CHARAN LAL SAHU & OTHERS versus GIANI ZAIL SINGH & ANOTHER

CHARAN LACSAHU & OTHERS v. ,

preiiminary objection to the maintainability of these'petitioiis was raised on behalf of Respondent no. l and the AttorneY General. It was contended that neither of the two petitioners was 'candidate' within the meaning of section J3(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 and since under section ·14A,·an election petition can be filed only by persJn.who was candidate -~ t the election, the petitioners had no standing to :file thC petitiolls . . •

This Court framed the foJlowing prr.Iimin,ary issue : "Does the petitioner have no locus stamii to maintain the petition on the ground that he-Was not ·'candidate' withi~. the meaning of .sect~On l 3(a) read wiih . section 14A of . Presidential and ViceRPresidential Elect.ions Act 1952?

Election. Petition No. 4 Qf 1982 was filed by 27 Meclbers of Parlia111ent challen"ging the electiOn of Respondent No. 1, Giani Zail Singh as. the President of India. Contending that the petitioners jointly sponscred the can°didature Of Shii H.R. Khanna,· former Judge and that Giani zail Siilgh was 'not ·"suitable' perso.n" for holding the· high office of the President of India, and that : (1) Shri M.H. Beg former Chief Jus~ice and Chairman of the Minorities Commission, was engaged by Respondent J and by the Prime Minister "for influencing the Votes of the Minority Communities"; (2) that Cabinet Minister of the Union -Government, 'suppdrter ·and cfose associate'. of Respondent 1, exercised undue influence civer the voters by n1isusing the a·overnR ment machinery and that statement was issued by him through the Press · Information Bureau asking the voters to vote for Respondent 1, (3) that the Prime ,Minister participated. in the election can1p.aign of ReSpondent 1 and· misused the Government machinery for that purpose, ( 4) that th~ Prime Minister made conunu~al appeal to the Akali Dal that its members should vote for Respondent J., and (5) that Govern1nent helicopt_ers arid cars weie misused for the purpose of the election of Respondent 1, and that thesr various acts were committed.by" supporters of Respondent 1 with his connivance.-

It was contended on behalf of ResP,ondent 1 that even assuming that the.aforesaid <i:IJegation wefe true they did not disclose any cause of action· for setting ~side vie i:lection of respondent 1.

This Court framed the following issue'j.: (I) "can the election ofa candidate to the office of the Pres.ic.le~t o(Indi:i be cha!langed ·l'>n .the. ground that he is not sutitable person for holding that office'', (2) '.'whether the "averments iri the EleCtion :Petition, assuming them to be true and c;:orrect-, disclose any cause of action for setting aside the election of the returned candidate (Respondent 1) on the grounds stated in section 18 (l)(a) of the Act".

Dismissing the election Petitions,

HELD:

0[/ection ][Petitions ][Nos.i ][& ][3of1982. ]

1. The petitioners have no locus standi to file_theelection _petitions sincethey were neither duly nominated rior can they clain1 to have been dulx ' ' ominarg as candidates at the Presidential election. [16 HJ·

2. Three pre-conditions govern an election petitio.n-by which PresiC:enM · tiaf election is challanged. In the first place such petition has to be filed in the Supreme_Coui_t. SeCopdly, th~ petition mUst disclose c)Jallange to the election on one or·more grounds specified in su bMsection (.J) ·of secfion 18 or section 19. ~Thirdly' an cleC'.tion petition can -be preseiited only by person who was candidate at the presidential election or by twenty or rr:.ore e1ect0rs joined together as.petitioners: [14 E~FJ ... •.

3. ·The definition of the ~ord 'candidate.> in srction 13 (~) of the Act consists of two parts. 'Canclidate' means _per.son who has. either _been duly nominated as candidate·at Presidential election or person who claims to have b~n duly nominate4.· Section SB (1) ·(a) of the Act provides th"at on or beforo the date appc)inted for rnakfng nominations·, each can.di date shall· deliver to the Returning Officer nomination paper completed i.n the prescribed form, subscribed by the cand.idate as assenting to the noni.il,1ation, and '~in the case of Presidential election, also by, at least ten electors as proposei;s and at least ten c_lectors as seconders". [14 0-H; tS AJ

In the instant case, neither ""of the t"wo petitioners was duly nominated . The nomination paper~ filed by them ·y,rere not eubscribeU by ten eiectOrs . '" a.!I proposers and ten electors as. seconders." It was precisely for this reason that their nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officer. Since the nomination papers of the two petitioners were ·not subscribed as required by Section SB (l) (a) of the Act, it follows that they \Vere not duh; Dominated as "candidates·· at the electi6n. ·[15 A-BJ ·

4. The. occasion for person to make claim that he was duly nominated can arise only if the nomination paper complies with the statutofy reqµirements · which govern the filing of rt0Il,1ination ·papers arid not other.wise. The claim that he was 'duly' nominated necessarily implies and inyolves the claim that hi.s nomfnaiion paper col):forme~ to the requirements of the- statute. contes-tant. whose .nomination paper is not su·b~cribed. by ·at least ten electors" as proposers and ten electors as ·seconders, as required by S. 58 (1) (a) of the Act, cannot therefore claim to have been duly nom'ina_ted, any more than ii Cop.testant who had not, subscri~eci his assent to his own nomina,tion can. The claim of contestant that he was duly nominated must arise out of his com-· pliance w.ith ·provision of the Act, and not out of the vii;>lation of the Act.. Other- , wise, person: who had not filed any nomination paper at all but who had 9nly informed the· Returning Officer oralfy that he desired to contest the election could also contend that he "claims to have beeh duly nominated as· candi-date·~ [15 F-H; 16 A] o

In the instant case, the nomination papers of the petitioners were rightly . rejected on· the groundeof n,on~corp.plia·nce with ~he mandatOJ.'Y requirement" of '· 58 (1) (a) of th~ Act. Their claim [that they have been duly nominated is not' within the framework of the Act but.is dehors ihe Act. It Cannrit the"refore be entertained. {16 q

Charan Lal Sahu v. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed, (A.I.R.) 1975 S.C. 12S8; Ch;ran Lill Sahuv. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3 SC~ J, referred to.

