Territorial limits on writ jurisdiction and supervening disqualification rules under the Constitution clarified for elections.

Article 226 relief is territorially confined: a High Court can issue a prerogative writ only to a person or authority located within its territorial jurisdiction, so the situs of the Election Commission outside the State defeated jurisdiction. Articles 190(3) and 192(1) operate only where a sitting member becomes subject to disqualification after election; they do not cover a disqualification existing before nomination or election. Read with the scheme of Articles 190 to 193, the constitutional mechanism addresses supervening disqualification, not pre-election disqualification, and such a question lies outside the Governor's reference under Article 192.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a High Court could issue a writ under Article 226 to the Election Commission located outside its territorial limits. (ii) Whether Articles 190(3) and 192(1) of the Constitution apply to a disqualification existing before election, or only to a disqualification incurred after a member is elected.

Issue (i): Whether a High Court could issue a writ under Article 226 to the Election Commission located outside its territorial limits.

Analysis: The power under Article 226 is territorially limited. It extends throughout the territories in relation to which the High Court exercises jurisdiction, but the person or authority to whom the writ is issued must also be within those territories. The situs of the authority outside the State is decisive, and the mere fact that the subject-matter or the parties are within the State does not confer jurisdiction to issue prerogative writs.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue a writ to the Election Commission at New Delhi.

Issue (ii): Whether Articles 190(3) and 192(1) of the Constitution apply to a disqualification existing before election, or only to a disqualification incurred after a member is elected.

Analysis: Articles 190(3) and 192(1) are framed in terms of a member who "becomes subject" or "has become subject" to disqualification, which indicates a change in status after election. Read with the scheme of Articles 190 to 193, the provisions contemplate a sitting member incurring a disqualification after being elected, not a person already disqualified before nomination or election. The question of such a pre-existing disqualification is therefore outside the Governor's reference under Article 192.

Conclusion: Articles 190(3) and 192(1) apply only to supervening disqualifications and not to disqualifications existing before election.

Final Conclusion: The writ was unsustainable for want of territorial jurisdiction, although the constitutional reference under Article 192 could not have been used to examine a pre-election disqualification.

Ratio Decidendi: A prerogative writ under Article 226 can issue only to a person or authority located within the High Court's territorial jurisdiction, and Articles 190(3) and 192(1) govern only disqualifications incurred after election.

---