Election of the President

Dr Avinash Bhagi
Assistant Professor of Law
Gujarat National Law University
Constitutional Provisions dealing with the Election of the
President
 Article 52: The President of India
 Article 54: Election of the President
 Article 55: Manner of Election of President
 Article 56: Term of office of President
 Article 57: Eligibility for re-election
 Article 58: Qualifications for election as President
 Article 59: Conditions of President’s office
 Article 60: Oath or affirmation by the President
 Article 61: Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of President
and the term of office of person elected to fill casual vacancy.
 Article 70: Discharge of President’s functions in other contingencies
 Article 71: Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President
or Vice-President
STATUTORY PROVISIONS DEALING WITH PRESIDENTS
ELECTION/ FUNCTIONS

 The Presidential & Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952

 The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections(Amendment)
Act, 1974
 Ordinance was also promulgated on 5th June, 1997 which later
converted into an act of 1997.
 The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1952
replaced by
 The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974”
were further amended in 1997.
 President (Discharge of Functions) Act, 1969
 Supreme Court Rules, 1966 replaced by Supreme Court Rules,
2013
Election of the President
Election of the President
(1) Who Elects the President?
 Article 54: Election of the President
 S.K.Singh v. V.V.Giri, AIR 1970 SC 2097
 The Constitution (70th Amendment) Act, 1992
 Explanation to Article 54

(2) Vacancy Exist in Electoral College

 Dr. N.B.Khare v. Election Commission, AIR 1957 SC 694
 Article 71(4) -(Added by Constitution (Eleventh Amendment)
Act,1961
 In re, Presidential Poll (AIR1974 SC 1682)
 Election of the President
(3) Who Can Contest for Presidential Election?
 Qualifications for Election as President-Article 58
 NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE: Section 5A & 5B(a)&(b)
 The Presidential & V.P Elections Act 1952
 No Provision of Nomination
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1974
 Section 5B(a): President---10 Proposers & 10 Seconders
 Section 5B (b) Vice-President- 5 Proposers & 5 Seconders
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1997
 Section 5B(a): President---50 Proposers & 50 Seconders
 Section 5B (b) Vice-President- 20 Proposers & 20 Seconders
SECURITY DEPOSIT: Section 5C
 The Presidential & V.P Elections Act 1952---No Provision
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1974--Rs 2500
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1997—Rs 15000
 Return or forfeiture of candidate’s deposit- Section 20A(4)
 POINT TO BE DISCUSS
4. Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of
President
• Existence of vacancy caused by the expiration of the term
• Article 62(1) r/w Section 4(3) of 1952 Act
• Existence of vacancy due to death, resignation or removal, or
otherwise
 Article 62(2) r/w Section 4(4) of 1952 Act
5. Existence of Vacancies in Presidents and Vice-President’s
office
 Article 70
 PRESIDENT (DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS) ACT, 1969
 Dr. Zakir Hussain
 Shri V.V.Giri
 Justice Hidayatulla
1. Authority to try election petition
 Constitutional Provisions
 Article 71. Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-
President
 Original Article 71
 The Constitution (Eleventh Amendment) Act. 1961
 The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975
 The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
 Section 14. (2)
 Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966
 Rule 13—Preliminary Hearing
 Rule 20-Strength of the Bench for regular hearing
 Rule 34- Original Jurisdiction

 Order XLVI (46) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013

 Rule 15—Preliminary Hearing
 Rule 22-Strength of the Bench for regular hearing
 Rule 36- Original Jurisdiction
2. When to entertain a petition challenging the Presidential
election
 Dr. N.B.Khare v Election Commission, AIR1957 SC 694
 Article 62(a)
 Sub-section 2 of Section 14A of 1952 Act
 Rule 10 of Order XLVI of SCC Rules , 2013
3. Locus Standi
 Sub-section 1 of Section 14A of 1952 Act
 N.B.Khare v Election Commission,AIR1958 SC 139
4. Section16. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.
5. Section 17. Orders of the Supreme Court.
6. Section 18. Grounds for declaring the election of a returned
candidate to be void
 Cases
 ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
Who Elects the President?
 Article 54: Election of President
 The President shall be elected by the members of an electoral
college consisting of –
 (a) the elected members of both Houses of Parliament; and
 (b) the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the
States.
 [Explanation.-In this article and in article 55, “State” includes
the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union territory
of Pondicherry.]
Explanation to Article 54

 Originally, the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies

of UT were not included in the electoral college to elect the
President.