5. It is o(tli~ essence of the functioning of democra"cy tha:t CJections. to public office~ must -be open to the Scrutiny . of an independent . Tribunal.~ [17 Di

In the instant cases, it is• regrettable that eiection petitions challenging the· ~. election • .fo. the high office of the President of In_dia should be filed in • cavalier'Tashioil. The petitions- have an extempore appeti?ance and not even second look. ap:pears· to hiive been· given to the manner of drafting these petitions or to the contents raised ther~in. The cOurt · refrained from passing any order of Costs and, instead expressed disap°proval .of-~he. light hearted and indifferent manner in which these petitions were filed. [17 B-C] ·

election Petition l:io. 4 of 1982.

I. The rights arising .out of electio.ns, inclllding the 'right to _contest or· challenge an election. are not common ·iaw· rights. They are creatures of the~ statutes which create, confer or limit those rights. Therefcre, for deciding the question whether an election call be set as_ide on. any alleged ground, the courts have to consult the provisions-of law governing the particular election. They • qave to fUnctiDn_ within the framework of that law and canno~ t.ravel beyond it. Only those~ persOns on· whom the right of franchise is conferred by the statute Ca~ vote at the ~teCtion. [19 F-GJ • '

In ·the instant case, that right is conferred on every 'elector' as defined in section 2( d) cf the Act. Only those person who are qualified t.o be elected to ihe particular office ca.n contest the election. That' right is regulated by section 5A Of the Act. The election can be calle.d into· question in the manner ·prescribed by the stature and not ·in any other manner.· Sectic·n 14( 1) of the· Act provides that no t'.lection shall ·be called iri question except by presenting: an el~tion petitio~ to the authority specified in sub-section (2) which: is the Supreme.Court. The grounds for setting aside the election. to th.e Office of thl-_ Presid6nt or the Vice-President and the ground on Which candidate other than the returned candidate may be. dci:Iared to have .been f'fected are laid . down in sections 1S and 19 of the Act. The election can neither be questioned nor set aside on any othef grollnd. Therefore,. tbe challenge to the election . of the r~turned candidate on the ground _pf his want of suitability :to .occupy the offi~ of the President cannot be entrrtaine~ a~d mU~t be.r:ejected. [20 i;~E] •

K. Venkateswdra Rao v. Bekkam Na~simha Reddy [1969] l SCR. 679 at 684 and Charan Lal Sahu v. NandkisRore Bhatt, [J974] 1 SCR 294 at 296 referred to .

2. Suitability of candidate is for the electorate to judge and not for the cOurt tO decide. The cou·rt cannot Substitute-its own assessment of the suitability -0f candidate for the verdict returned by the electorate._ The verdiCt of the· electorate is verdict on the suitability· of the Candidate. 'Suitability' is &uid concept of uncertaih import. The .b•l.lot-box is, or has to be assumed to be, its sole judge. [20 G-21 Al

3. It is not operi to petitioner in an Election•Petition to plead in terms ofSynonyms. In Election Petitions pleadingS have to be precise, specific 8.nd unambiguous s.o as to pUt the respondent on notice. · The rule of pleadinas that facts constituting the cause of action must be 1pecifically pleaded i1 a1 fund•-1\lC\\.tll.\l\ it i~ eleme11.t~ry. [23 Al

[1984] 2 s.c:R .

. 4. :· _'.Co~Vance• 1naj. in OOrt.ain ~ituC'tions amou1~t 'to 'consent'. DictioR nanes gi~e fconsf'nt' as One of the meanings ·of the word 'conriivancC·. BUt·it iS not .true to say. that '.connivance' invt1:riably and necessarily- ffieans. or a1nounts to 'consent', tha~ is to· say, irrespective Of t~ conteXt of the given situation. The two cannot, therefore, be equated. Consent implies that parties are ad idem._ Connivance does not beceSsarily imply that · t1arties ate_ of·. one mind. They .may or may not be, depending'\tpon the. facts of the sit.uation. [23- B-Cj . . . \ .5. . Precision~ . i1~ pleadings particularl:Y. . in Election Petitions is necessary. . The ht1.porta~Ce of a. specific pleading in election PetitiOn~ ·caJ1 be 3:PPrecia:ted only if.it is rea.Jis~d that the absence of specific. plea puts the. respondent at a· · great disadvantage.' He m.us~ ~now what .case hC has to 'meet. He canpot be kept guessing .whether tµe petitioner means what he says. The petitioner canno't be allowed_ to keep his Options op~n until .the trial and adduce srich eviden~ as seems· cbnvei1ient and comes handy. It is therefore inlperffiissible· to substitute · tJie wOrd 'c0nsent' for the word 'C_<?nQi~ance' which occurs in the p_leadingS of the petitioners. [23 F; D-E] -· ·. .. ' ' * '

(;. "In theabsenCeof ·a pleading that the offence of.undue influerice-was Committed with the "consent" oftP,e returned candidate, one of the.main ingre-dients of section 18(1) . . (a) remains unsatisfied. [21 . . CJ . ·

7, .WhentheAct wa.s passe<lin 1952,sectiqnl8(l)(a)providedthatthe Supreme Court ·shall declare the election it·is . of opinion that the offence -... of .bribery or undue influence has been com of the returned candidate void if . ' mitted by i'he returned 'candidite or by any person "with the connivance:' of the tial and returned candidate. This . . ViCe~Presid~ntial . sub-sectio~ Election .(Amendinent) Act, ' waS afriended by sectiori 7 . 5 of . . 1974, Of the Presiden :The word~ . . 'connivance' ~was substituted by the word 'c·onsent' by the. Amendment Act. · 1r 'connivance' carried 'the same meaning as 'consent' and if one was the same as the other, tI{e Parliament would not h.ave -'taken the deliberate steP of. deleting the word 'connivance' and substituting it by the word 'consent'. The Ainendment shows that 'conii.ivance' and 'consent' connote diS:tinct. concepts for the ~urpose of section 18 (1) (a). [23 G-24 BJ

8. ·The mei:.e ·.A.ct of canvassing for candida~ cannot amtiunt to un<!_ue influence within the rn,eap.ing of Section 171C of the Penal ~de. [26 C]

·, Bab~rao pai~l ·v. Dr . . Zakir ·Hussain [1968] 2 SC~ 133; Shiv Ktrpal Singh v. Shri V. V Giri [1971] 2 SCR 197, 320, 321; and Ram Dial v. Sant Lal [1959] Suppl. 2SCR 748 at 758, 759 referred to.

