DURGA SHANKAR MEHTA versus THAKUR RAGHURAJ SINGH AND OTHERS.

DURGA SHANKAR MEHTA versus THAKUR RAGHURAJ SINGH AND OTHERS.

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is not ousted by Article 329 or section 105; statutory finality does not curtail constitutional powers. Where a returned candidate suffers a constitutional disqualification (under-age), the proper ground is non-compliance with constitutional provisions (section 100(2)(c)), not improper acceptance of nomination (section 100(1)(c)). The election of only the disqualified candidate should be declared void, not the whole election.

Parties
Appellant: Durga Shankar Mehta; Respondent No. 1: Thakur Raghuraj Singh; Respondent No. 2: Vasant Rao; Respondents: Other respondents (Nos. 3-7)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
19 May 1954
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Decision of Election Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal's order modified.
Legal Topics
Special Leave to Appeal Under Article 136, Finality of Election Tribunal Orders, Election Disqualification, Interpretation of Representation of the People Act, Scope of Article 329
Constitutional Law Election Law Special Leave to Appeal Under Article 136 Finality of Election Tribunal Orders Election Disqualification Interpretation of Representation of the People Act Scope of Article 329

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Durga Shankar Mehta

Appellant

Thakur Raghuraj Singh

Respondent No. 1

Vasant Rao

Respondent No. 2

Other respondents (Nos. 3-7)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal by Special Leave Against Decision of Election Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court's power under Article 136 to grant special leave is barred by Article 329 and section 105 of the Representation of the People Act
  2. 2 Whether the election of Vasant Rao should be declared void due to constitutional disqualification (under-age) under Article 173
  3. 3 Whether improper acceptance of a nomination due to non-objection before the Returning Officer amounts to a void election under section 100(1)(c) or 100(2)(c) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 is not ousted by Article 329 or section 105; statutory finality does not curtail constitutional powers. Where a returned candidate suffers a constitutional disqualification (under-age), the proper ground is non-compliance with constitutional provisions (section 100(2)(c)), not improper acceptance of nomination (section 100(1)(c)). The election of only the disqualified candidate should be declared void, not the whole election.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Tribunal's order modified.

Orders

  • The election of respondent no. 2, Vasant Rao, is declared void.
  • The election of the appellant, Durga Shankar Mehta, stands.