Case: Election Commission Vs. Saka Venkata Subba Rao

This is an appeal from an order of a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras issuing a writ of prohibition restraining the Election Commission, a statutory authority constituted by the President and having its offices permanently located at New Delhi, from enquiring into the alleged disqualification of the respondent for membership of the Madras Legislativerespondent was convicted by the Sessions Judge of East Godavari and sentenced to a term of seven years rigorous imprisonment in 1942, and he was released on the occasion of the celebration of the ludependence Day on 15th August, 1947. In June, 1952, there was to be a by election to a reserved seat in the Kakinada constituency of the Madras Legislative Assembly, and the respondent, desiring to offer himself as a candidate but finding himself disqualified under section 7 (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as five years had not elapsed from his release, applied to the Commission on 2nd April, 1952, for exemp- tion so as to enable him to contest the election. No reply to the application having been received till 5th May, 1952, the last day for filing nominations, the respondent filed his nomination on that day, but no exception was taken to it either by the Returning Officer or any other candidate at the scrutiny of the nomination papers. The election was held on 14th June, 1952, and the respondent, who secured the largest number of votes, was declared elected on 16th June, 1952. The result of the election was published in the Fort St. George Gazette (Extraordinary) on 19th June, 1952, and the respondent took his seat as a member of the Assembly on 27th June, 1952. Meanwhile, the Commission rejected the respondents application for exemption and communicated such rejection to the respondent by its letter dated 13th May, 1952, which however was not received by him. On 3rd July, 1952, the Speaker of the Assembly read out to the House a communication received from the Commission bringing to his notice "for such action as he may think fit to take", the fact that the respondents application for exemption had been rejected. A question as to the respondents disqualification having thus been raised, the Speaker referred the question to the Governor ofMadras who forwarded the case to the Commission for its "opinion" as required by article 192 of the Constitution. The respondent having thereupon challenged the competency of the reference and the action taken thereon by the Governor, the Commission notified the respondent that his case would be heard on 21st August, 1952. Accordingly, the Chief Election Commissioner (who wag the sole Member of the Commission for the time being) went down to Madras and heard the respondents counsel and the Advocate-General of Madras on 21th August, 1952, when it was agreed that, in case the petitioners counsel desired to put forward any further representations or arguments, the same should be sent in writing so as to reach the Commission in Delhi by 28th August, 1952, and the Commission should take them into consideration before giving its opinion to thethe same day (21st August, 1952) the respondent applied to the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution contending that article 192 thereof was applicable only where a member became subject to a disqualification after he was elected but not where, as here, the disqualification arose long before the election, in which case the only remedy was to challenge the validity of the election before an Election Tribunal. He accordingly prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus or of prohibition directing the Commission to forbear from proceeding with the reference made by the Governor of Madras who was not, however, made a party to the proceeding. On receipt of the rule nisi issued by the High Court, the Commission demurred to the jurisdiction of the court to issue the writs asked for, on the ground that the Commission was not "with in the territory in relation to which the High Court exercised jurisdiction". A further objection to the maintainability of the application was also raised to the effect that the action of the Governor in seeking the opinion of the Commission could not be challenged in view of the immunity provided under article 361 (1), and that the Commission itself, which had not to "decide" the question of disqualification, but had merely to give its"opinion", could not be proceeded against under article 226. On the merits, the Commission contended that article 192 was, on its true construction, applicable to cases of disqualification arising both before and after the election and that both the reference of the question as to the respondents disqualification to the Governor of Madras and the latters reference of the same to the Commission for its opinion were competent andapplication was heard by Subba Rao J. who overruled the preliminary objections and held that article 192 on its true construction applied only to cases of supervening disqualifications and that the Commission had, therefore, no jurisdiction to deal with the respondents disqualification which arose long before the election took place. He accordingly issued a writ prohibiting the Commission from proceeding with the enquiry in regard to the question referred to it by the Governor under article 192. The learned Judge, however, granted a certificate under article 132 that the case involved substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, and the Commission has accordingly preferred this appeal.

Court's reasoning:
In our opinion these two articles go together andprovide a remedy when a member incurs a disqualification after he is elected as a member. Not only do the words " becomes subject" in article 190(3) and "has become subject" in article 192(1) indicate a change in the position of the member after he was elected, but the provision that his seat is to become thereupon vacant, that is to say, the seat which the member was filling theretofore becomes vacant on his becoming disqualified, further reinforces the view that the article contemplates only a sitting member incurring the disability while so sitting. The suggestion that the language used in article 190(3) can equally be applied to a pre-existing disqualification as a member can be supposed to vacate his seat the moment he is elected is a strained and farfetched construction and cannot be accepted. The Attorney-General admitted that if the word " is " were substituted for "becomes" or " has become ", it would more appropriately convey the meaning contended for by him, but he was unable to say why it was notwas said that on the view that articles 190(3) and 192(1) deal with disqualifications incurred after election as a member, there would be no way of unseating a member who became subject to a disqualification after his nomination and before his election, for, such a disqualification is no ground for challenging the election by an election petition under article 329 of the Constitution read with section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. If this is an anomaly, it arises out of a lacuna in the latter enactment which could easily have provided for such a contingency, and it cannot be pressed as an argument against the respondents construction of the constitutional provisions. On the other hand, the Attorney-Generals contention might, if accepted, lead to conflicting decisions by the Governor dealing with a reference under article 192 and by the Election Tribunal inquiring into an election petition under section 100 of the Parliamentary statute referrred to above.For the reasons indicated we agree with the learned Judge below in holding that articles 190(3) and 192(1) are applicable only to disqualifications to which a member becomes subject after he is elected as such, and that neither the Governor nor the Commission has jurisdiction to enquire into the respondents disqualification which arose long before his election.