SITA RAM KHEMAKA Vs. K K BANERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Sri Sita Ram Khemka has prayed for the issue of a writ of prohibition under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining opposite patty No. 1, Sri K. K. Banerji, constituting the Election Tribunal at Allahabad, from exercising his jurisdiction and from proceeding with the decision of the election petition presented by the petitioner. By the election petition, the petitioner challenged the election of opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3, Sri Jawahar Lal Nehru and Sri Nasuriadin. The election petition has been entrusted by the Election Commission for decision to opposite party No. 1, appointing him as Election Tribunal for the trial of the petition of the petitioner. A copy of the notification by which the opposite party No. 1 was appointed has been filed today before us with a supplementary affidavit which has been filed by the petitioner in order to elucidate a point taken on his behalf to challenge the proceedings before opposite party No. 1.

(2.) The first two points that have been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner as two separate points can best be dealt with together as one single point. It has been alleged on behalf of the petitioner that three different election tribunals are functioning at Allahabad in order to hear election petitions. The persons appointed to the three election tribunals are Sri K. K. Banerji, retired Judge of a High Court, Sri P. K. Kaul, retired Judge of a High Court, and Sri G. D. Sahgal, a District Judge, as defined in Section 86 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as amended upto date. The two points which have been urged by learned counsel arising out of the above circumstance are firstly that there has been discrimination inasmuch as two of the tribunals are constituted by ex-Judges of High Courts, whereas one is constituted by a District Judge; and secondly that by appointing three different tribunals at Allahabad discrimination has been brought about between the petitioners in the various election petitions which have been entrusted to the different tribunals. The contention was that for hearing of the election petitions at one place there should have been only one single tribunal, so that there could be no discrimination between the various persons who filed election petitions triable at the same place.

(3.) The first point raised by learned counsel based on the fact that some tribunals are constituted by ex-Judges of High Courts whereas others by District Judges has to be examined in two different aspects. The first aspect is whether the difference in the qualifications of the individuals constituting the tribunals can at all be considered to bring about discrimina- tion which would be hit by the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, and the second is whether, even if this does amount to discrimination, that discrimination is based on any reasonable classification which would be justified in view of the purpose for which the tribunals are constituted.