 In S.K.Singh v. V.V.Giri, AIR 1970 SC 2097, the SC had ruled that

the term ‘State’ in Article 54 did not include Union Territories.

 The Constitution (70th Amendment) Act, 1992

 After the above pronouncement, the Constitution (Seventieth
Amendment) Act, 1992, added new explanation to Article 54
which provides that term “state” in Article 54 & 55 includes
the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the Union Territory
of Pondicherry.
Reasons for adopting Indirect Election for election
of President
 The Constitution makers were faced with the question whether the
President should be elected directly by the people or not?
1. Reasons given by Pandit Nehru in the Constituent Assembly, CAD,
Vol.IV,p.734, Vol.VII,p.998.]
“The framers of the Indian Constitution wanted to emphasise that the power
really vested in the ministry and the Legislature and not in the President as
such, “if we had the President elected on adult franchise and it did not give him
any real powers, it might become real anomalous.”
2. According to Dr. Ambedkar, CAD Vol. VII at page 999
“The reason that President is not directly elected is because he may not be
content with his mere constitutional position and can claim to derive his
authority from the people. So , if he wanted to assume real power, this
would lead to a Constitutional deadlock and a clash with the Cabinet".
3. A tremendous loss of time, energy and money would be involved in a
Presidential election on adult suffrage.
4. It would be impossible to provide an electoral machinery for an election
in which at least 176 millions of people would have to participate.
Reasons for adopting Indirect Election for election of
President

Other reasons
 The method of indirect election of the President is
in harmony with the cabinet government.
 There was also a fear that a directly elected
President may emerge in course of time, as a
centre of power in his own right.
 Direct election place the President in a position of
exerting power when the Drafters intended
otherwise.
Why Members of State Assemblies have been included
in the Electoral College?

 Framers of the Constitution did not want the President to be

elected merely by Parliament alone, as that would have been a
very narrow basis and Parliament being dominated by one
political party, would have invariably chosen a candidate from
that party. In that case, the President would not have
commanded national consensus.[CAD, Vol. VII at page 996]
 Existence of Vacancy in the Electoral College
 Can President’s election be held if vacancy exist in the
Electoral College?

 Dr. N.B.Khare v. Election , AIR 1957 SC 69

 Elections did not take place in Himachal Pradesh and in two
Constituencies of the State of Punjab.
 Petitioner Contention
 Electoral college mentioned in Article 54 must be constituted
after elections in all States and Union Territories are completed
and should consist of all the elected members falling within
both the categories because the Presidential election could not
be held until the vacancies were filled up.
 Dr. N.B.Khare v. Election Commission, AIR 1957 SC 694

Supreme Court held:

 Election process could not be held up till after the expiry of the
five years term because it would involve non-compliance with
the mandatory provisions of Article 62.

 Das, C.J. referring to the electoral college said that if there are
vacancies in Parliament or in the Legislature of one or more
States, the election of the President required by Article 62(1) to
be held before the expiry of the term of the outgoing President
and cannot be held up until the vacancies were filled up.
 Not holding the election in Himachal Pradesh could not hold
up the election of the President.
Constitution (11th Amendment) Act, 1961
 Article 71(4): The election of a Person as President or Vice-
President shall not be called in question on the ground of the
existence of any vacancy for whatever reason among the
members of the electoral college electing him.

 Clause (4) was introduced by the Constitution (11th

Amendment) Act, 1961 to foreclose any challenge of the kind
made in Dr. N.B.Khare v. Election Commission, AIR 1957 SC
694, that the Presidential election should be stayed till all
vacancies in Parliament and State Legislatures are filled.

