CHARAN LAL SAHU Vs. FAKRUDDIN ALI AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R:- Our brother Beg J., sitting Chambers has referred this Election Petition for preliminary hearing as to whether the petitioner has locus standi and whether he can proceed further with the petition. The question before us, therefore, is whether the petitioner is a "candidate" as defined in Section 13 (a) for the petition would be maintainable by him only if he is "Candidate" as defined in Section 13 (a). The Petitioner claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate and we have therefore to determine whether his claim is well-founded. His nomination was rejected on the ground of non-compliance with Sections 5B and 5C introduced in the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act 1952 by an amendment made by Act 5 of 1974. These sections read as follows:

(2.) We need concern ourselves only with section 5C for the disposal of this point. It is clear on the petitioner's own submission that he sent a cheque for Rs. 2500/- to the Returning Officer on 19-7-74 along with his nomination paper. The last date for filing nomination papers was 30-7-74. It is not disputed that under sub-s. (2) of Section 5C a candidate has to either deposit Rs. 2500/- in cash or enclose with the nomination paper a receipt showing that the said sum has been deposited by him or on his behalf in the Reserve Bank of India or in a Government Treasury. The enclosing of a cheque for Rs. 2500/- does not comply with the mandatory requirement of sub-s. (2) of Section 5C. The petitioner has, therefore, clearly not complied with the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 5C. He sought to contend that Ss. 5B and 5C are ultra vires the Constitution but he was unable to persude us as to why they are so. Clause (3) of Art. 71 says that subject to the provisions of this Constitution Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President and Article 246 (1) read with item 72 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule confers power on Parliament to make law with respect to elections to Parliament, to the Legislatures of States and to the offices of President and Vice-President; the Election Commission. These powers are in our view sufficient to enable Parliament to enact the impugned sections. It was contended that under Article 58 of the Constitution there is no impediment in the way of a person being nominated as a candidate for election to the office of President if he can satisfy that he is qualified to be elected as a Member of Parliament. But we fail to see how this Article is of any help to the petitioner. There is, in our view, nothing in the impugned sections which is inconsistent with Article 58. Article 71 (3) which vests power in Parliament to regulate by law any matter relating to or connected with the election of a President or Vice President is subject to the other provisions of the Constitution which include Article 58 but merely because a candidate is qualified under Art.58 it does not mean that he is exempt from compliance with the requirements of law which may be made by Parliament under Article 71 (3) for regulating the mode and manner in which nominations should be filed. If the petitioner does not comply with the requirements of such a law passed in exercise of the power under Article 71 (3) he cannot properly claim to be duly nominated and he would not be a candidate" for election.In this view we do not think that the petitioner has locus standi to maintain the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.