BALJEET SINGH Vs. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Considering the importance of questions raised by the petitioner the matter was placed before a Full Bench. Following questions were formulated on hearing learned counsel for parties :

(2.) In a nutshell, the petitioner's case is that Articles 84 and 173 of the Constitu- tion have to be read in a manner that persons who are unable to comprehend their requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation in terms of Article 84,99, 173 and 188 of the Constitution are ineligible to become Members of Parliament and Legislature of a State. To put it differently, according to the petitioner, the words "makes and subscribes" under Articles 84(a) and 173(a) not only imply that a person qualified to be a candidate to fill a seat in Parliament should be a citizen of India and not less then 25 years of age in the case of being elected to the House of People and not less than 30 years of age on being elected as member of Council of States but also should have sufficient knowledge of the letter and spirit of the Constitution, in order to make the requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation to the Constitution meaningful and purposeful. It is submitted by The petitioner that the roles of Legislature are very vital for proper governance of the country in formulating policy decisions and making of laws on varied subjects. A person who is not literate and does not have basic knowledge of the Constitution cannot be said to have fulfilled the requirement of making and subscribing to the Constitution. Thus, according to the petitioner, use of the expression" make and subscribe" under Articles 84( a) and 173(a) also makes the legislative intent clear that adequate knowledge of law and spirit of the Constitution in inherent in the provisions. Since he is unaware of what is being legislated, the law making power delegated to him by the Constitution really results in mindless participation and more so when enactment of a statute comes up for consideration of the law making bodies. The Constitution makers were conscious of this position as their deliberations clearly reflect. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the propositions advanced by the petitioner are incapable of being worked out and the interpretation put to Articles 84(a) and 173(a) of the Constitution would result in absurd results.

(3.) Articles 84(a), 99,173(a) and 188 read as follows: