o 189 of 1971
Appeal under Section 116 A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated January 8 1971 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition No 1 of 1970
V P Raman and Vineet Kumar for the appellant
Jagdish Swarup Socilitor General of India B D Sharma and section P Nayar for the Election Commission of India
B Sen and Sobhag Mal Jain for the Supreme Court Bar Association
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg J
This is an appeal under Section 116 A of the Repre sentation of People Act 1951
The appellant s election held on 11 4 1970 to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates  Constituency was set aside by a learned Judge of the Madras High Court who decided all the issues except one in favour of the appellant
The only issue decided against the appellant which is now before us was framed as follows  Whether the first Respondent was not qualified to stand for election to the Graduates Constituency on all or any of the grounds set out by the petitioner in paragraph 7 to 9 of the election Petition  Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the election petition against the appellant are lengthy prolix and argumentative
The case and the contentions of the Respondent G Panneerselvam the petitioner before the High Court which were accepted by the High Court may be summarised as follows Firstly the whole purpose of Article 171 of the Constitution was to confer a right of functional representation upon persons possessing certain educational or other qualifications so that the Appellant Narayanaswami who had only passed the High School Leaving Examination and was not a Graduate could not be elected 175 at all to the Legislative Council from the Graduates  Constituency secondly it would be absurd and destructive of the very concept of representation of especially qualified persons that an individual who does not possess the essential or basic qualification of the electors should be a representative of those who are to be represented because of this special qualification of theirs and thirdly the Constitution being an organic instrument for the governance of the land must be interpreted in a particularly broad and liberal manner so as to give effect to the underlying principles and purposes of the system of representation sought to be set up by it and not in such a way as to defeat them
Hence the educational qualification of the electors should be read into the system of represen tation set up by the Constitution for Legislative Councils as a necessary qualification of candidates in such constituencies
Authorities are certainly not wanting which indicate that Courts should interpret in a broad and generous spirit the document which contains the fundamental law of the land or the basic principles of its Government
Nevertheless the rule of plain meaning or literal interpretation described in Maxwell s Interpretation of Statutes as the primary rule could not be altogether abandoned today in interpreting any document
Indeed we find Lord Evershed MR saying The length and detail of modern legislation has undoubtedly reinforced the claim of literal construction as the only safe rule
See  Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes 12th Edition p 28
It may be that the great mass of modem legislation a large part of which consists of statutory rules makes some departure from the literal rule of interpretation more easily justifiable today than it was in the past But the object of interpretation and of construction which may be broader than interpretation is to discover the intention of the law makers in every case See Crawford on Statutory Construction 1940 Ed para 157 p 240 242
This object can obviously be best achieved by first looking at the language used in the relevant provisions
Other methods of extracting the meaning can be resorted to only if the language used is contradictory ambiguous or leads really to absurd results
This is an elementary and basic rule of interpretation as well as of construction processes which from the point of view of principles applied coalesce and converge towards the common purpose of both which is to get at the real sense and meaning so far as it may be reasonably possible to do this of what is found laid down
The provisions whose meaning is under consideration have therefore to he examined before applying any method of construction at all
To these provisions we may now turn
Article 168 of our Constitution shows that the State Legis latures in nine States in India including Madras were to consist of two Houses  the Legislative Assembly and the Legislative Coun 176 cil
Article 170 lays down that the Legislative Assembly of each State shall consist of members chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the State in such a manner as the Parliament may by law determine
After that comes Article 171 which may be reproduced in toto here 1711 The total number of members in the Legislative Council of a State having such a Council shall not exceed one third of the total number of members in the Legislative Assembly of that State Provided that the total number of members in the Legislative Council of a State shall in no case be less than forty
2 Until Parliament by law otherwise provides the composition of the Legislative Council of a State shall be as provided in clause 3
3 of the total number of members of the Legislative Council of a State a as nearly as may be one third shall be elected by electorates consisting of members of municipalities district boards and such other local authorities in the State as Parliament may by law specify b as nearly as may be one twelfth shalt be elected by electorates consisting of persons residing in the State who have been for at least three years graduates of any university in the territory of India or have been for at least three years in possession of qualifications prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament as equivalent to that of a graduate of any such university c as nearly as may be
one twelfth shall be elected by electorates consisting of persons who have been for at least three years engaged in teaching in such educational institutions within the State not lower in standard than that of a secondary school as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament d as nearly as may be one third shall be elected by the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State from amongst persons who are not members of the Assembly
