1967 (1) TMI 79 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: No Immediate Bye-Election on Resignation Pending Election Petition

D. Sanjeevayya Versus Election Tribunal Andhra Pradesh and others

The Supreme Court held that the Election Commission is not obligated to hold a bye-election immediately upon the resignation of a member if an election ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the Election Commission is obligated to hold a bye-election immediately upon the resignation of a member of the Legislative Assembly.2. The interpretation and application of Section 150 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 in the context of pending election petitions.3. The relationship between Section 150 and other relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, particularly Sections 84 and 98.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Obligation of the Election Commission to Hold a Bye-Election:The appellant argued that upon his resignation from the Legislative Assembly, the Election Commission was required under Article 190(3)(b) of the Constitution and Section 150 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to hold a bye-election immediately. The appellant contended that this duty was independent of any pending election petitions challenging his election. The High Court dismissed this argument, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the Election Commission is not bound to hold a bye-election immediately upon the resignation of a member if an election petition challenging the member's election is pending. The Court reasoned that holding a bye-election in such circumstances could result in two candidates representing the same constituency simultaneously, which would be an 'impossible situation' not intended by Parliament.2. Interpretation and Application of Section 150:Section 150(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, outlines three contingencies under which the Election Commission must call for a bye-election: when a member's seat becomes vacant, is declared vacant, or the member's election is declared void. The appellant argued that these contingencies are mutually exclusive and that the Election Commission must act immediately upon any one of them occurring. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that Section 150 must be read in conjunction with Sections 84 and 98 of the Act, which deal with the adjudication of election petitions. The Court held that the Election Commission could await the outcome of the election petition before deciding to hold a bye-election, as the petition might result in the petitioner being declared duly elected, thereby negating the need for a bye-election.3. Relationship Between Section 150 and Other Provisions:The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of interpreting Section 150 in harmony with other provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 84 and 98, which pertain to the adjudication of election petitions and the reliefs that can be granted. The Court noted that if the appellant's interpretation were accepted, it would undermine the election petition process and potentially lead to absurd consequences, such as having two representatives for the same constituency. The Court cited principles of statutory construction, emphasizing that statutes should be read as a whole to give effect to all provisions and avoid absurd results. The Court also referenced parliamentary practice, indicating that writs for bye-elections are typically withheld when election petitions claiming the seat are pending.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the Election Commission is not obligated to hold a bye-election immediately upon the resignation of a member if an election petition challenging the member's election is pending. The provisions of Section 150 must be interpreted in the context of the entire Act, particularly Sections 84 and 98, to avoid conflicting outcomes and ensure a coherent legal framework. The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the High Court's decision that no case was made for issuing a writ of mandamus to the Election Commission.