Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from two writ petitions challenging the Election Commission of India's Notification dated 16.03.2026 for conducting a bye-election to the 21-Ponda Constituency of the Goa Legislative Assembly, scheduled for 09.04.2026. The petitioners, argued that the Notification contravened Clause (a) of proviso to Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the remainder of the term for any newly elected member would be less than one year from the date of the election result, given that the Assembly's term ends on 14.03.2027. The vacancy occurred on 15.10.2025 due to the death of sitting MLA, and the Election Commission issued the Notification within six months as required by the main part of Section 151-A, but the petitioners contended that the proviso's embargo applied. The legal issue centered on interpreting 'remainder of the term' in Clause (a), with petitioners asserting it should be calculated from the date the newly elected member assumes office, not from the date of vacancy, based on precedents like Sandeep Yashwantrao Sarode v. Election Commission and Anil Shivkumar Dubey v. Election Commission. The Election Commission, represented by Senior Advocate S. R. Rivankar, did not file an affidavit but advanced oral arguments, while the State of Goa, though not a necessary party, participated through the Advocate General. The court analyzed the mandatory nature of Section 151-A, emphasizing its non-obstante clause and the prohibition in Clause (a) against holding bye-elections if the incoming member's term is less than one year. Relying on binding precedents and the doctrine of judicial discipline, the court held that the Election Commission's Notification was illegal as it violated Section 151-A, since the remainder of the term from the expected election result date (around 04.05.2026) to the Assembly's term end (14.03.2027) was less than one year. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned Notification, directing that no bye-election be held for the constituency.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Bye-Elections - Mandatory Prohibition Under Section 151-A - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 151-A - Petitioners challenged Election Commission's Notification for bye-election to 21-Ponda Constituency, arguing it violated Clause (a) of proviso to Section 151-A as the incoming member's term would be less than one year from date of taking office. Court examined undisputed facts: vacancy occurred on 15.10.2025, Assembly term ends 14.03.2027, and bye-election scheduled for 09.04.2026. Held that Clause (a) prohibits bye-election if remainder of term for newly elected member is less than one year from date of election result, not from date of vacancy, thus Notification is illegal and quashed (Paras 3-5, 7-9, 13-15). B) Election Law - Statutory Interpretation - Calculation of Remainder of Term - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 151-A - Dispute centered on interpretation of 'remainder of the term' in Clause (a) of proviso to Section 151-A. Petitioners contended it should be calculated from date of election result or swearing-in, not from date of vacancy. Court relied on precedents Sandeep Yashwantrao Sarode and Anil Shivkumar Dubey, which interpreted Clause (a) similarly, holding that term must be reckoned from date newly elected member assumes office. Held that since term ends 14.03.2027 and election result would be declared around 04.05.2026, remainder is less than one year, violating Section 151-A (Paras 5, 8-9, 13-14). C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Precedent - Binding Nature and Judicial Discipline - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Petitioners argued Election Commission, having accepted earlier High Court judgments interpreting Section 151-A, cannot take contrary stand. Court emphasized doctrine of precedence, stating a Bench of coordinate strength must follow earlier Bench's view unless it is per incuriam. Relied on Supreme Court cases like Birla Corporation Ltd and Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi. Held that Sandeep Yashwantrao Sarode and Anil Shivkumar Dubey are binding precedents, and Election Commission's attempt to hold bye-election despite them violates judicial discipline, warranting quashing of Notification (Paras 8-9, 12, 14).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Election Commission of India's Notification dated 16.03.2026 for conducting bye-election to the 21-Ponda Constituency of the Goa Legislative Assembly is contrary to Clause (a) of proviso to Section 151-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the remainder of the term of the incoming member would be less than one year
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Court quashed the impugned Notification dated 16.03.2026 and directed that no bye-election be held for the 21-Ponda Constituency
