Article 224A and election petition jurisdiction: a sitting and acting Judge may validly hear assigned matters, with reassignment permitted.

A person requested to sit and act as a High Court Judge under Article 224A has all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, so the assignment can validly include election petitions when made by the Chief Justice. The expression "ordinarily" in Section 80A qualifies the usual number of Judges and does not limit the Chief Justice's power of assignment. The Chief Justice may also reassign an election petition from one Judge to another when the first Judge requests transfer and no statutory bar exists.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person requested to sit and act as a Judge of a High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution is a Judge of that High Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and (ii) whether the Chief Justice could reassign an election petition, earlier entrusted to one Judge, to another Judge at the first Judge's request.

Issue (i): Whether a person requested to sit and act as a Judge of a High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution is a Judge of that High Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Article 224A authorises the Chief Justice, with the previous consent of the President, to request a person who has held the office of a Judge of a High Court to sit and act as a Judge of that Court. The provision states that such person, while so sitting and acting, has all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge of the High Court, though otherwise he is not deemed to be a Judge of that Court. Section 80A vests jurisdiction to try election petitions in the High Court and requires that such jurisdiction be exercised ordinarily by a single Judge assigned by the Chief Justice. The expression "ordinarily" qualifies the number of Judges and does not dilute the mandatory character of assignment. A person acting under Article 224A is therefore within the class of Judges competent to exercise the High Court's jurisdiction for this purpose, and a contrary view would render Article 224A ineffective.

Conclusion: A person requested under Article 224A is a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of Section 80A and can validly try an election petition if assigned by the Chief Justice.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice could reassign an election petition, earlier entrusted to one Judge, to another Judge at the first Judge's request.

Analysis: The earlier Judge had requested that the election petition be heard by another Judge at Indore for convenience and early disposal. The Chief Justice accepted that request and transferred the matter accordingly. Nothing in Section 80A prevented the Chief Justice from relieving the first Judge at his request and making a fresh assignment. The order was therefore legally unobjectionable.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice could validly reassign the election petition to another Judge.

Final Conclusion: The legal objections to the assignment and jurisdiction of the second Judge failed, but the matter was directed to be tried afresh by a permanent Judge to be assigned by the Chief Justice, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A Judge requested to sit and act under Article 224A of the Constitution has full jurisdiction to exercise the High Court's power where the statute requires assignment to a Judge of that Court, and a Chief Justice may reassign a matter from one Judge to another when the first Judge requests such reassignment and no statutory prohibition exists.

---