Case: PRAMOD LAXMAN GUDADHE Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

the High Court. The High Court had quashed the action placing reliance on Section 151A of the Act holding, inter alia, that the said provision is mandatory especially when the vacancies had already been notified by the Speaker of the Assembly as contemplated under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution. It is worth noting that the High Court had ignored the pendency of the election petitions against the candidates who had resigned on the foundation that uncertain consequences of the election petitions could not dilute the effect of Section 151A of the Act. The two-Judge Bench, scrutinizing the provisions of the Act and Article 190(3)(b), stated:-45. The Act is a complete code for the conduct of elections by the Election Commission of India appointed under Article 324 of the Constitution which provides for superintendence, direction, control and conduct of elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and also of elections to the offices of President and Vice- President held under the Constitution. The provisions of Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution have, therefore, to be read along with the provisions of the 1951 Act. Section 84 of the said Act cannot be rendered otiose by holding that all vacancies on account of the aforesaid provision of the Constitution become immediately available for being filled up by way of a bye-election. The same reasoning applies in regard to Section 151- A of the 1951 Act and its impact on the latter part of Section 84 thereof. As has been mentioned hereinbefore, a proceeding under Section 84 has to run its full course, particularly for the purposes of Section 8-A of the said Act. The views expressed by the Division Bench of the High Court on this point cannot, therefore, be sustained. The Court went on to say that the introduction of Section 151A did not alter the position as far as the provisions of Section 84 and, consequently, Sections 98(c) and 101(b) of the Act are concerned, although a casual vacancy may have occurred within the meaning of Section 150 of the Act. The Court made a distinction between the two categories of vacancies, namely, vacancies in which election petitions had been filed and are pending and other vacancies where no such cases were filed and pending. The Court opined that in the first category of cases, the vacancies could not have been treated to be available for the purposes of filling up within the time prescribed under Section 151A of the Act merely because a member of the House of a Legislature of a State had resigned and the same had been accepted by the Speaker. To arrive at the said conclusion, emphasis was laid on Section 84 of the Act. In the second category of cases, the Court pronounced that the vacancies would have to be construed as clear vacancies warranting action under Section 151A of the Act.15. A Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Sri Thomas Mates Gudinho v. Election Commission of India, New Delhi and others 3 , while interpreting Section 151A of the Act, has opined:-13. … Section 151A no doubt seeks to ensure that no Constituency remains un- represented for more than six months. But it is not unconditional. It is subject to two exceptions. i.e. where the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year or where the Election Commission in consultation with the Central Government certifies that it is difficult to hold the bye-election within the said period. Further the non obstante clause is limited in its application to Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151. The non obstante clause does not refer to Section 84 or 98(c) or 101. It therefore follows that Section 151A will have no application if an Election Petition is pending where the prayer is not merely a challenge to the election of the elected candidate, but also seeks a declaration that the petitioner or some one else should be declared as having been elected under Sections 84 read with Section 101 of the Act. Be it noted, the said view has been approved in the case of Telangana Rastra Samithi (supra).16. In the case at hand, no election petition was pending. The elected candidate tendered his resignation on 08.12.2017 and the same was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. The command of Section 151A is to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. As the factual score depicts, the vacancy occurred when the resignation was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. It is beyond any dispute that the next General Election to Lok Sabha is in June, 2019. Therefore, the remainder of the term is not less than one year. Whether the election is to be held or not would be governed by clause (b) to the proviso to Section 151A and we are not concerned with the same. The ground raised that the code of conduct would come into play before the elections are held in June, 2019 is absolutely sans substance as the Act does not contemplate so. It is the period alone that should be the governing factor subject to the pendency of election petition because that is not controlled by the non obstante clause. Such an interpretation is in accord with the sanctified principle of democracy and the intention of the Parliament is not to keep a constituency remaining unrepresented. The concern expressed with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated as a ground. It is so because the representative democracy has to sustain itself by the elected representatives. We may hasten to add that the matter would be different when an election dispute is pending against the candidate that comes within the ambit and sweep of Section 84 or Section 98(c) or Section 101(b) of the Act. That not being the case, the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impregnable.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]12. At the very outset, we must make a distinction between Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151 on the one hand and Section 151A of the Act on the other. While interpreting these provisions, it has to be kept in mind that though the right to elect a person is fundamental to democracy, yet it is only a statutory right. It is also well settled in law that the legislations governing the said right have to be strictly construed.In the case at hand, no election petition was pending. The elected candidate tendered his resignation on 08.12.2017 and the same was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. The command of Section 151A is to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. As the factual scoredepicts, the vacancy occurred when the resignation was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. It is beyond any dispute that the next General Election to Lok Sabha is in June, 2019. Therefore, the remainder of the term is not less than one year. Whether the election is to be held or not would be governed by clause (b) to the proviso to Section 151A and we are not concerned with the same. The ground raised that the code of conduct would come into play before the elections are held in June, 2019 is absolutely sans substance as the Act does not contemplate so. It is the period alone that should be the governing factor subject to the pendency of election petition because that is not controlled by the non obstante clause. Such an interpretation is in accord with the sanctified principle of democracy and the intention of the Parliament is not to keep a constituency remaining unrepresented. The concern expressed with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated as a ground. It is so because the representative democracy has to sustain itself by the elected representatives. We may hasten to add that the matter would be different when an election dispute is pending against the candidate that comes within the ambit and sweep of Section 84 or Section 98(c) or Section 101(b) of the Act. That not being the case, the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impregnable.