Supreme Court Upholds Ad Hoc Judge's Jurisdiction Under Article 224A in Election Petition; Chief Justice's Reallocation Power Affirmed. Article 224A Judge Deemed Judge for Jurisdictional Purposes Under Section 80A(2) of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court considered an appeal by certificate against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had dismissed the appellant's writ petition questioning the jurisdiction of an ad hoc judge appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution to try an election petition. The dispute arose from the election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Mhow constituency in March 1972. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 were candidates; respondent No. 4 withdrew, and the contest was between the appellant and respondents 1 to 3. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected on March 12, 1972, and the appellant presented an election petition on April 25, 1972 under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election on various grounds. The election petition was initially entrusted by the then Chief Justice to a permanent judge, Vyas J., who dealt with it until June 1973. In the meantime, a retired judge, Surajbhan J., was requested to sit and act as a judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Article 224A, with the previous consent of the President, initially with effect from April 28, 1971, and later by notification dated November 23, 1972, for a period of one year or till disposal of election petitions entrusted to him. On June 2, 1973, the Chief Justice directed Vyas J. to sit on the Gwalior Bench; after correspondence, on August 20, 1973, the Chief Justice passed an order under Section 80A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, directing that the appellant's election petition and two others be tried by Surajbhan J. at the Indore Bench, superseding the earlier order dated July 9, 1972. The appellant objected that Surajbhan J. lacked jurisdiction and that the petition could not be withdrawn from Vyas J. Surajbhan J. dismissed the appellant's applications on September 11 and October 9, 1973. The appellant then filed a writ petition under Article 226 on September 27, 1973, seeking mandamus to restrain Surajbhan J. and direct Vyas J. to complete the trial; the High Court dismissed that petition. On appeal, the Supreme Court identified two main questions: whether an Article 224A judge is 'a Judge of the High Court' for purposes of Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, and whether the Chief Justice could reallocate the election petition after initial entrustment. The appellant contended that an Article 224A judge was not a judge for Section 80A and that reallocation was impermissible. The respondents argued that the Article 224A judge had full jurisdiction, powers and privileges, and that the Chief Justice had power under Section 80A to allocate and reallocate. The Court, per Khanna J., held that Article 224A provides that a person requested to sit and act as a judge shall have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a judge, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be a judge. The words 'while so sitting and acting' and 'otherwise' indicate that for purposes of jurisdiction, powers and privileges the person is a judge, while for other purposes he is not. The use of the word 'deemed' shows a legal fiction limited to matters of jurisdiction, powers and privileges. The non-obstante clause at the beginning of Article 224A reinforces that the person requested sits and acts as a judge notwithstanding other provisions of Chapter V of Part VI. The Court concluded that a person requested under Article 224A is a judge for the purpose of Section 80A(2) of the Act. On the second issue, the Court found nothing in Section 80A preventing the Chief Justice from relieving a judge and reallocating an election petition; the earlier decision in Zikar v. The State, I.L.R. 1951 Nag. 251 was held not applicable. The appeal was dismissed, and the jurisdiction of the ad hoc judge to try the election petition was upheld.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order, holding that a person requested under Article 224A of the Constitution is a judge of the High Court for the purpose of Section 80A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and that the Chief Justice has the power to reallocate an election petition to another judge, including an ad hoc judge.

Law Points