9. The laws of eiectiOn are· self-contained codes and the rist!ts arjsin8 . Out or election's a.re the off springs of th~se laws. The provisio"ns Of the Representation o(ihe People Act 19~1 cannot be en!l;rafted upon the.Presidential and Vic~-PresidentialiElections Act 1952, 'to enlarge the scope of an election petition filed to challenge Presidential· or Vice-Pre~idential election. -Such an electioii can be set as'ide onlY on the grounds· specified in section 18 (1) of ~~ct.~~ . . , •

* 10. The use of Government mac.hinery, abuse· of official position and • appeal to communal sentiments so long as such appeal does not amOunt to

. '!'-. --.

CHARAN LAL v. ZAiL SINGH

undue inftuence,~fe not considered by the Legislf!,ture to be circumstan_ces which would invalidate Presidential or ·a v·ice-Presiderltial·election. [27 M; 28 A]

, ·1 I. The· Act cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it ·lim·its :!he challenge ~o th~ Pre,sidential and Vice-Plesidentiai" Election tO the g'.rou'nds set for.th in section 18 (1). While enacting law in pursuance of·. the Dower conferred by Artic\e 71 (_3), Parliament is entitled to specify t~C praticular kind _of doubts or disputes which shall be inquired into and d~cided by the Supreme .Court. If every kind of fanCiful doubt or frivolous cloubt will have to be inquired-into by this Cour:t, electioii petitions ,.will beCame fertile ground for fighting political battles. (28 F; 28 G·H] .

· 12. candidate who, .wan!s t<? co~test the el~ction. for the office.of thC President canno.t take tpe oath in any of the forms prescribed by the Third Sche- · . dule to.the Constitu.tion. That Schedule· do€"s ·not prescribe. any form' of oath. ·c

. for person who desires to :contest a~Presic.lenti~l election. [29 E] ·.

· In the instant case, the avennents in the Election petition,_ assuming the1n) t( l:ie·true and correct, do not disclose any .cause of·actiori for .setting asicte ihe_ .- -election of the returned can<lidJl.te on· the ground stated in section 1.8 (1) (a) of . tlie-i\ct. [28 Pl ¢> · . . . · CiVJL APPELLATE JuRISDICTlON: . Election Petition No. 2 of . 1982

(Petition under Article 71 of ihe Constitution.)

AND

B!ection .Petition No.'"3 of-1982.

·(Petition under Article 71 of the Constitution.)

71 ... WITH;

Election Petitio~ No. 4 of )982 .

(Petition under Article 71 of the Constitution.)

Petitioner in person in ~lection Petition No. 2/82.

Hari Shanker Jain and K.K. Gupta for the Petitioner i.n Election Petition_ No.3/82. · • • ·

Shujaatu//ah Khan. and K.K. Gupta for the Petitioner i.n Election Petition No.4/82 . \

• : O.P Sharma, R.C. Gubrele, K.R Gupta and R.C. Bhatia_ for the . Respondents in Ele6tion Petition No.2/82. . ' ' . ~ .,

P.R. Mridul, A'1r. Sen. O.P._ Sharma, R.c: Gubre/e, K,R Gupta·· and R.C. Bhatia 'for the respondent in Election Petition No.3/82.

A..K. Sen, 1.$. Basu, O.P. Sharma, R.C. Gubrel'- K.R Gupta and· R..C.' Bhatia for the respondent in Eleftion Petition No. 4/82 .

[1984] 2 s.c:11.. . ' .

A· :. K Para<aran, Att .General :and R.D ..• Agarwalti. in all the. Election Petitions.

P.N Duda, H.L Tikkum, D.S. Narula, Vijay Pandit and ll.C. Agarwafa for. the Intervenors> · · ·. A.S. Pundir for the Jnter.venor.. • . ' : D.B. Vo/zra fot the Interveriors. ·. The.Judgment oft.he· Court was delivered by . ·,.

. C:,HANDRACHUD, C.J. : These three Election petitions are filed under. section 14 of the Presidential and Vice·Presidential Electfons .Act, j 952 .to' (:hallenge the election of Respondent L Oiani Zail Singh,· as the President.of India. The election to tqe office of the President of . India was held . ... ·Ori J~lv " 12, 1982. in all, 36 ~ candidats had filed· '!:nomination papers· including Shri Charan Lal. Sahu who is tht; peti-·. ti01i.er in Petition No. 2 of 1982 anci Shri Nerri Chandra Jain who is . ~the pe\itioner in el~tion'Petition No. 3 of 1982. The Retu~ning officer accepted the nomination papers of two candidates only : Gaini Zail Singh and Sh~i H.R. Khanna~ retired Judge ofthis Court. The result of the election was published iii the Extraordinary Gazette of India on July 15. 1982 declarinjl Giani Zail Singh as the successful candidate . Ho t.ook . . oatli of offiee on July . ' 25, 1982, . · • We will first take ~P for conside~ation Election Petitions 2 and 3 of 1982 which. are filed respectively liy Shri Charan Lal Sahu and Shri Neni Chandra Jain both o(whi>m, incidentally, are Advocates . . Election Petitions Nos. 2 I< 3 of 1982.: ( .. •. Jn.Petition No. 2 of !982; the petitioner asks f6r the followini: · · ~~= ·. "(!) That the Constitutional Eieventh Amendment Act 19•1 · • be declared ultra-vires of the Constitutiort. · . . ' ... · (2) That the sections 5 (B) <;and 5 (c) 21 (3) of the Presidential · and Vice.Presidential Election· Act 1952 (Amended) wi.th Electio'll. Rules 1974 be • declared, illegal, void and u~conatitutional, under Article 58 of the Con•iitution. '. . .

(1984] 2 S.C.J,l.

i SUPREME COURT REPORTS

·Since the petitioners contested their alleged· lack of locus to file . the petitions, the following issue was framed by us preliminary issue in ~ach. of the ·two election peiitions :

"Does ·the petitioner have nci locus standi to maintain ·the petition on .the ground that be was not 'candidate' within the meaning·of section J3(a) read with sectl0n·l4A of the .Presidential arid Vice-Presidential Elections Act, '1952 ? "

Section 14 of the Act provides by sub-sec(iot\ (I) that no election .shall be called in question except by presen\ing an election petition to·. the authority spedfied in sub-section (2). According to sub-section (2), • the authority having jur.isdicti6n to .try .an election. petition is the Supreme Court. By section 14A(l) of the Act, an election P,etiticn may be presented on the grounds specified in section 18(1) and 19 "by any ·.candidate at such election" or; "in the ease of Presidential elelcticn'.' by twenty or more electors joined together . as petitioners". Section . 13(a) of the ;}ct provides that unless the context otherwise requires, 'candidate' means ·person "who has been or claims to. have been duly nominated as candidate. at an election".

