Article 224A jurisdiction and election petition reassignment upheld, with Chief Justice retaining assignment control absent statutory bar.

A person requested to sit and act as a Judge of a High Court under Article 224A has, for the duration and scope of that request, the full jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a High Court Judge, so the judge may try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Chief Justice may also reassign an election petition from one Judge to another where no statutory prohibition exists, and an earlier assignment does not create an immutable right to continue before the first Judge. The Court therefore accepted the competence of the Article 224A judge and recognised the Chief Justice's power of reallocation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a person requested to sit and act as a Judge of a High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution can exercise jurisdiction to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (ii) Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court could reallocate an election petition already entrusted to one Judge to another Judge at the request of the first Judge.

Issue (i): Whether a person requested to sit and act as a Judge of a High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution can exercise jurisdiction to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: Article 224A provides that a person so requested shall, while sitting and acting, have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a Judge of that High Court, though he is not otherwise deemed to be a Judge. Section 80A vests jurisdiction in the High Court and requires that it be exercised ordinarily by a single Judge assigned by the Chief Justice. The Court held that the constitutional provision must be given effect according to its plain words and cannot be read so narrowly as to make it ineffective. The person requested under Article 224A is therefore competent to exercise the High Court's jurisdiction for the purposes contemplated by Section 80A.

Conclusion: The person requested under Article 224A is a Judge of the High Court for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (ii): Whether the Chief Justice of the High Court could reallocate an election petition already entrusted to one Judge to another Judge at the request of the first Judge.

Analysis: Section 80A does not contain any prohibition against changing the assignment of an election petition. The first Judge himself requested that the petition be heard by another Judge at Indore, and the Chief Justice accepted that request. No legal bar was shown against such reallocation, and the earlier assignment did not create an immutable entitlement in favour of continuing before the same Judge.

Conclusion: The Chief Justice could lawfully reallocate the election petition to another Judge.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the jurisdiction and reassignment failed, but the order under appeal was set aside on the special facts of the case, and the election petition was directed to be heard by a permanent Judge to be assigned by the Chief Justice.

Ratio Decidendi: A person requested to sit and act as a Judge under Article 224A has, for the duration and scope of that request, the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of a High Court Judge, and the Chief Justice retains authority to assign or reassign an election petition under Section 80A absent any statutory prohibition.

---