CHARAN LAL SAHU & OTHERS versus GIANI ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER

CHARAN LAL SAHU & OTHERS versus GIANI ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER

Petitioners who were not duly nominated as candidates have no locus standi to file election petitions. Grounds for challenging a Presidential election are those specifically listed in section 18(1) or section 19 of the Act. The court cannot investigate allegations of a candidate's suitability or acts such as canvassing, misuse of government machinery, and communal appeals unless they constitute an offence under the Act. The Act and its restrictions are constitutionally valid. Mere canvassing is not undue influence. Oath under Article 84(a) is not required for Presidential candidates.

Parties
Petitioner: Charan Lal Sahu & Others; Respondent: Giani Zail Singh; Respondent: Another (not named)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
13 December 1983
Procedural Posture
Election Petition Under Article 71 of the Constitution / Judgment on Preliminary Objections and Merits
Outcome
Petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Presidential Election, Locus Standi, Undue Influence, Pleadings in Election Petitions, Statutory Interpretation
Constitutional Law Election Law Presidential Election Locus Standi Undue Influence Pleadings in Election Petitions Statutory Interpretation

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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charan Lal Sahu & Others

Petitioner

Giani Zail Singh

Respondent

Another (not named)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Election Petition Under Article 71 of the Constitution / Judgment on Preliminary Objections and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether petitioners had locus standi as 'candidates' under section 13(a) read with section 14A of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
  2. 2 Whether election to the office of President can be challenged on the ground that the returned candidate is not a suitable person
  3. 3 Whether acts alleged amounted to undue influence or grounds for challenging the election under section 18(1)(a) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioners who were not duly nominated as candidates have no locus standi to file election petitions. Grounds for challenging a Presidential election are those specifically listed in section 18(1) or section 19 of the Act. The court cannot investigate allegations of a candidate's suitability or acts such as canvassing, misuse of government machinery, and communal appeals unless they constitute an offence under the Act. The Act and its restrictions are constitutionally valid. Mere canvassing is not undue influence. Oath under Article 84(a) is not required for Presidential candidates.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Election Petition Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of 1982 are dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.