·These provisions show that there are three pre-conditions ·which govern an election petition by which Presidential election.is challenged. ·In the firs.t place, such petition has to be filed in the Supreme ·court. Secondly, the petition must disclose challenge to the election on one or rriore of the grounds specified in sub-s·e£tfon (1) of section . 18 or section 19. •Thirdly, artd that is important for our purpose, 1n election petitionc:in be presented only by.a person who was candidate at .the Presidential election or by twenty· or more electors joined ·together as petitioners. Since the two election petiti0n which are at .. present tmder'our consideration have not.been filed by twenty or more electors, the question which arises for our conside;ation is whether the . two petitiOners.in the respective .election petitiOns Were .'candidate' at the election hCld to the office of the President of Tnd.ia.

The definition. of the word: 'candidate' in section 13(a) of the ··Act consists of two parts. 'Candid1te' means person who has ·either .. been duly nominat.ed as candidate at presidential election or person·who claims to have been cluly nominated. Neither of the two 'petiti~ners was duly nominated. This is incontrovertible. Section SB ·(-!)(a) of.the Act provides thqt on or before the date appointed for .H ·making nominations, each. candidate shall ·deliver to the Ruturning Officer nomination· paper completed in tqe·prescibed form, sub-

cl!ARAN LAL v. :i;AIL SINGH (Chandrachud, C.J,).

scribed by tli.e candid~te .as essenting to the nomination, a~d "in the case of Presidential election, also by at least ten electors as· proposers and at least ten electors as seconders". It is common groun,d that the nomination papers· filed by the two petitioners we.re. not subscribed by ten okctors .as proposers and ten electors as seconqers .. In fact, it is precisely for·'that reason that the nomination papers filed by the two petitioners were rejected by .the Returning Officer. Since the nom,i-nation.papers of the two petitioners 'were not su&scribed as required by' section 5B (1) (a) of the Act, it must follow· that they were not>duly . ' nominated as candidate al the ·election. · · •The pet1troners, however, contend that eve·n if it is bdd that they were not duly nominated as candidates, their petitions cannot be dismissed on that ground since they •claim to have been duly nomi· nated', It is true that in the matter of claim to candidacy, person who claims to have been duly nominated 1 s on par with person . who, in fact; was duly nominated. But. the claim to have been duly. nominated cannot be made by person who_se ·nomination paper does not comply with the mandatory re.quirements of section ·ss· (I} (a) of the Act. Th.at is to say. person whose nomination paper, admittedly, was not suoscrihed by the tequisite number of electors as proposers and seconders cannot claim that he was duly nominated: Such clahn . can only be made by peson who can show that his nomination paper 0conformed to the provisions of section 58 and yet it was rejected, that is,.wrongly rejected 'by the Returning Officer. To illustrate, if .the ,Returning Officer rejects nomination paper on the ground that one of the ten subscribers WhO' had proposed the nomination "is not an elector, the petitioner can claim to have been duly nominated if he proves that the said proposer was in.fact an 'elector' ..

Thus; .the· occasion for person to make ·a claim that be was duly nominated can ar.ise only if his nomination paper· complies with · the statutory req.uirments which govern the filling of nomination papers and ~ot otherwise. Th.e claim . that he was 'duly' nominated ·necssarily implies and involves the claim that his nomination paper conformed to the requirments of the statute. Therefore, contestant wh~se.nomination paper is not subscribed by at, least ten electors as proposers and ten electors as seconders, as required by. section 58(1) (a) of the Act, cannot claim to have been duly nominated, any more than contestant who. had not subscribed his assent to his own nomination can. The claim of contestant that he was duly nominated mus·t arise out of bis compliance with the provisions pf the Act. .It cannot arise out of the vblatiop of the Act. Otherwise, person who had not filed

..... ;.

· li984] 2 s.c.R.

SUPRBMI! COURT RBPORTS

any nomination paper at all but who had on!/ informed 'the ReturnYng · Officet orally that he desired to. contest the.election could also contend that he '.'claims to have been duly . . nominat~d .as c<indidate". · ' · . . .

. . . His not. the' case of the peti.tioner~· that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected their'· nomination papers even t!:iough they wer~ subscribed by ten or more electors as prbposers and ten or more electqrs ·'.as seconders. Not only were the nominaiion papers rightly rej.ected on the~round of non:compliance with . the mandatory requirement of sec.tion 58(1) (a) Qf fhe Act, but the very c~se of the petitioners is that. their nomination pqpers could not have been rejected by tlw Returning. Officer on the ground of non-compli.ance with the aforesaid provision; Thus, their claim that they. have bee I} du!~· nominated is .not within.·· .the .. framework of the 'Act bui iS' de hors the Act. 'It· cannot be .entertained. , · "" . .In Charan Lal Sahuv. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmea,(1) the peti;io~er Claimed' to have been duly nominated as candidatr though his nqll)i- . nation paper was rightly rejected on the ground of non-compliance with the provisions of sections 5B and ·5c oC:the Act. It was held :by this Court that merely because candidate· is qualified under Artide 58 of the Constitution, it does not follow that he is exempt from compliance with the· requirements of law which. the Parliamenf .- h~s enacted under Article 71(3j for regu·l~ting the mode and. the manner in· which nominations sh6uld be (iled. Since the petiti"ner did not comply with the proviSions of the aforesaid two sections, it was held that.he could not claim to have been.duly nominated and was therefore not "ca.ndidate". In the result, the election petition wa•,dismissed by the Court on the ground thai the 'petitioner did not have the iocus standi to maintain ii:

.-The challenge of the petitioners,.to the.provisiol) contained .in section 5B .(I°) (a) of the Act on the ground of its alleged unreasona .. · l>leness has no substance .in it. The .. validity of that provision was ·upheld by tliis Court in .Charan Lal Sahu v. Nee/am Sanjecva Reddy,C[2]) Besides, if the petitoners have· no locus to file the election petiti9ns, they cannot be heard on any of their contentions in these petitions. ..

. Accordiiigiy, .our finding on the preliminary issue is against .the . petitione:s ... We. hold. that they have 'no focus· standi to file the "election ..

