MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA KAKA JOGINDER SINGH ALIAS DHARTI PAKAD Vs. RETURNING OFFICER FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:DR SHANKER DAYAL SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as'the Act') challenge the election of Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, as the ninth President of India. On scrutiny of nomination papers made on June 25, 1992 by the Returning Officer, the nomination papers of only four persons, namely, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma, Prof. G. G. Swell, Shri Ram Jethmalani and Kaka Joginder Singh alias Dharati Pakad, were found valid and accordingly accepted. Polling was held on July 13, 1992 and result of the election was declared on July 16, 1992 at which Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma was declared elected; and he was sworn in as the ninth President of India on July 25, 1992. Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1992, had filed his nomination paper at the election, but the same was rejected by the Returning Officer on the date of scrutiny due to non-compliance of the mandatory requirements for a valid nomination.

(2.) In both these election petitions certain preliminary objections raised on behalf of the returned candidate, Dr. Shanker Dayal Sharma as well as the Attorney General of India require to be decided at the threshold. The substance of the preliminary objection in Election Petition No. 1 of 1992 is that it is liable to be rejected as not maintainable primarily on the ground of not being presented by a competent person. namely, 'any candidate at such election' as required by Section 14A read with Section 13(a) of the Act and Order XXXIX, Rule 7 of Supreme Court Rules, 1966; and alternately that it does not disclose any cause of action for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void. The preliminary objection to the maintainability of Election Petition No. 2 of 1992 is that even though it has been presented by a candidate at such election, yet it does not raise any triable issue inasmuch as it does not disclose any cause of action for a declaration that the election of the returned candidate is void on any of the permissible grounds contained in Section 18 of the Act.

(3.) We shall now refer to the material facts relating to each of these election petitions.