 Though the challenge was rejected by the Supreme Court, the

clause put the matter beyond any doubt.
Vacancy Exist in Electoral College
 In re, Presidential Poll (AIR1974 SC 1682)
 The Reference turns on the principal question as to whether the
election to fill the vacancy caused on the expiry of the term of
office of the President must be completed before the expiry of the
term of office notwithstanding the fact that the Legislative
Assembly of the State of Gujarat is dissolved.

 It was contended that the Presidential election should be

postponed until fresh elections are held in the State of Gujarat.
 In re, Presidential Poll (AIR1974 SC 1682)

 The Supreme Court held that:-

 The election to the office of the President must be held, before the
expiration of the term of the President notwithstanding the fact that
at the time of such election the Legislative Assembly of a State is
dissolved.

 The election to fill the vacancy in the office of the President is to be

held and completed having regard to Articles 62(1), 54, 55 and the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952.
QUALIFICATIONS FOR ELECTION AS PRESIDENT
Article 58
58. (1) No person shall be eligible for election as President unless he—
(a) is a citizen of India,
(b) has completed the age of thirty-five years, and
(c) is qualified for election as a member of the House of the People.

(2) A person shall not be eligible for election as President if he holds any office of
profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State or under any
local or other authority subject to the control of any of the said Governments.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this article, a person shall not be deemed to hold
any office of profit by reason only that he is the President or Vice-President of the
Union or the Governor 1 *** of any State or is a Minister either for the Union or for
any State.
 NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE

 NOMINATION OF CANDIDATE: Section 5A & 5B(a)&(b)

 The Presidential & V.P Elections Act 1952

 No Provision of Nomination
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1974
 Section 5B(a): President---10 Proposers & 10 Seconders
 Section 5B (b) Vice-President- 5 Proposers & 5 Seconders
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1997
 Section 5B(a): President---50 Proposers & 50 Seconders
 Section 5B (b) Vice-President- 20 Proposers & 20 Seconders
Security Deposit
SECURITY DEPOSIT: Section 5C

 The Presidential & V.P Elections Act 1952---No Provision

 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1974--Rs 2500
 The Presidential & V.P Elections (Amendment) Act 1997—Rs 15000
 Return or forfeiture of candidate’s deposit- Section 20A(4)
WHEN TO HOLD PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ?
WHEN TO HOLD PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

Article 62.Time of holding election to fill vacancy in the office of

President and the term of office of person elected to fill casual
vacancy.
(1) An election to fill a vacancy caused by the expiration of the
term of office of President shall be completed before the
expiration of the term.
(2) An election to fill a vacancy in the office of President
occurring by reason of his death, resignation or removal, or
otherwise shall be held as soon as possible after, AND IN
NO CASE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS from, the date of
occurrence of the vacancy; and the person elected to fill the
vacancy shall, subject to the provisions of article 56, be
entitled to hold office for the full term of five years from the
date on which he enters upon his office.
WHEN TO HOLD PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
 Section 4
 (3) In the case of an election to fill a vacancy caused by the
expiration of the term of office of the President or Vice-
President, the notification under sub-section (1) shall be
issued on, or as soon as conveniently may be after, the
sixtieth day before the expiration of the term of office of the
outgoing President or Vice-President, as the case may be,
 (4) In the case of an election to fill a vacancy in the office of
President or Vice-President occurring by reason of his death,
resignation or removal or otherwise, the notification under
sub-section (1) shall be issued as soon as may be after the
occurrence of such vacancy.
Existence of Vacancies in Presidents and Vice-President’s office
Existence of Vacancies in Presidents and Vice-President’s office

 If at a same time Vacancies exists in President’s and vice-President’s

office, in such contingency who will discharge the functions of the
President?
 20th July 1969
 Dr. Zakir Hussain, 3rd President, passed away suddenly on 3-5-1969.
Under Article 65(1) Vice-President, V.V.Giri assumed office to act as
President.
 Shri V.V.Giri, resigned on 20th July 1969 from the post of Vice
President and Acting President.
 Nation was stuck with no President and no Vice-President.
 Justice Hidayatulla, CJI, was sworn as the acting President.
 Article 70:- Parliament may make such provisions as it thinks fit for
the discharge of the functions of the President in any contingency
not provided for in this Chapter.
Existence of Vacancies in Presidents and Vice-President’s
office

PRESIDENT (DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS) ACT, 1969.

