, be made a ground, under s. 18 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential
Election Act, 1952,
for
calling the election in question as to which we need
formulate no final opinion at this stage.
We express no opinion on the merits of any of the
controversies between the parties, but, for the foregoing
reasons,
we
hold
that
the
present
petitions
are
premature and cannot be entertained at this stage. We,
therefore, dismiss the petitions Nos. 63 and 64 of 1957.
Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 563 and 564 of 1957
will also stand dismissed.
Petitions dismissed.
MR. 'C'
v.
THE ADVOCATE-GENERAL OF MADRAS
(JAGANNADHADAS,
B.
P.
SINHA
and
GA JENDRAGADKAR JJ.)
Professional misconduct-Advoratc borne on the rolls of a l--!igh
Court and Supre1ne Court-Debarred by l-!igh Court on Bar Cott:1cil's
ref;ort-Sumnions by Supreme
Cottrt-Procedure-Supremc Court
R;des, 0. IV, r. 30.
The appellant, an Advocate ,vhose nan1e was borne on the
rolls of the Madras I-Iigh Court and of the Supren1e Co11rt, \vas
found guilty of gross profes.sional misconduct by the 1vfadr:Js High
Court on the report of the Bar Council Tribunal and debarred from