. (I) AIR 1975 ·s.c 128$ . ,,,i :t(a)·t~.9.?~J.~I~~ .,11;0 r

,, ' ' ' - '. . I. ! .

petit!Ons since th~y were neither duly nominated no~ co.n they claim to have been duly nominated as candidates at the presidential.,ele9tion. In view of t~is finding, Election Petiiion Nos, 2 and 3 of 1982 are dismissed .

It is rJ)grettable that election petitions challenging th•. electioa. te the high Office of the President of India should be filed in fashion cavalier as the one which charactei-iSes these two petitions.· The petitions .have an extempore appearance a~d n~t even .second ·look, leave alone second thought appears to have been given to' tho manner of ,drafting these petitions or to . the contenti~n~ raised therein. In order to discourage the filing: of such petitions, we would have been justifkd in passing heavy order of costs again5t .the ·two petitioners. But that is like'ly to create needless misconceptio.n that this Couri, which has been constituted by the Act as the exclusivt forum for deciding election peiiiions whereby Presidential or Vice-Presidential election is challenged'. is loathe to enlertain such petitions. It is of the essence of the functioning of democracy that election to public offices must be open to the scrutiny of an independent tribunal. heavy order of costs in these two petitions, howsoever justified on their owq facts, should not result in nipping in the bud well-founded claim on.a future occasion. Therefore, we refrain from passing any order of _costs and, instead, express our disapproval of tho light-hearted and indifferent manner in which these two petitions aro drafted and filed. .

Election Petition No. 4 of 1982

This Ebction Petition is filed by 27. Members of the Parliament .. f0 challenge the election of Giani Z1il Singh as the President of India .. The peritioners belong to four Opposition Parties : The Lok Dal; Th• Democratic:Socialist Party of India, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Jan:ita Party. , These parties had jointly sponsored the cand.idaturt of Shri H.R. ,Khanaa, former Judge of thi~Court.. <Jiani Zail Sin1h . was returned as tbe succe~sful ·candidate hy large margin of voto&.

The petitioners, being Members of the Parliament, were electora at the Presidential election. Their standing to file this petition is uaquestioned.

One of the principal challenges of the petitioners to the electio .. of Oiani Zail Singh is that he is riot "suitable person ... for holdin: the high office of the President of India. The petitioners have givoil their own reasons in support of this contention in paragraphs 5 t" I

[1984] 2 s.c.R,.

bribery an<l undue influence at an election have the same .m~aning as in"Chapter lXA of the Indian Penal Code,"

Section 19 of the Act which specifies the "grounds for· which candidate other than· the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected" reads thus.: ' . .

"If any person who has lodged an electioh petition has, in addition to calling in question the election of the returned . candidate, claime:l declaration that he himself or any other cah<lidate has bCen July elected and the Supreme Court is of opinion that in fact the petiiioncr or ·such other candidate received majority ·of the valid votes, the Supre!lle Court shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be."oid, declare the petitioner or S{tch other cartdidate," as . the case may be, to have be.en duly elected :

Provided that the petitioner o"r such other candidate oha11 not be declared to be duly elected ifit ·is proved that the election of such candidate wou Id have been void if he had . been the returiwd .candidate and petition had been pr~-. st::1~ted calling in question his election",.·

These being the on[1]y provisions of the Act under which the election of returned candidate can be declared void, the qµestion ·as to 'whether the returned candidate is suitable for holding the' office of tht President is· irrelevant for the purposes of this el.ection petition. While dealing· vii th an ek~tion petition filed under section 14 of the. Act,. this :Court cannot inquire into the question whether the returned candidate is suitable for the office to which he. is dected. The right> arising 0•1t ·of elections, including the right to contest or chal-Jenge all eletion, are not comn1on la\V rights. They are creatures of. the statutes which create, confer or limit those rights. Therefore, for deciding the question whether a·n electitm can be set aside on any alleged g1ound, the cornts have to consuli the provisions of l~w g'uverning the particular elcctlon. They have to function within the framewurk of that law and can00t travel beyond it. Only those persons on whom ·the ·right of franchise is conforred by the statute can vote. at the· election. In the instant ·case, that right is conferred on every :elector' as defined in section 2(d) of.the Act, which provides:

" 'elector'. in relation to .a presidential election, mean·s member of the dectorarc~llege referred to in article 54, and

in relation to Vice-Presidential· election, means m~mber of the elec\oral college referred to in article 66''. ·

Only those persons who are qualified· to he 'elected to the parti-cular office can contest the election. In the instant case, thafright is regulated by section SA of the Act which provides :

"Any person may be rtomihated as candidate for elec-_tion to the office of President or Vice-President if he is qualified to be by elected to that -office under the Constitu· ti.on".

The election can he called into question in the m&nner prescribed by the stntute. ·and. not in an~ other manner. In ·the instant case, section 14(1) of the Act provides that no-election shall be·called in question except by presenting an election petition to the authority ·specified in sub-section (2). By sub-section (2) of section 14, the Supreme Court is constituted the sole authority for trying an election ·petition. Finally, an election can be called.into question and set aside on those gro•mds only which are prescribed by the statute. Jn the instant case, the grounds for setting aside the election to the office of the President or the Vice President and the grounds on which candidate other than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected are laid down in sections 18 and 19 of the· Act. The electi011 can neither be questioned nor set. aside on any other ground. · Therefore, the challenge to the election of the returned candidate on the ground of his want of suitability to occupy the office of tl:e President cannot be entertained and must be< rejected out of hand. (See K. Venkateswa.ra ~ao v. Bekkam Narsimha Reddy"' & Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt.[1]'') ,

· Apari from the legal position that 'the rights flowing put of an ·election are statutory and not commori law rights, it is impossible to · ·conceive that any court ofl'aw. can arrogate to itself the po\ver to dechre an eleciion void on the ground that the returned candidate is not suitable pet son to ho\d the office fo which he is elected. Suitability of candidate is for the ele.ctorate to judge and not for the court to decide, •The Court cannot substitute iis own assessment of the suitability of candidate for the verdict returned by the elec!Nate. The verdict of the electorate is a, verdict on the suitability of the

<1> [19691 1 scR 679 at 684 (2) [1974] I SCR 294 at 296

candidate. 'Suitability' is fluid concept of uncertain import. The ballot-box is, or has to be assumed to be, its sole judge. Wer~ the Cot;rt to exercise the power to set aside an election on the g"rou_nd that, in its opinion, the returned cai;didate is not suitable person for the office to which he is elected, tho statute will. stand radically amended.so as to give to the Court virtual right of veto on the question of suitability· of the rival candidates. ·And then, an U!'-successful candidate will challenge the election of the successful candi-date on the, ground that he is more suitable than the latter.. That is an impossible task for the Courts to undertake and indeed, far · .beyond the limits of judicial r~view by the most liberal standard.