Section 3. Discharge of Presidents functions contingencies.
(1) In the event of the occurrence of vacancies in the offices of the
President and the Vice-President, by reason in each case of death,
registration or removal, or otherwise, the Chief Justice of India or, in
his absence, the senior most judge of the Supreme Court of India
available shall discharge the functions of the President until a new
President elected in accordance with the provisions of the constitution
to fill the vacancy in the office of the President enters upon his office
or a new Vice-President so elected begins to act as President under
article 65 of the constitution, whichever is earlier.
Existence of Vacancies in Presidents and Vice-
President’s office

PRESIDENT (DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS) ACT, 1969

(2) When the Vice-President, while discharging the functions of the
President, dies, resigns or is removed or otherwise ceases to hold
office, the Chief Justice of India or, in his absence, the senior most
Judge referred to in sub-section (1) shall discharge the said functions
until the President resumes his duties or a new Vice-President is
elected as aforesaid, whichever is earlier.
Existence of Vacancies in Presidents and Vice-
President’s office
 PRESIDENT (DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS) ACT, 1969
 (3) When the Vice-President,-(a) While acting as President, or (b) While discharging
the functions of the President, is unable to discharge the functions of the President
owing to absence, illness or any other cause, the Chief Justice of India or, in his
absence, the senior most Judge referred to in sub-section (1) shall discharge the said
functions-(i) In the case referred to in clause (a), until a new President elected as
aforesaid enters upon his office or until the Vice-President acting as President
resumes his duties, whichever is earlier; (ii) In the case referred to in clause (b), until
the President resumes his duties, or the Vice-President resumes his duties,
whichever is earlier.
 (4) The person discharging the functions of the President under this section shall,
during, and in respect of, the period while he is so discharging the said functions,
have all the powers and immunities and privileges as may be determined by
Parliament by law and, until provisions in that behalf is so made, such emoluments,
allowances and privileges as are specified in the Second Schedule.
1. Authority to try election petition
 Constitutional Provisions
 Article 71. Matters relating to, or connected with, the election of a President or Vice-
President
 Original Article 71
 The Constitution (Eleventh Amendment) Act. 1961
 The Constitution (Thirty-ninth Amendment) Act, 1975
 The Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978
 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
 Section 14. (2)
 Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966
 Rule 13—Preliminary Hearing
 Rule 20-Strength of the Bench for regular hearing
 Rule 34- Original Jurisdiction

 Order XLVI (46) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013

 Rule 15—Preliminary Hearing
 Rule 22-Strength of the Bench for regular hearing
 Rule 36- Original Jurisdiction
2. When to entertain a petition challenging the Presidential
election
 Dr. N.B.Khare v Election Commission, AIR1957 SC 694
 Article 62(a)
 Sub-section 2 of Section 14A of 1952 Act as amended in the Year 1974
 Rule 10 of Order XLVI of Supreme Court Rules , 2013
3. Locus Standi
 Sub-section 1 of Section 14A of 1952 Act
 Candidate—20 or more electors joined together as petitioners
 N.B.Khare v Election Commission,AIR1958 SC 139
4. Section16. Relief that may be claimed by the petitioner.
5. Section 17. Orders of the Supreme Court.
6. Section 18. Grounds for declaring the election of a returned
candidate to be void
 Cases
Authority to try election petition
 Authority to try election petition
 Which court has the jurisdiction to decide the dispute
concerning Presidential election?
 Constitutional Provisions
 Article 71 (1):- All doubts and disputes arising out of or in
connection with the election of a President or Vice-President
shall be inquired into and decided by the Supreme Court
whose decision shall be final.
 The Constitution (39th Amendment) Act, 1975
 The Jurisdiction of the SC was taken away and vested in such
authority or body, which may hereafter be set up by
Parliament.
 The Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978
 Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court has been resorted. The
present clause (1) is the reproduction of Cl.(1) of the original
article.
Article 71 (Original) Article 71 Article 71 Article 71
Constitution (Eleventh Constitution (Thirty-ninth Constitution (Forty-fourth
Amendment) Act, 1961 Amendment) Act, 1975 Amendment) Act, 1978