e the remainder shall be nominated by the Governor in accordance with the provisions of clause 5
4 The members to be elected under sub clausesa b and c of clause 3 shall be chosen in such territorial constituencies as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and the elections under 177 the said sub clauses and under sub clause d of the said clause shall be held in accordance with the system of pro portional representation by means of the single transferable vote
5 The members to be nominated by the Governor under sub clause 2 of clause 3 shall consist of persons having special knowledge or practical experience in respect of such matters as the following namely Literature Science article cooperative movement and social service
 The term electorate used in Article 1713 ab  c has neither been defined by the Constitution nor in any enactment by Parliament
21e of the Representation of People Act 43 of 1951 however says   elector  in relation to a constituency means a person whose name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the time being in force and who is not subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Sec
16 of the Representation of the People Act 1950
The plain and ordinary meaning of the term  electorate is confined to the body of persons who elect
It does not contain within its ambit the extended notion of a body of persons electing representatives from amongst themselves
Thus the use of the term electorale in Article 1713 of our Constitution could not by itself impose a limit upon the field of choice of members of the electorate by requiring that the person to be chosen must also be a member of the electorate
The qualifications of the electors constituting the electorate and of those who can represent each  electorate contemplated by the constitution and then supplemented by Parliament are separately set out for each house
We may glance at the provisions relating to Legislative Assemblies first
Section 16 of the Representation of People Act 43 of 1950 lays down the qualifications of an elector negatively by prescribing who shall be disqualified for registration in an electoral roll
A disqualified person is one who  a is not a citizen of India or b is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court _or c is for the time being disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections
Section 19 lays down the two conditions for registration on the electoral roll of a constituency
The person to be registered must not be less than 21 years of age on the qualifying date and must 178 be ordinarily resident in the constituency
The persons so registered whose names appear on the electoral roll constitute the electorato for the legislative Assembly of each State
Section 5 of the Representation of People Act 43 of 1951 enacts  5
Qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly of a State unless a in the case of a seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes or for the Scheduled Tribes of that State he is a member of any of those castes or of those tribes as the case may be and is an elector for any Assembly consti tuency in that State b in the case of a seat reserved for an autonomous district of Assam other than a seat the constituency for which comprises the cantonment and municipality of Shillong he is a member of a Scheduled Tribe of any autonomous district and is an elector for the Assembly constituency in which such seat or any other seat is reserved for that district and c in the case of any other seat he is an elector for any Assembly constituency in that State Coming to the Legislative Council we find that the qualifications for the four electorates are indicated by article 1713abc  d
And the qualifications of candidates for seats in a Legislative Council are given in Section 6 of the Representation of People Act 43 of 1951 which lays down 6
Qualifications for membership of a Legislative Council 1 A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Council of a State to be filled by election unless he is an elector for any Assembly con stituency in that State
2 A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislative Council of a State to be filled by nomination by the Governor unless he is ordinarily resident in the State
A look at Article 1712 set out above indicates that the composition of the Legislative Council of a State was a matter to be also provided for by law made by Parliament
It is evident that the constitution makers had directed their attention specifically towards the methods of election and composition of the legislature 179 of each State
They themselves prescribed same qualifications to be possessed by members of each House of the Legislature
Article 173 lays down  173
A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the Legislature of a State unless he a is a citizen of India and makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule b is in the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly not less than twenty five years of age and in the case of a seat in the Legislative Council not less than thirty years of age and c possesses such other qualifications as may be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law made by Parliament
An important and very noticeable difference between quali fications prescribed by Parliament for the membership of a Legislative Assembly by Section 5 of the Representation of People Act of 1951 and those for the membership of a Legislative Council by Section 6 of that Act is that so far as a member of the Legislative Assembly is concerned he or she has to be an Elector in the Constituency from which he or she stands but a member of a Legislative Council in a State is not similarly required to be a member of the electorate
All that Parliament says in Section 6 of the Representation of People Act 1951 is that the person to be chosen as a member of the Legislative Council has to be an elector for any Assembly constituency in the State to whose legislative Council he was to be chosen
He has to be ordinarily resident in the State to qualify for nomination