Accordingly, the challenge.to the election of the returned candi-date ori the ground that he is na.t suitable for holding the office of the President of India· fails and is rejected. Ou'r finding on the issue is in the negative.

The .other grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the election of Respondent 1 are these ; (1) That Shri M.H. Beg, former Chief Justic;.e of the Supreme Court and now .Chairman of · the. Minorities Commission, was engaged by R,esponqent J and by the Prime Minister Smt. Indira Gandhi "for influencing the votes·of 'the Minority communities"; (2) that Rao Birendra Singh, cabinet Mrnister of the Government of India, who is "supporter and ·'close associate" of Respondent· l, exercised ·undue influence over the voters by misusing the Government machinery in that, statement issued by him asking the voters to vote for Responent J was published by the Press Information Bureau, Government of India; (3) that the Prime Minister participated in- the election . campaign of Respo;1dent l and misused the Government machinery for that purpose; (4) that the Prime Minister made communal appeal to the Akali Dal that its members should vote for Respondent 1; and (5) that Government helicopters and cars belonging to the Government were misused for the purpose of ·election of Respondent I. It is alleged by the· pcHtioners that these various acts were committed by the well-wishers and. supporters of Respondent ·1 with his connivance .

It was contended by Shri Asoke Sen that,, even assuming that these allegations are true, they do not disclose any cause of action for setting aside the election of Respondent' I. In view, of these rival ·contentions, we framed the following issue for consideration :

"Whether the avorment• in the"Election Petition, assum-

1J984) 2 S.C.R.

ing .them to be true and correct, disclose any cause of action • for setting aside the election of the returned candidate (Res-pondent.I) on the ground stated in section 18(1) (a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952?"

Section 18(1) (a) of the. Act which we have already. set. out .. · provides that the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void i\it is of opinion- · ..

"that the offence .of bribery and undue influence .at the .election has been committed 'by the returned candidate or by any person with the consent of the. returned candidate."-(emphasis supplied).

We may keep.· aside the question of bribery since there is no allegation in that behalf. Nor is it alleged that the. offence of undue i.nfiuence was committed by the returned candidate himself. The allegation of the petitioners is that the offence of undue influence was committed by certain supporters and close associates of Respon-dent 1 with·his connivance. It is patent that this allegation, even if it is tnre, is not enough to fulfil the requirements of section 18(1) (a). What that section, to the extent relevant, requires is that the offence of urrdue influence must be committed by some other person with the .'.'consent" of the returned candid.ate. There in no plea whats~e.vcr in the petition that undue influe.nce was exercised by those other persons with the consent of Respondent 1.

It is contended . by Shri Shujatullah . Khan who appears on·. behalf of tho petitioners, . that connivance and consent are one and . the same thing and that, there is no legal aistinction between ·the two concepts. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the meaning of the.word. 'connivance'. as given in Webster;s Dictionary .(Third Edition, Volume I;]'.>. 481); Random House Dictionary (p. 311); Black's Law Dictionary (p'. 274); Words and ~hrases (Permarient Edition, Volume SA, p. 173); and·Corpus Juris · Secundum (Volume !5A, p. 56;'). The reliance on these dictionaries and texts cannot carry the point at issue any further. The .retevant question for consider.ation for the decision of the issue. is whether . there is any pie.acting in ,the petition to the effect that the offence of . undue iu!luence was committed with the consent of .the returned. candidate. Admittedly, there is n-0 pleadi11g of consent. It is then no answer .to say that the. petitioners have pleaded connivance and, .aecording to dictionaries, connivance means cons<ent. The plea of

consent is one thing : the fact that connivance. means consent (assuming that it does).is quite another .. It is not open to petitioner . in an Election Peti.tion to plead iri terms of sy.nonyms. In these peti ·. tions, pleadings have to be precise, specific and. 'unambiguous so a·s · to put the respori.del).t on notice. The rule of pleadings ·that faits · constituting the ·cause· of actiOb must be specifically pleaded. is as· fiindamcntal ash is elementary .. 'Connl.vance; may in certain situa-tions amount to consent, which explains why tire dictionaries···give 'consent', as one of the meanfogs of the wor.d 'connivance'. But it is not>truc to say that 'Connivance' invariably andnCCCSiarily means or ·amounts to consent, ·that is to say, irrespective of the.context of the given· situation. The ~wo· can~ot.. the...,forc, be' equated. , Consent implies that parties .are ad' idem. Conni.vance does .. not necessarily imply iha_t parties are of. one mind. They may or may not be, depending upon th~ facts of the si,tuation.,That'is why, in the ..bsence · of pleading that the offence of undue influence was committed ·with the consent of the ret~rned candidate, one of the main ingredients ;,f seetion 18(l}(a) remains un~atislled. . '

The importance of specific pleadin~ in these matters can 9e . appreciated only if it is. realised that the absence of specific-plea .puts the resilondent at -a great disavantage. He must know What caso Jo:e has to meet. .He cannot be kept guessing whether the petitioner meal what ·.he says, 'connivance' here, or whether the petitioner .has' usecl expression as meaning 'consenf. It is remarkable that, in their petition, the petitioners hav.e furni>hed no particulars of the alleged consent, if what is meant by the use of the word conni~anoe i• ~on­sent. They ca~not be allowed to keep their options open until ih• trial and adduce such evidence of consent ·as seems conveni~nt and ' comes handy. That is the · iinportance of· precision in "·p1Jadi~gi, particularly in election petitions. Accord.ingly, it is impermissible te substitute the word 'consent' for the word 'connivance' which occurs in the pleadings of the petitioners.

