# PURANLAL LAKHANP AL v. THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 688
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 139 of 1957
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar, A. K. Sarkar, K. N. Wanchoo, K. C. Das Gupta, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/puranlal-lakhanp-al-v-the-president-of-india-and-others-2063
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Parliamentary Election-Seats allotted to J ammu and Kashmir
-Mode of election-Modification made by President-Constitutionality-Constitution of India, Arts. Br, 37o(r)-Constitution (Application to J ammu and Kashmir) Order, r954, Para. 5(c).
Six seats are allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in
the House of People (Lok Sabha) and election to those seats
should ordinarily have been by direct election under Art. 81(1)
of the Constitution but the President modified that Article under
Art. 37o(t) by Para. 5(c) of the Constitution (Application to
Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, to the effect that "the representatives of the State in the House of People shall be
appointed by the President on the recommendations ,of the
Legislature of the State". The petitioner who claimed to be a
registered elector and as such eligible for election from any
Parliamentary constituency in India contended that the President had exceeded his powers when he made this modification
for he thereby substituted direct election to the House of People
by nomination which he could not do, and that the said modification amounted to radical alteration in Art. Sr and was not
justified under Art. 370( 1 ).
Held, that the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1)
must be given the widest meaning in the context of the Constitution and in that sense it includes an amendment and it cannot
be limited to such modifications as do not make any "radical
transformation". The modification lays down that the President
will make the nomination on the recommendation of the State
Legislature which can do so only by voting, and in effect it
provides that the seats will be filled by indirect election and not
direct election. The element of election being thus ,still present
there was no radical alteration in Art. 81 and the President had
the power to make the modification which he did.
In re Delhi Laws Act, r9I2, [1951] S.C.R. 747, distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Petition No. 139 of
1957.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for enforcement of Fundamental rights.
R. V. S. Mani, for the petitioner.
•
,)
•
)
\
)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
689
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen
and R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2.
1961. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
W ANCHOO, J .-This petition challenges the constitutionality of a provision in the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 (hereinafter
called the Order), made by the President under Art.
370(1) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner
is that he is registered as an elector in the Parliamentary Constituency of Delhi. As such he has a right
to stand for election from any Parliamentary constituency in India. Six seats are allotted to the State of
Jammu and Kashmir in the House of the People (Lok
Sabha). Ordinarily, the election to these seats should
have been by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the States as provided by Art. 81(1); but
the President modified that Article in so far as it relates to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by Para. 5(c)
of the Order in these words:-
" Article 81 shall apply subject to the modification
that the representatives of the State in the House
of the People shall be appointed by the President
on the recommendation of the Legislature of the
State."
,;, -·
The petitioner contends that the President had exceeded his powers when he made this modification, for
he thereby substituted direct election to the House of
the People by nomination wliich he could not do.
This, it is said, was 'a ·radical alteration in Art. 81 as
applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and was
not justified as a modification under Art. 370(1). He
therefore- prays that the modification made ma;y be
4eo1ared unconstitutional and a writ. of quo iVarranto
be issued against the persons nomin·at\J\:l to 'the House
of the People on the recommendation of the Legislature of the State of J ail'lmu and Kashmir prohibiting
them from

## Text

Af arch 30.
688
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
PURANLAL LAKHANP AL
v.
THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR,
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Parliamentary Election-Seats allotted to J ammu and Kashmir
-Mode of election-Modification made by President-Constitutionality-Constitution of India, Arts. Br, 37o(r)-Constitution (Application to J ammu and Kashmir) Order, r954, Para. 5(c).
Six seats are allotted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in
the House of People (Lok Sabha) and election to those seats
should ordinarily have been by direct election under Art. 81(1)
of the Constitution but the President modified that Article under
Art. 37o(t) by Para. 5(c) of the Constitution (Application to
Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954, to the effect that "the representatives of the State in the House of People shall be
appointed by the President on the recommendations ,of the
Legislature of the State". The petitioner who claimed to be a
registered elector and as such eligible for election from any
Parliamentary constituency in India contended that the President had exceeded his powers when he made this modification
for he thereby substituted direct election to the House of People
by nomination which he could not do, and that the said modification amounted to radical alteration in Art. Sr and was not
justified under Art. 370( 1 ).
Held, that the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1)
must be given the widest meaning in the context of the Constitution and in that sense it includes an amendment and it cannot
be limited to such modifications as do not make any "radical
transformation". The modification lays down that the President
will make the nomination on the recommendation of the State
Legislature which can do so only by voting, and in effect it
provides that the seats will be filled by indirect election and not
direct election. The element of election being thus ,still present
there was no radical alteration in Art. 81 and the President had
the power to make the modification which he did.