No other qualifications apart from those found in Article 173 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Representation of People Act of 1951 are to be found laid down anywhere
But an additional qualification was found by the judgment under appeal before us to exist by resort  ing to a presumed legislative intent and then
practically adding it to those expressly laid down
It may be possible to look for legislative intention in materials outside the four corners of a statute where its language is really ambiguous or conflicting
But where no such difficulty arises the mere fact that the intentions of the law makers sought to be demonstrated by what was said by some of them or by those advising them when the Constitution was on the anvil were really different from the result which clearly follows from language used in the Legislative provisions under consideration could not authorise the use of such an exceptional mode of construction
It is well accepted said Lord Morris See Davies Jankins  180 Co vs Davies  that the beliefs and assumptions of those who frame Acts of Parliament cannot make the law
The judgment under appeal after discussing the manner in which Article 171 of the Constitution was framed and the different views expressed about the nature of the Second Chambers to be set up by it in our States says  The system of functional which is also called occupational representation as distinguished from territorial representation was borrowed from the Irish Constitution and that is the underlying principle in Article 171
The opinion of political thinkers and statement on the wisdom of such representation may not be unanimous
Whatever be the divergent views the accomplished fact in the Constitution is that such a representation has been given recognition and it has to be implemented
In making the Legislative Council as a representative body the framers of the Constitution have not made it exclusively one of elected representatives according to their occupations
It is intended to be a hetergenous and more broad based body consisting of persons of different walks of life some elected and some nominated each with the experience in his own field of activity
The learned Judge concluded It is with these objects that clauses a b and c of Article 1713 have been conceived so that persons in those walks of life could make their contribution to the Legislative functions of the State
Article 171 in fixing the composition of the Legislative Council as a functional chamber
has also indirectly laid down certain qualifications and also disqualifications of members to be elected thereunder
Whatever may have been the opinions of Constitution makers or of their advisers whose views are cited in the judgment under appeal it is not possible to
say on a perusal of Article 171 of the Constitution that the Second Chambers set up in nine States in India were meant to incorporate the principle of what is known as functional or vocational representation which has been advocated by Guild Socialist and Syndicalist Schools of political thought
 Some of the observations quoted above in the judgment under appeal itself militate with the conclusions reached there
All that we can infer from our Constitutional provisions is that additional representation or weightage was given to persons possessing special type of knowledge and experience by enabling them to elect their special representatives also for Legislative Councils
The concept of such representation does not carry with it as a necessary consequence the further notion that the representative must also possess the very qualifications of those he represents
In the case of the Graduates  constituency it is provided in Article 1713b that the electors must have held their degrees 1 1967 2 WLR p 11 39  11 56
181 for at least three years before they become qualified an electors
Thus in laying down the test of competence of voters of such a constituency more possession of degrees by them was not considered sufficient
Moreover graduates are not an occupational or vocational group but merely a body of persons with an educational qualification
It would therefore not be correct to describe the additional representation sought to be given to them as an attempt to introduce the functional or vocational principle
On the face of it Article 171 appears to be designed only to give a right to choose their representatives to those who have certain types of presumably valuable knowledge and education
If the presumption of their better competence to elect a suitable representative in there as we think that there must be it would be for the members of such a constituency themselves to decide whether a person who stands for election from their constituency possesses the right type of knowledge experience and wisdom which satisfy certain standards
It may well be that the constitution makers acting upon such a presumption had intentionally left the educational qualifications of a candidate for election from the graduates constituency unspecified
A test laid down by Blackburn J in R vs Cleworth1 to determine what the correct presumption arising from an omission in a statute should be was whether what was omitted but sought to be brought within the legislative intention was known to the law makers and could therefore be supposed to have been omitted intentionally
It makes no difference says Craies in Statute Law2 that the omission on the part of the legislature was a mere oversight and that without doubt the Act would have been drawn otherwise had the attention of the legislature been directed to the oversight at the time the Act was under discussion
In the case before us it could not possibly be said that the question to be dealt with was not known to the legislators
It could not even be said that qualifications of the electors as well as of those to be elected were not matters to which the attention of the law makers both in the Constituent Assembly and in Parliament was not specially directed at all or that the omission must be by mere oversight
The provisions discussed above demonstrate amply how legislative attention was paid to the qualifications of the electors as well as of the elected in every case
Hence the correct presumption in such a case would be that the omission was deliberate
