Representation of People Act, 1951 – s.151A – Interpretation of – Justifiability of holding bye-election – On resignation of elected representative of constituency in question, the petitioner, public spirited person filed PIL contending that if the election commenced in the month of May 2018, the effective period which the new incumbent would get would be only upto March 2019 that is less than one year and therefore the new incumbent would not be in a position to function with all vigour and render service and there shall be huge expenditure in conducting the election – High Court dismissed the writ petition – Held: There was no election petition pending in the instant case – The elected candidate tendered his resignation on 08.12.2017 and the same was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017 – The command of s.151A is to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy – The next General Election to Lok Sabha is in June, 2019 – Therefore, the remainder of the term is not less than one year – The ground raised that the code of conduct would come into play before the elections are held in June, 2019 is absolutely sans substance as the Act does not contemplate so – It is the period alone that should be the governing factor subject to the pendency of election petition because that is not controlled by the non obstante clause – Such an interpretation is in accord with the sanctified principle of democracy and the intention of the Parliament is not to keep a constituency remaining unrepresented – The concern expressed with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated as a ground – It is so because the representative democracy has to sustain itself by the elected representatives – High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition – Election laws. Dismissing the special leave petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Section 151A commences with a non obstante clause and clearly states that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151, a bye-election for filling any vacancy referred to in any of the said Sections shall be held within a period of six months from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy. The holding of election is controlled by a rider, namely, that the remainder of the term of a member in relation to a vacancy is less than one year. There is a distinction between Sections 147, 149, 150 and 151 on the one hand and Section 151A of the Act on the other. While interpreting these provisions, it has to be kept in mind that though the right to elect a person is fundamental to democracy, yet it is only a statutory right. It is also well settled in law that the legislations governing the said right have to be strictly construed. [Paras 10, 12][402-D-E; 403B]
2. In the case at hand, no election petition was pending. The elected candidate tendered his resignation on 08.12.2017 and the same was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. The command of Section 151A is to hold the election within a period of six months from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. As the factual score depicts, the vacancy occurred when the resignation was accepted by the Speaker of Lok Sabha on 14.12.2017. It is beyond any dispute that the next General Election to Lok Sabha is in June, 2019. Therefore, the remainder of the term is not less than one year. The ground raised that the code of conduct would come into play before the elections are held in June, 2019 is absolutely sans substance as the Act does not contemplate so. It is the period alone that should be the governing factor subject to the pendency of election petition because that is not controlled by the non obstante clause. Such an interpretation is in accord with the sanctified principle of democracy and the intention of the Parliament is not to keep a constituency remaining unrepresented. The concern expressed with regard to load on the exchequer cannot be treated as a ground. It is so because the representative democracy has to sustain itself by the elected representatives. The matter would be different when an election dispute is pending against the candidate that comes within the ambit and sweep of Section 84 or Section 98(c) or Section 101(b) of the Act. That not being the case, the view expressed by the High Court is absolutely impregnable. [Para 16][406-C-G]
Election Commission of India v. Telangana Rastra Samithi and Another (2011) 1 SCC 370 : [2010] 14 SCR 468 – relied on.
Sri Thomas Mates Gudinho v. Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Others AIR 2002 Kant 232 – approved.
D. Sanjeevayya v. The Election Tribunal, Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1967 SC 1211 : [1967] SCR
489 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.