Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from a writ petition dismissed in limine by the Punjab High Court concerning the jurisdiction of the Election Commission of India to enquire into an allegation of post-election disqualification against a sitting member of the Orissa Legislative Assembly. The appellant, Brundaban Nayak, had been elected in 1961 and later became a Minister. On August 18, 1964, respondent No. 2, P. Biswal, complained to the Governor of Orissa alleging that the appellant had incurred disqualification under Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 7(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Chief Secretary forwarded the complaint to the Election Commission under the Governor's instructions on September 10, 1964, requesting an enquiry and opinion. The Election Commission issued notice to the appellant on November 17, 1964, calling for a reply and fixing a hearing. The appellant sought adjournment, and the matter was rescheduled to January 2, 1965. On that date, the appellant's counsel challenged the maintainability and competence of the proceedings before the Election Commission. The Commission overruled the objection, heard the complainant's counsel, and reserved its opinion. The appellant then moved the Punjab High Court under Article 226, which dismissed the petition summarily on January 6, 1965. The Supreme Court granted special leave on January 14, 1965, and stayed further proceedings before the Election Commission. The core legal issues were whether an ordinary citizen could raise a disqualification question under Article 192(1), whether the question had to be raised on the floor of the House and referred by the Speaker, and whether the Governor or the Election Commission should conduct the enquiry. The appellant argued that no valid question under Article 192(1) had arisen because an ordinary citizen could not raise it, and that only the Governor could hold the enquiry while the Election Commission's role was limited to giving an opinion on materials forwarded. The respondents contended that the Election Commission was competent to conduct the enquiry. The Supreme Court held that Article 192(1) requires only that a question should arise, and the manner or identity of the raiser was irrelevant. The words referring the question to the Governor emphasised that the Governor alone could decide, but a citizen was certainly entitled to complain about a member's disqualification. The Court further held that the enquiry had to be conducted by the Election Commission because the Governor was obliged to obtain its opinion and act according to it, making the Commission's opinion decisive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the Election Commission's jurisdiction to proceed with the enquiry, and the Supreme Court recommended legislation to vest the Election Commission with powers of a Commission under the Commissions of Enquiry Act, 1952.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Disqualification of State Legislator - Article 192(1) of the Constitution of India - The court held that Article 192(1) does not prescribe who may raise a disqualification question or how it must arise; any citizen may complain to the Governor about a member's post-election disqualification, and the decision rests solely with the Governor. The contention that the question must be raised on the floor of the House and referred by the Speaker was rejected because Article 192(1) would have been worded differently if that were intended. Held that a citizen is entitled to make a complaint to the Governor about disqualification incurred by a member under Article 191(1), and the question once raised must be referred for the Governor's decision (Paras 59-60). B) Constitutional Law - Enquiry by Election Commission - Article 192(2) of the Constitution of India - The court held that the enquiry for the purpose of the Governor's decision under Article 192(1) must be held by the Election Commission and not by the Governor, since the Governor is bound to obtain the Election Commission's opinion and act according to it. The opinion of the Election Commission is in substance decisive, and therefore the Commission may proceed to try the complaint before giving its opinion. Held that the Election Commission was competent to conduct the enquiry and call upon the appellant to reply to the complaint (Paras 60-62).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ordinary citizen can raise a question of disqualification of a sitting member of a State Legislature under Article 192(1) of the Constitution, and whether the Election Commission is competent to hold an enquiry before giving its opinion to the Governor under Article 192(2).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the Election Commission was competent to hold the enquiry under Article 192(2) before giving its opinion to the Governor, and that a citizen could validly raise the disqualification question by complaint to the Governor. The High Court's dismissal of the writ petition was upheld, and the stay on Election Commission proceedings stood vacated.
Law Points
- Article 192(1) requires only that a question of disqualification arises
- not how or by whom it is raised
- any citizen may complain to the Governor about a member's disqualification under Article 191(1)
- the decision on disqualification rests solely with the Governor
- the Governor must obtain the opinion of the Election Commission and act according to that opinion
- the Election Commission is competent to hold an enquiry before giving its opinion
- Article 190(3) provides for vacation of seat upon disqualification