In re Delhi Laws Act, r9I2, [1951] S.C.R. 747, distinguished.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION:
Writ Petition No. 139 of
1957.
Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India
for enforcement of Fundamental rights.
R. V. S. Mani, for the petitioner.
•
,)
•
)
\
)
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
689
0. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, B. Sen
and R.H. Dhebar, for respondent No. 2.
1961. March 30. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
W ANCHOO, J .-This petition challenges the constitutionality of a provision in the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954 (hereinafter
called the Order), made by the President under Art.
370(1) of the Constitution. The case of the petitioner
is that he is registered as an elector in the Parliamentary Constituency of Delhi. As such he has a right
to stand for election from any Parliamentary constituency in India. Six seats are allotted to the State of
Jammu and Kashmir in the House of the People (Lok
Sabha). Ordinarily, the election to these seats should
have been by direct election from the territorial constituencies in the States as provided by Art. 81(1); but
the President modified that Article in so far as it relates to the State of Jammu and Kashmir by Para. 5(c)
of the Order in these words:-
" Article 81 shall apply subject to the modification
that the representatives of the State in the House
of the People shall be appointed by the President
on the recommendation of the Legislature of the
State."
,;, -·
The petitioner contends that the President had exceeded his powers when he made this modification, for
he thereby substituted direct election to the House of
the People by nomination wliich he could not do.
This, it is said, was 'a ·radical alteration in Art. 81 as
applied to the State of Jammu and Kashmir and was
not justified as a modification under Art. 370(1). He
therefore- prays that the modification made ma;y be
4eo1ared unconstitutional and a writ. of quo iVarranto
be issued against the persons nomin·at\J\:l to 'the House
of the People on the recommendation of the Legislature of the State of J ail'lmu and Kashmir prohibiting
them from acting·as ni0m'bers of Parliament:
- ""
Apart fromtlie question whether the petitioner has
any fundamental right ·to maintain this petition\mder
87
-~ 1·,
! .:
'
1
Puranlal
Lakhanpal
v.
The President
of India
U'anchoo ].
Puranlal
Lakhanpal
v.
The President
of India
Wanchoo ].
690
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962)
Art. 32, we are of opinion that there is no force in it.
The relevant part of Art. 370 with which we are concerned is in these words:-
"N otwithstanding anything in this Constitution,-................................................................
(d) such of the other provisions of this Constitution shall apply in relation to that State (i.e., the
State of J ammu and Kashmir) subject to such exceptions and modifications as the President may by
order specify."
Article 370 clearly recognises the speci~l position of
the State of Jammu and Kashmir and that is why the
President is given the power to apply the provisions
of the Constitution to that State subject to such
exceptions and modifications as the President may by
order specify. The President thus has power to say
by order that certain provisions of the Constitution
will be excepted from application to the State of
J ammu and Kashmir and on such order being made
those provisions would not apply to that State. Besides this power of making exceptions by which certain provisions of the Constitution were not to apply
to that State the President is also given the power to
apply the provisions of the Constitution with such
modifications as he thinks fit to make. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the modification envisaged in Art. 370(1) did not mean amendment
of the Constitution for the purpose of application to
that State and would not certainly include such
amendment as would make a radical alteration in the
provisions of the Constitution. In this connection he
relies on the observations of Kania, C.J., and Mahajan,
J., in In re The Delhi Laws Act, 1912 ('). Kania, C.J.,
after dealing with the meaning of the word "modify"
seems to have held that the word "modify" as used
in the context in which he was speaking only implied
alteration without radical transformation. Mahajan,
J., also said that the word "modification" used in the
context before him did not involve "any material or
substantial alteration". The petitioner therefore urges
(1) [1951] s.c.R. H7·
:~
'·
•
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
691
_,,'
' ~
that as the Order substituted direct election by nomiz96I
nation there has been a radical alteration in Art. 81
Puranlal
by the President in its application to the State of
Lakhanpal
Jammu and Kashmir and therefore is not justified by
v.
the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1) and the
The President
President had exceeded his power under that Article
of India
in making this radical alteration.
Wanchoo ].
•
Before we consider what the word "modifica.tion"
means in the context of Art. 370(1), let us see what
the President has actually done in the matter of modification of Art. 81. The modification prescribes that
the six seats in the House of the People from the
State of Jammu and Kashmir would be filled by nomination by the President on the recommendation of the
Legislature of that State. Now in form the seats will
be filled by nomination by the President; but in reality
what the modification provides is indirect election in
place of direct election to these seats in the House of
the People. The modification lays down that the President will nominate members to these six seats on the
recommendation of the Legislature of the State. The
President must therefore nominate only those who
have been recommended by the Legislature of the
..