A glance at the legislative history lying behind Article 171 also enables us to reach the conclusion that the omission by the Constitution makers or by Parliament to prescribe graduation as 1 1864 4 BSS 927 934 2 Crains on Statute Law 5th En
182 must be deliberate
Sections 60 and 61 of the Government of India Act 1935 deal with composition of Provincial legislatures and of the two Chambers of such legislatures
The Upper Chambers in the Provincial Legislatures were to be composed of members retiring every third year in accordance with provisions of the Fifth Schedule to the Act
Rule 10 of this Schedule lays down In a Province in which any seats are to be filled by representatives of backward areas or backward tribes representatives of commerce industry mining and planting representatives of landholders representatives of universities or representatives of labour persons to fill those seats   shall be chosen in such manner as may be prescribed
On 30th April 1936 the Government of India Provincial Legislative Assemblies Order of 1936 was issued by His Majesty in Council
It prescribed the qualifications of persons to be chosen from the special constituencies set up for representation in the Legislative Councils A glance at the provisions relating to these qualifications including those for the University seats indicates that it was invariably expressly provided where it was so intended that a necessary qualification of a candidate for a seat was that he or she should be entitled to vote for the choice of a member to fill it
Hence legislative history on the subject would also indicate
that whenever any qualification of the candidate was intended to be imposed this was expressly done and not left to mere implications
We think that the view contained in the Judgment under appeal necessarily results in writing some words into or adding them to the relevant statutory provisions to the effect that the candidates from graduates  constituencies of Legislative Councils must also possess the qualification of having graduated
This contravenes the rule of Plain meaning or literal construction which must ordinarily prevail
A logical corollary of that rule is that a statute may not be extended to meet a case for which provision has clearly and undoubtedly not been made See Craies on Statute Law 6th Edn
p 70
An application of the rule necessarily involves that addition to or modification of words used in statutory provisions is not generally permissible see eg Sri Ram Narain Medhi  Ors
vs The State of Bombay1 British India General Insurance Co Ltd vs Captain Itbar Singh  Ors
2 R G Jacob vs Union of India3
Courts may deppart from this rule only to avoid a patent absurdity see eg State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ms Azad Bharat Finance Co  Anr4
In Hira Devi vs District Board Shahiahanpur5 this Court observed 1  2 3  4 ATR 5 ATR 365
183 No doubt it is the duty of the Court to try and harmonise the various provisions of an Act passed by the Legislature
But it is certainly not the duty of the Court to stretch the words used by the Legislature to fill in gaps or omissions in the provisions of an Act
Cases in which defects in statutory provisions may or may not be supplied by Courts have been indicated in well known works such as Sutherland s Statutory Construction 3rd EdnVol 2 Paragraph 4924 at pages 455 558 and in Crawford s Construction of statutes 1940 Edn
Only one passage from the last mentioned work need be cited here p 269  Where the statutes meaning is clear and explicit words cannot be interpolated
In the first place in such a case they are not needed
If they should be interpolated the statute would more than likely fail to express the legislative intent as the thought intended to be conveyed might be altered by the addition of new words
They should not be interpolated even though the remedy of the statute would thereby be advanced or a more desirable or just result would occur
Even where the meaning of the statute is clear and sensible either with or without the omitted word interpolation is improper since the primary source of the legislative intent is in the language of the statute
We think that the language as well as the legislative history of Articles 171 and 173 of the Constitution and Section 6 of the Representation of People Act 1951 enable us to presume a deliberate omission of the qualification that the representative of the Graduates should also be a graduate
In our opinion no absurdity results if we presume such an intention
We cannot infer as the learned Judge of the Madras High Court had done from the mere fact of such an omission and opinions about a supposed scheme functional representation underlying Article 171 of our Constitution that the omission was either unintentional or that it led to absurd results
We think that by adding a deemed to be necessary or implied qualification of a representative of the Graduates which the Constitution makers or in any event the Parliament could have easily imposed the learned Judge had really invaded the Legislative sphere
The defect if
any in the law could be removed only by law made by Parliament
We conclude after considering all the relevant constitutional and statutory provisions relating to the qualifications of a candidate for election from the Graduates  constituency of the Legislative Council of the Madras State that the appellant possesses all the qualifications laid down for such a candidate
184 Therefore we allow this appeal set aside the Judgment and order of the Madras High Court and dismiss the Respondent s election petition
The appellant is entitled to his costs throughout
VPS Appeal allowed


Summary:
The respondent challenged the appellant selection to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates  Constituency on the grounds 1 that the purpose of article 171 of the Constitution was to confer a right of functional representation upon persons possessing certain educational or other qualifications so that the appellant who was not a graduate could not be elected to the Legislative Council from the Graduates  Constituency 2 that it would be absurd and destructive of the concept of representation that an individual who did not possess the essential or basic qualification of the electors should be their representative and 3 that the Constitution being an organic instrument must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner so as to give effect to the underlying principles and purposes of the system of representation sought to be embodied in it
