Case: R. Chandran Vs. M.V. Marappan

1. This appeal arises out of the election to the office of President of the Muthugapatti village Panchayat in Salem district of Tamil Nadu held on 31-7-1970 in which the appellant secured 1256 votes as against 1015 secured by the respondent and was declared elected. Thereupon the respondent filed an election petition before the Election Tribunal questioning the election. His contention was that the appellant had just completed 19 years of age and was therefore, incompetent to be elected as President. The Election Tribunal held that it was not established that the appellant was below 21 years of age. It was contended before the Election Tribunal on behalf of the appellant that once his name was found in the electoral rolls his election cannot be questioned on the ground that his age was below 21. Relying upon the decision of the Madras High Court in Viswanathan v. Rangaswamy, 1966-2 Mad LJ 560 = (AIR l967 Mad 244) the Election Tribunal rejected this contention, but as it had held in favour of the appellant on the question of age, it dismissed the election petition. On an application filed before the High Court of Madras by the respondent under Art. 227 of the Constitution to revise the order of the Election Tribunal, a learned Single Judge took the view that the age of the appellant was not above 21. He went further and held that his age was below 19 though the election petitioner himself had contended that he was just above 19 and had produced an extract purporting to be from the birth register of the village. According to the election petitioner the successful candidates father had only two sons and the successful candidate was the second of them and the extract from the birth register related to him. According to the appellant his father had four sons, of whom he was the 3rd and he was aged 21. The learned Judge held by a process of reasoning, which is a little difficult to follow, that the extract from the birth register produced before the Court did not relate to the appellant but related to the appellants elder brother and therefore the appellant was below 19. The High Court treated the matter as though it was dealing with a first appeal under section 96 C.P.C. and not its powers under Art. 227 of the Constitution. It did not deal with the question of law which would have been its legitimate province.

Court's reasoning:
The laws of various States regarding the preparation of electoral rolls for various local bodies in the States proceed on the basis of the electoral rolls prepared for the concerned Legislative Assembly constituency. Therefore all the decisions of this Court regarding the finality of the electoral roll apply directly to the electoral rolls of the various local bodies.After the decision of this Court in Ramaswamys case, (1963) 3 SCR 479  =(AIR 1963 SC 458  ) there was no room for any further difference of opinion on the matter. It is, therefore, all the more surprising that the Andhra Pradesh High Court in AIR 1970 Andh Pra 56 (supra) and the Madras High Court in (1966) 2 Mad LJ 560=(AIR 1967 Mad 244  ) (supra) took a different view even after taking note of the decision of this Court. Both these decisions, as we have pointed out earlier, proceed on a wholly wrong assumption. Their attempt to distinguish the decision of this Court in Ramaswamys case is pointless. The provisions of Article 326 of the Constitution are not attracted in deciding upon the validity of the inclusion of a persons name in the electoral roll for a Panchayat merely because the Panchayats Act has adopted a part of the electoral roll for an Assembly constituency as the electoral roll for the Panchayat. And in any case all the decisions of this Court on the finality of the electoral roll and their not being liable to be questioned would equally apply to the electoral rolls of local bodies.For the reasons we have already given the view consistently taken by this Court that when once a name is found in the electoral roll its inclusion could not be questioned in any election petition must be followed. The decisions of the Madras, Andhra and Kerala High Courts, already referred to, should be held to be erroneous and that of the Gujarat High Court in Mahmadhusein v. O. Fidaali, AIR 1969 Guj 334  , Allahabad High Court in Ghulam Mohiuddin v. Election Tribunal, AIR 1959 All 357   (FB), Bombay High Court in Jagannath v. Sukhdeo, AIR 1967 Bom 317   and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Roop Lal Mehta v. Dhan Singh (supra) as correct.In this case, therefore, it was not open either for the Election Tribunal or for the High Court to go into the question regarding the appellants age. The latest decision of Kailasam, J. in P. Subramaniam v. S. Pachamuthu, (1972) 85 Mad LW 567 = (AIR 1973 Mad 366  ) is consistent with the view we have taken.