The legisl.ati~e hist~ry ofthe. statute lends supporrto our view that for the purposes of section 18(1) (a), connivance is not the samo thing as consent. Origi\lally, when th~ Act was passed in 1952, section 18(1} (a) provided that the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the retur.ned candidate void. if it is of opinion that the offence of bribery or undue influen.c:e has bee.n committed by the returned candi· date or by any person 'with the connivance' of theretu med candidate. This sub-section was amended by section 7 of the Presidential and Vi;:-PrniJi,llial Electi0ns (Amindnient) Act, 5 of 1914, which came '

[1984) 2 S.C.R.

into force on March 23, 1974. The word 'connivance' was substituted by the word 'consent' by the Amendment Act. If connivance carried the same meaning as consent and if one was the same as the other. . Parliament would no\ have taken 'the deliberate step of deleting tho word_ •connivance' and substituting it by the word -'consent'. The amendment made by· the Amendment Act of 1947 showi that connivance and consent connote distinct concepts for the purpose.'of section 18(1) (a) of the Act, , . . •

. • • •

Since, admittedly, there is no pleading in the Election Petition that the offence of undue influence was committed with the consent of the returned candidate, ,the petition must be held to disclose no cause of action for setting aside the election of the returned .candidate · under section 18(1) (a) of the· Act. •

. Apart from this, Shti Asoke Sen is right that granting everythin: in favour of the petitioners and assuming that all that they have alleged is true and correct, no case is made out for setting aside the election of the returned candidate under section 18(1) (a) of the Act. We · will first take up the allegation of the· petitioners that Shri M.H. Beg, · Chairman ·of the Minorities Commission,. canvassed support for· ·Respondent I. The que_stion which we' have to consider is whether, _in doing ·so, Shri Beg is guilty of the· offence of undu_e influenco. Section 18(2) of the Act provides that' for purposes of section 18, the offences of bribery and updue influence at an election have the same meaning as in Chapter IXA of the Penal Code. Tha.t Chapter ·which was introduced into the Pen~! Code by Act 39· of 1920, deals ~ith "Offences relating to Elections". Sections 17JB·a~d 17JC of the Penal Code define the offences of bribet y and undue influence . respective-I¥, Section 171 reads thus

''Undue· f,"1,f!uence fit ~lectlons i

17iC. (I) Whoever v.nuntarily interferes.or attempts to inteifere'with the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of . undue influence at an election. . .

, .(2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions ·of.sub-section (I), whoever-· ·

· (a) threatens any candidatr or voter, or. any person in whom candidate or voter is_ intcre•ted, witlt injury of any kind, or

• CHARAN LAL .v. ZAIL SINGH'( Chandrachud, .J .)

(b) induces or attempts to i~duce· candidate or voter to 'believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will become 9r will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or of spiritual censure,·

shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within the meaning of sub-section (1), •·

(3) declaration. of public policy or promise of public action or the mere .exercise of legal right without in-. ' terit• to interfere with an electo.ral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the meaning of this section." ' ~ . '·

The gravamen of this secti0n is that there must. be interference o_r attempted interference with the. 'free, exercise' of any electoral right. 'Electoral right' is defined by section 17lA(b) to mean the ·right of person to stand, ~r not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, candidate or to vote 'refrain· frolh voting at an election. In so far as is relevant for our purpose; the ele~tion petition must show that Shri Beg interfered with the free exercise -of tl:e voters' right to vote ~t the Presidential election. The petition does not allege or show that Shri Beg i'nterfered in any manner 'with the free . exercise of 'the right of the voters t9 vote according to their choice or conscience. The petition alleges that Shri Beg commented severely upon the suitability of the rival candidate Shri H.R. Khanna .by pointing out the so-called infirmities in his judgment in, the Funda-mental Rights case. On the fopposition that. Judges c~nstitute brotherhood and a.re bound by ties of institutional ioy,lty, one may not approve of the tone and temper of the . personal attack made by Shri Beg on Shri H.R. Khanna. But that is beside the point. We are neither concerned with the propriety of the statement made by Shri Beg nor with the question as to who, out of the two candidates, . · is more suitable to be the President of India. The point 'of the matter is that by conveying to the voters that Respondent I was much safer candidate than Shri Khanna and that Shri Khanna would not be suitable candidate to hold the office of the President ·of India by' reason of judgment of his, Shri Beg could not be said to have interfered with the free exercise of the right of the voters to vote ai the election. If .the mere act of canvassing in favour of one candi- . date as against another were to amount tq undue influence, the very process of democratic, election shall have been· stifled because, the riptto caRvass support for ca':1didate is as much impoltant as the

• '26 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1984] 2 S.C.R.

right to vote for candidate of one:s choi-:;e. Therefore, inor<ler that -the offence 0f undue i1ifluence can be said to have been made out 'within the meaning. of section !71C of the Penal Code, something n10re than the mere act of ccuwassing- fur ca11didate must be shown to "have been· done by the_ offender. -That something more mw, for example, be i11 the nature of threat of ~n injury to candidate or voter as stated in sub-soctjon -2(aJ of sccti011 l?IC-af the Penal C9de or.'it may ccmsist of inducing belief of divine di_splcasure in the mind 6f candidat~ or voter as stated. in ~ub-sec-tio11 2(b). The act alleg-.":J as constituti11g undue influence 1nust be in the nature · .of·a pressure or tyranny on the 1nind of the candidat" ur _the vote;. lt is not _pJssiblc tJ enu1nerate exhaustire!y the divers1..· categorise "of. acts which fall within the deµnition of undue influence. It is eno.igh for our purpose to say'. that· of one thing there can be no doubt : The mere act of canvassing for candidate cannot amount to undue intluence within the ineaning of section_ I 71 of the Penal Code.

In Babtirao Patel v. Dr. Zakir Husain,tV ti1is Court while em-phasising the distinction between "mere canvassing and the excrc_isc of undue jnfluence. observed :

-'It is difficult to lay down in general terms where_ mere canvassing ends ·and lnterference o; ~tt~n1pt at intcrferency with the free exercise of any electoral right begins: That is matter to be· determined in each case; but there c~n be - _no doubt tint, if wl;~t is done is merely canvassing, if' ivo~ld not be undue infoence, As sub-section (3) of section 171C shows, tho mere exercise of legal right without intent to interfere. with an electoral right would not be uullue .inflllence''.·

-. In Shiv Kirpal Singh v. Shri V.V .. Giri/2[1 ]the Court observed thdt ."if any aCts are done which 111erely influence the voter in ~a king his cl1oi~e between one candidate or a1wther, they will not amount lo interference with the fre, exercise of the electoial. right", that the expression_ 'free exercise' -of the electoral _right must _be read in the contexf or'an election in d~inGcratic s0ci~ty and, thet:efore, candi~ "dates and their sup,iorters must be allowd t9 canvass 5upport by aH legal and legitim1te 1neans. Accordingly. the offence of undue influerice can be said to have been committed onl.y if the voter is put under _a

(l) [1968] 2 S.C.R. >3j.