State, which is elected on adult suffrage. Now the
only way the Legislature can make a recommendation
for this purpose is by voting. Therefore, in effect the
modification made by the President is that the six
seats to the House of the People from the State of
Jammu and Kashmir will be filled by indirect election
and not by direct election. The element of election
}
still remains in the matter of filling these seats, though
it has been made indirect. In these circumstances it
may not be possible to say that there has been a radical alteration in Art. 81 by the modification effected
by the Order.
But even assuming that the introduction of indirect
election by this modification is a radical alteration of
the provisions of Art. 81(1), the question still remains
whether such a modification is justified by the word
"modification" as used in Art. 370(1).
We are here
•
dealing with the provision of a Constitution which
cannot be interpreted in any narrow or pedantic sense.
'
r96r
Pur~p/al
Lakha.npal
, ·,,v.
The President
of India
Wanchoo J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
The questiOii that cam~ for conSideratiori 'in In r~
Delhi' kaws. Act ease(') was with respect to ~he. pqwer'
or delegati.on to .a subordinate authority in making
subordinate. legislation. It w!ls in that context that
the observations were made that the intention of the
law there under consideration when it used the word
"modification" was that the Central Government
would extend certain laws to Part C States without
any radical alteration in them. But in the present
case we have to find out the meaning of the word
"modification" used in Art. 370(1) in the context of
the Constitution. As we have said already the object
behind enacting Art. 370(1) was to recognise the
special position of the State of Jammu and Kashmir
and to provide for that special position by giving
power to the President to apply the provisions of the
Constitution to that State with such exceptions and
modifications as the President might by order specify.
We have already pointed out that the power to make
exceptions implies that the President can provide
that a particular provision of the Constitution would
not apply to that State. If therefore the power is
given to the President to efface in effect any provision of the Constitution altogether in its application
to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, it seems that
when he is also given the power to make modifications
that power should be considered in its widest possible
amplitude. If he could efface a particular provision
of the Constitution altogether in its application to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir, we see no reason to
think that the Constitution did not intend that he
should have the power to amend a particular provision in its application to the State· of Jammu and
Kashmir. It seems to us that when the Constitution
used the word "modification" in Art. 370(1) the intention was that the President would have the power to
amend the provisions of the Constitution if he so
thought fit in their application to the State of Jammu
and Kashmir. In the Oxford English Dictionary
(Vol. VI) the word "modify" means inter alia "to
make partial changes in; to change (as object) in
(1) [1951] S.C.R. 747•
..
..
J
,
. I
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
693
respect of some of its qualities; to alter or vary without ·radical transformation". Similarly the word
"modification" means "the action of making changes
in an object without altering its essential nature or
character; the state of being thus changed; partial
alteration". Stress is being placed on the meaning
"to alter or vary without radical transformation" on
behalf of the petitioner; but that is not the only meaning of the words "modify" or "modification". The
word "modify" also means "to make partial changes
in" and "modification" means "partial alteration".
If therefore the President changed the method of
direct election to indirect election he was in essence
making a partial change or partial alteration in Art. 81
and therefore the modification made in the present
case would be even within the dictionary meaning of
that word.
But, in law, the word "modify" has even
a wider meaning. In "Words and Phrases" by Roland
Burrows, the primary meaning of the word "modify"
is given as "to limit" or "restrict" but it also means
"to vary" and may even mean to "extend" or "enlarge". Thus in law the word "modify" may just
mean "vary", i.e., amend; and when Art. 370(1) says
that the President may apply the provisions of the
Constitution to the State of Jammu and Kashmir with
such modifications as he may by order specify it
means that he may vary (i.e., amend) the provisions
of the Constitution in its application to the State of
Jammu and Kashmir. We are therefore of opinion
that in the context of the Constitution we must give
the widest effect to the meaning of the word "modification" used in Art. 370(1) and in that sense it includes an amendment. There is no reason to limit
the word "modifications" as used in Art. 370(1) only
to such modifications as do not make any "radica.I
transformation". We are therefore of opinion that
the President had the power to make the modification which he did in Art. 81 of the Constitution. The
petition therefore fails and is hereby dismissed with
costs.
Pet it ion dis missed .
I'uranlal
Lakhanpal
v.
The President
of India
Wanchoo J.