DURGA SHANKAR MEHTA Vs. RAGHURAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Judgment of the court wag delivered by :

(2.) THIS appeal, which has come before us on special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the Election tribunal, Jabalpur, at Nagpur dated the 30/04/1953, whereby the tribunal declared the election held on the 29/12/1951, for the double member Lakhnadon Legislative Assembly Constituency, to be wholly void under section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').

(3.) THIS decision in our opinion does not assist Mr. Hazamavis. In the first place article 136 is a constitutional provision which no Parliamentary legislation can limit or take away. In the second place the provision being one, which overrides ordinary laws, no presumption can arise from words and expressions declaring an adjudication of a particular tribunal to be final and conclusive, that there was an intention to exclude the exercise of the special powers. As has been said already, the non obstante clause in article 329 prohibits challenge to an election either to Parliament or any State Legislature, except in the manner laid down in clause (2) of the article. But there is no pro hibition of the exercise of its powers by the Supreme court in proper cases under article 136 of the Constitution against the decision or determination of an Election tribunal which like all other judicial, tribunals comes within the purview of the article. It is certainly desirable that the decisions on matters of disputed election should, as soon as possible, become final and conclusive so that the constitution of the Legislature may be distinctly and speedily known. But the powers under article 136 are exercisable only under exceptional circumstances. The article does not create any general right of appeal from decisions of all tribunals. As regards the decision of this court in Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Consistituency, and Others (1), to which reference has been made by the learned counsel, we would only desire to point out that all that this case decided was that the High court bad no jurisdiction, under article 226 of the Constitution, to interfere by a writ of certiorari, with the order of a Returning Officer who was alleged to have wrongly rejected the nomination paper of a particular candidate. It was held that the word 'election' in article 329(b) of the Constitution had been used in the wide sense to connote the entire process, culminating in a candidate's being declared elected and that the scheme of Part XV of the Constitution was -that all matters which had the effect of vitiating election should be brought up only after the election was over and by. way of an election petition. The particular point, which arises for considers. tion here, was not decided in that case and was expressly left open. In our opinion therefore the preliminary point raised by Mr. Hazarnavis cannot succeed.