1954 (2) TMI 16 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling on Government servants' role in election nominations

Raj Krushna Bose Versus Binod Kanungo and others

The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal and examined the issue of the validity of election nomination when proposed or seconded by Government ... - Issues:Validity of election nomination when proposed or seconded by Government servants.Analysis:The case involved a challenge to the election of a minister in the Orissa Legislative Assembly on the grounds that some of his nomination papers were proposed or seconded by Government servants. The Election Tribunal invalidated the election under section 123(8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court refused to interfere, stating that the tribunal's view was reasonable. The Supreme Court granted special leave to appeal and examined the issue under article 136. The Court analyzed sections 33(2) and 123(8) of the Act. Section 33(2) allows any person on the electoral roll to propose or second a candidate unless disqualified under section 16. The Court reasoned that Government servants are not excluded under section 33(2) and are entitled to nominate candidates. Section 123(8) prohibits candidates from obtaining assistance from Government servants for election purposes other than voting. The Court held that unless the assistance is for the candidate's election prospects, it does not violate section 123(8).The Court emphasized that the law aims to keep Government servants away from politics while still preserving their rights as citizens. The judgment highlighted that while candidates can seek votes from Government servants, any plan to procure their assistance beyond voting would violate section 123(8). The Court also discussed the definition of a candidate under section 79(b) and the timing of assistance for election prospects. As the Tribunal failed to address all issues and provide findings, the Court set aside its order, remitting the case for further examination. The Court asserted its authority under article 136, stating that legislative provisions cannot restrict its powers.In a separate opinion, Justice Vivian Bose concurred with the majority but expressed doubt regarding the interpretation of the candidate definition. The case was remanded for further proceedings. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not fully investigating corruption allegations and emphasized the importance of thorough inquiry in such cases. No costs were awarded in the judgment.