The High Court set aside the election
Allowing the appeal to this Court HELD 1 a Graduates are not an occupational or vocational group but merely a body of persons with particular educational qualifications
It would therefore not be correct to describe the additional representation sought to be given to them in the Legislative Council as an attempt to introduce functional or vocational representation
181B b The qualifications of the elector constituting the electorate and of those who can represent each electorate contemplated by the Constitution and supplemented by Parliament are separately set out for each House
As regards the Legislative Council the qualifications for the four electorates are indicated in article 171 3 a b c and d
The plain and ordinary meaning of the term electorate is that it is the body of persons who elect
It does not take in the extended notion of a body of persons electing representatives from amongst themselves
It does not impose a requirement that the person to be chosen must also be a member of the electorate
177D F c The qualifications of candidates for seats in the Council are given in section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1951
While a member of the Legislative Assembly should also be an elector in the constituency from which he stands the member of the Legislative Council is not so required to be a member of the electorate
All that is required is that the person to be chosen as a member of the Legislative Council should be an elector for an Assembly constituency in the State to whose Legislative Council he is chosen
179E d Whatever may have been the opinions of the Constitution makes or their advisors it is not possible to say on a perusal of article 171 that the Second Chamber found here were meant to provide for functional 173 or vocational representation
AR that can be inferred is that additional representation or weightage was given to persons possessing special types of knowledge and experience by enabling them to elect their special representatives
The concept of such representation does not carry with it the further notion that the representative must also possess the very qualifications of those he represents
The High Court erroneously travelled outside the four corners of the statutory provisions when there was no ambiguity at all in the language and by resorting to a presumed legislative intent it added a qualification to those expressly laid down in the Constitution and other statutory provisions
1 80F Davies Jankins  Co vs Davies 1967 2 WLR p 1139 a_ 1156 inferred to
2a Article 171 is designed only to give a right to choose their representatives to those who have certain types of presumably valuable knowledge and education
If the presumption of their better competence to elect a suitable representative is there it would be for the members of such a constituency themselves to decide whether a person who stands for election from their constituency possesses the right type of knowledge  experience and wisdom
The Constitution makers acting on such a presumption may have intentionally left the educational qualifications of candidate for election from the Graduates Constituency unspecified
181C b It could not possibly be said that the question to be dealt with was not known to the legislators
The provisions of law show that the qualifications of the electors as well as of those to be elected were matters to which the attention of the law makers both in the Constituent Assem bly and in Parliament was specifically directed
Hence the omission must have been deliberate
181G R vs Cleworth 1864 4 BSS 927 and Craies on Statute Law6th Edn
1963 72 referred to
c The legislative history of the Article also shows that the omission by the Constitution makers or by Parliament to prescribe graduation as a qualification of the candidate from the Graduates  constituency was deliberate
The provisions of the Government of India Provincial Legislative Assemblies Order 1936 prescribing the qualifications of persons to be chosen from special constituencies set up for representation in the Legislative Councils under the Government of India Act 1935 indicate that it was invariably expressly provided where it was so intended that a necessary qualification of a candidate for a seat was that he should be entitled to vote for the choice of a member to fill it
Such a qualification was not left to mere implication
181H 182E 3 It is true that a constitution should be interpreted in a broad and generous spirit but the rule of plain meaning or literal interpretation could not altogether be abandoned
The object of interpretation is to discover the intention of the law makers and this object can obviously be best achieved by first looking at the language used in the relevant provisions
A logical corollary of the rule of literal interpretation is that a statute may not be extended to meet a case for which provision has clearly and undoubtedly not been made and an application of this rule necessarily involves that addition to or modification of words used in statutory provisions is not generally permissible
Courts may depart from this rule only to avoid a patent absurdity
175D Sri Ram Narain Medhi  Ors
vs The State of Bombay AIR  British India General Insurance Co Ltd vs
Captain 174 itbar Singh  Ors  R C Jacob vs Union of India   State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ms Azad Bharat Finance Co  Anr
AIR 1967 SC 276 Hira Devi vs District Board Shabiahanpur   365 referred to
From the language as well as the legislative history of articles 171 and 173 of the Constitution and section 6 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 it could be presumed that the omission of the qualification that the representative of graduate should also be a graduate was deliberate
By presuming such an intention of the law makers no absurdity results
By adding deemed to be necessary  or implied  qualification of a representative of the graduates which the Constitution makers or Parliament could easily have imposed the Court would be invading the legislative sphere
183F