Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a candidate in the Presidential elections held on 19 July 2012, challenged the election of the respondent to the office of President of India. The respondent had received votes of the value of 7,13,763 and was declared elected, while the petitioner secured votes valuing 3,15,987. The petitioner filed an election petition under Article 71 of the Constitution read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, alleging that on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, the respondent held the office of Chairman of the Council of the Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, which was an office of profit, thereby disqualifying him under Article 58(2) of the Constitution. During scrutiny on 2-3 July 2012, an objection was raised before the Returning Officer, but the respondent submitted a resignation letter dated 20 June 2012. The Returning Officer rejected the objections and accepted the nomination papers on 3 July 2012. A subsequent petition to the Election Commission under Article 324 was dismissed as not maintainable. The Presidential election was held and the respondent elected. The matter came before a five-judge bench for preliminary hearing under Rule 13 of Order XXXIX to decide whether the petition deserved a regular hearing under Rule 20. The petitioner argued that the resignation was doubtful and that a full trial with evidence and cross-examination was necessary, invoking Section 141 CPC and Rule 34 Order XXXIX. The petitioner also contended that the office of Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute constituted an office of profit requiring interpretation by the court. The respondent's case was that he had resigned from all disqualifying positions before filing nomination. The court's decision on the preliminary hearing is not recorded in the available text.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Presidential Election - Disqualification - Article 58(2), Constitution of India - Office of Profit - The petitioner contended that the respondent, as Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute, held an office of profit under an authority subject to government control, rendering him ineligible to contest the Presidential election. The court, at the preliminary stage, examined whether the petition raised a triable issue requiring regular hearing. (Paras 2-8).
B) Election Law - Scrutiny of Nomination - Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 - Returning Officer's Powers - The Returning Officer accepted the nomination papers over objections, including the genuineness of a resignation letter dated 20 June 2012. The petitioner challenged this decision, leading to the election petition before the Supreme Court under Article 71. (Paras 3-5, 15).
C) Civil Procedure - Applicability of CPC to Election Petitions - Section 141, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Rule 34 Order XXXIX, Supreme Court Rules, 1966 - The petitioner argued that the trial of an election petition should follow the procedure of a suit, including recording of evidence and cross-examination, as nearly as possible to proceedings in original jurisdiction. (Paras 9-12).
D) Interpretation of Laws - 'Office of Profit' - Articles 102(1)(a), 191(1)(a), Constitution of India - Reliance placed on Shibu Soren v. Dayanand Sahay (2001) 7 SCC 425 to urge a realistic interpretation of the expression 'office of profit' keeping in view the object of the disqualification provisions. (Paras 14-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Petition challenging the election of the President of India deserved a regular hearing under Rule 13 of Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, on the ground that the Respondent held an office of profit as Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, thereby disqualifying him under Article 58(2) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- disqualification for holding office of profit
- interpretation of Article 58(2) of the Constitution
- procedure for election petitions under Supreme Court Rules
- requirement of regular trial akin to suit under CPC
- scrutiny of nomination by Returning Officer under Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act
- doubtful resignation raises doubt under Article 71
Case Details
2012 LawText (SC) (12) 87
Election Petition No. 1 of 2012
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Election petition under Article 71 of the Constitution read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, challenging the election of the respondent as President of India.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the election of the respondent as President is void on the ground that he held an office of profit on the date of scrutiny of nomination papers, rendering him disqualified under Article 58(2) of the Constitution.
Filing Reason
The Returning Officer had rejected objections to the respondent's nomination despite the petitioner's claim that the respondent, as Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute, held an office of profit. The petitioner also questioned the genuineness of the respondent's resignation letter.
Previous Decisions
Returning Officer rejected objections on 3 July 2012 and accepted nomination; Election Commission of India dismissed petition on 9 July 2012 as not maintainable.
Issues
Whether the respondent held an office of profit as Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute on the date of scrutiny of nomination, thereby disqualifying him under Article 58(2) of the Constitution.
Whether the election petition deserved a regular hearing as contemplated under Rule 13 of Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and whether trial should be conducted as a suit under Section 141 CPC and Rule 34 Order XXXIX.
Whether the expression 'office of profit' under the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, requires a conclusive interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Submissions/Arguments
The respondent held the office of Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute, which is an office of profit, disqualifying him under Article 58(2).
The respondent's resignation letter dated 20 June 2012 is of doubtful authenticity; endorsement by the President of the Institute does not clearly indicate acceptance of resignation.
A full-fledged trial with evidence and cross-examination is necessary to resolve the doubts, as required under Article 71, and the procedure should be akin to a suit under Section 141 CPC and Rule 34 Order XXXIX.
The expression 'office of profit' has not been conclusively explained and requires interpretation; reliance placed on Shibu Soren vs. Dayanand Sahay (2001) 7 SCC 425 for a realistic interpretation.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
"58. Qualifications for election as President.- (1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he - (a) is a citizen of India, (b) has completed the age of thirty-five years, and (c) is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People. (2) A person shall not be eligible for election as President if he holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments."
"13. Upon presentation of a petition the same shall be posted before a bench of the Court consisting of five Judges for preliminary hearing and orders for service of the petition and advertisement thereof as the Court may think proper and also appoint a time for hearing of the petition. Upon preliminary hearing, the Court, if satisfied, that the petition does not deserve regular hearing as contemplated in Rule 20 of this Order may dismiss the petition or pass any appropriate order as the Court may deem fit."
"In keeping with the provisions of Rule 13 of Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, which deals with Election Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, the Election Petition filed by the Petitioner was listed for hearing on the preliminary point as to whether the petition deserved a hearing, as contemplated by Rule 20 of Order XXXIX."
Procedural History
The petitioner and respondent were the only candidates in the Presidential elections held on 19 July 2012. The respondent filed nomination while holding the post of Chairman of the Indian Statistical Institute. On 2-3 July 2012, scrutiny of nomination papers was conducted; the petitioner objected, but the respondent submitted a resignation letter dated 20 June 2012. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and accepted the nomination on 3 July 2012. The petitioner moved the Election Commission under Article 324 on 9 July 2012, which dismissed the petition as not maintainable, stating that disputes relating to Presidential elections are exclusively triable by the Supreme Court. The election was held on 19 July 2012 and results declared on 22 July 2012, with the respondent elected. The petitioner then filed the present election petition under Article 71 read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, which was listed for preliminary hearing under Rule 13 before a five-judge bench.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 58, Article 71, Article 102, Article 324
- Supreme Court Rules, 1966: Order XXXIX, Rule 13, Rule 20, Rule 34; Order XXII
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 141
- Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952: Not specified
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 87