(2) [1971] 2 S.C.R: 197, 225, 320, 321.

threat of ft!ar of so1ne adverse consec1uence, Oi if he is indu,ced to believe that he will become an objcct·of divine displeasure or spi.fitual censure if he casts or·<locs not cast :v0te in accordance \vith his deCision :·"But, in cases where the only act done is fOr the purpose . of convincing the voter that particular candidate is not :the proper candidate to whom the vote should pe "iven, that act cannot be held to be one which interfer,es _with the free ;xcrci"se ofthe"electornl right",

Rwn ··Dial v. Sa~ii ~a/(ll W'iS. u c:tSe or~l1nduc infJuence under jjrov!so (a) (ii) to section 123(2) of the Represe.ntatioq of the People Act, 1951. The· _appellant thetein had circulated poster under the authority of the supreme religious leader of the NamJhari Sikhs in constituency where" large number of ·1oters wert Namdhari Sikhs. This Court observed that thete canno.t be the least·doubt that even religious leader has the rigl1t frecly·to express his opinion on the com-pa.rative 1ncrits of'ttic corite:.ting candid11tes ai1d ·~o canvass fOi suc~1. of them as he. considers worthy of the confidence 9f the electors. Such course of conduct on his part will only be use of his great influence ·amongst ·particu"lar section of the voters in the constituency· and.chat, it will amounfto an abuse of his great influence only if the words which he 1"tters leave no choice to the persons addressed·.by "him in the exercise of thei<. electoral 1igJi.ts. On the facts of the case it was held · · that the religiou~ ·leader,· by his exhortations ··anct warriings to the Namdhari elctors, that disobedience of his mandate will carry divine displeasure and spiritual censme left no choice to them to exercise their right of voting freely.

Thus, the allegatio11 ·of, the pestitioners that· Shii Beg asked the · voters to cast their votes in favonr of Respondent 1· and not to cast them f~r Shri R.R. Khanna on the ground that the latter was not safe or suitable .candidate. as compared with Respondent 1, does not make out the offence of undue inf I uei;ce as defined in Section 171C of the Penal Code. It mustfollow that t)le Election· Petition dOes not disclose any cause of actiOn. for setting aside the ci~ction. of Respondent I on the ground of undue .influence as.specified.in section 18(1) (a) of the Act. . . ·

The remaining grounds.alleged ,by the petitioners for invalida-· ting the dection of Respondent 1 are misconceived .. T~e use of Government machinery,· abuse of official position and appeal to communai sentiments so long .as such appeal does not _amount to

·(d.11959J Suppl. 2 SCR 74S ·at 758_, 759.

[1984] 2 s.c.R.

undue influence, are not considered by the Legislature to be circums-tances which would invalldate Presidential or a' Vice:Presid.eiitial ·election. Assuming, therefore, that any such acts were done, they . cannot be' relied upon for declaring the. election ~f Respondent 1' void: As.w~ have said already, the laws of election are self-coi1tained codes and the Tights arising out of elections are the off-springs. of · those laws. We cannot ertgraft the provisions of the Represenation' of the People Act, 1951 upon the statute under consideratiotn and thereby enlarge the scope of a;, election petition filed to challenge Presidential or Vice-Presidential election. Such an election can be set aside on the grounds speciued in seclion 18(1) of the Act only. Since the.other-allegations made by the petitioners do not fall within the .scoj)~ of that provision, they have to be rejected.

For these reasons, our ·finding on the issue under consideration , is that the, avennents in the Election Petition, a:ssuming. them to be true and correct, do not disclose ariy cause of action for setting aside ·the election of thc-returned candidate on the grounds stated in section "18(J)(a) of the Act.

It, was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Act woulq be unconstitutional if it is interpreted as limiting the challenge . to the Presidential or Vice-Presidential election to the grounds se( forth. in section 18(1). In support of this argument reliance is ·placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the provisions contained in Article 71(1) of the Constitution which says : "All doubts and dis-putes arising out of, or in connection with. the election of President or Vice-President shall b:l inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court whose decision shaH be final". l.t is urged that the Constitu-tion has conferred upon the. Supreme Court the ·power to inquire into and decide upon every' kind of doubt, or dispute arising out of or in connection with. Presidential eleetion and since, section lS(l) restricts that powe.r to the grounds stated therein. it is ultra vires Article 71(1)· This argument overlooks that clause (3) of Art. 71 , confers power upon the Parliament, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, to make law for regulating maitrrs relating to. or connected with th• election of the ,President or the Vice-President. · While enacting law in pursuance of' the power.conferred by Article 71(3), the Parliament is entitled to specify the parti'Cular kind of doubts or disputes . which shall be inquired . into and decided by the Supreme Court. If the peti.ticiners -were right in their coni.;ntion, every kind of fanciful doubt or frivolous dispute under the sun will havo to bo inquired · into by this Court and election petitions ·

. will become f~rtile ground for fighting ]:>olitical battles.

That leaves for consideration one other contention. Article 58(1) of the Constitution provides that no person. shall be 'eligible for election as President unless he (a) is ·a. citizen of India, (b) ha• completed the age of thiry-five years, and (c)' is qualified for election as member of the House of the People. Article 84(a) provides that person shall not be qualifie<l to be chosen to fill· . seat in Parliment unless, inter ~Zia he makes and subscribes an oath or 'af!jrmation set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule: The argument of the petitioner.~ is that candidate contesting Presid-ential election must t1ke the oath as prescribed by Article 84(a) and since Respondent 1 had not taken such oath, his election is unconstitutional. This argument is.untenable.· Article 58 which prescribes "Qualifications for elections as President':, provides three· conditions of eligibility for contesting the Presidential election. One "or' these conditions is that the, cadidate must be qualified for . election as a· member of the House of the People. ·Article 84 speab of "qualilicatioqs for membership of Parliament". No p~rson can fiU ·a seat in the Parliament unless, inter a/;a, he subscribes, to the oath qr affirmation according to the form set oat in the Third Schedule. The form prescribed by the Third Schedule shows that it is restricted to candidates who desire to contest the election to the Parliament. In the. very nature of things, candidate who want~ to contest the elec-tion for the office of the President cannot take the oath in any of the· forms prescribed· by. the Third Schedule. That Schedule 'does not· prescribe· any form of oath for person who desires to contest Pre-sidential election.

In the result, Election. Petition No. 4 of J982 is also dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

N.V.K. ·

Petitions dismissed .