(1) All doubts and disputes arising out of (1) All doubts and disputes arising out of or (1)Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, (1) All doubts and disputes arising out of or in
or in connection with the election of a in connection with the election of a President Parliament may by law regulate any matter relating connection with the election of a President or
President or Vice-President shall be or Vice-President shall be inquired into and to or connected with the election of a President or Vice-President shall be inquired into and decided
inquired into and decided by the decided by the Supreme Court whose V-P, including the grounds on which such election by the Supreme Court whose decision shall be
Supreme Court whose decision shall be decision shall be final. may be questioned: final.
final. Provided that the election of a person as President
or Vice- President shall not be called in question on
the ground of the existence of any vacancy for
whatever reason among the members of the
electoral college electing him.

(2) If the election of a person as 2) If the election of a person as President or (2)All doubts and disputes arising out of or in (2) If the election of a person as President or
President or Vice- President is declared Vice- President is declared void by the connection with the election of a President of V-P Vice- President is declared void by the Supreme
void by the Supreme Court, acts done by Supreme Court, acts done by him in the shall be inquired into and decided by such authority Court, acts done by him in the exercise and
him in the exercise and performance of exercise and performance of the powers and or body and in such manner as may be provided for performance of the powers and duties of the
the powers and duties of the office of duties of the office of President or Vice- by or under any law referred to in clause (1). office of President or Vice-President, as the case
President or Vice-President, as the case President, as the case may be, on or before may be, on or before the date of the decision of
may be, on or before the date of the the date of the decision of the Supreme the Supreme Court shall not be invalidated by
decision of the Supreme Court shall not Court shall not be invalidated by reason of reason of that declaration.
be invalidated by reason of that that declaration.
declaration.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this (3) Subject to the provisions of this (3) The validity of any such law as is referred to in (3) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution,
Constitution, Parliament may by law Constitution, Parliament may by law regulate clause (1) and the decision of any authority or body Parliament may by law regulate any matter
regulate any matter relating to or any matter relating to or connected with the under such law shall not be called in question in any relating to or connected with the election of a
connected with the election of a election of a President or court. President or Vice-President.
President or Vice-President. Vice-President.

(4) The election of a person as President or (4) If the election of a person as President or Vice- (4) The election of a person as President or Vice-
Vice-President shall not be called in question President is declared void under any such law as is President shall not be called in question on the
on the ground of the existence of any referred to in clause (1), act done by him in the ground of the existence of any vacancy for
vacancy for whatever reason among the exercise and performance of the powers and duties whatever reason among the members of the
members of the electoral college electing of the office of President or Vice-President, as the electoral college electing him.
him. case may be, on or before the date of such
declaration shall not be invalidated by reason of that
declaration.
 Authority to try Election Petition
 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952

14. Authority to try election petitions.—(1) No election shall

be called in question except by presenting an election
petition to the authority specified in sub-section (2).

(2) The authority having jurisdiction to try an election petition

shall be the Supreme Court.

(3) Every election petition shall be presented to such authority in

accordance with the provisions of this Part and of the rules made
by the Supreme Court under article 145.
 Authority to Try Election Petition
 Order XLVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013
 Rule 15. Upon presentation of a petition the same shall be posted
before a bench of the Court consisting of five Judges for
preliminary hearing and orders for service of the petition and
advertisement thereof as the Court may think proper and also appoint
a time for hearing of the petition. Upon preliminary hearing, the
Court, if satisfied, that the petition does not deserve regular hearing
as contemplated in Rule 22 of this Order may dismiss the petition or
pass any appropriate order as the Court may deem fit.
 Rule 22. Every petition calling in question an election shall be posted before
and be heard and disposed of by a Bench of the Court consisting of not less
than five Judges.
 Rule 36. Subject to the provisions of this Order or any special order or
direction of the Court, the procedure of an Election Petition shall follow as
nearly as may be the procedure in proceedings before the Court in exercise
of its Original Jurisdiction.
DISPUTES CONCERNING PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTION
2. When to entertain a petition challenging the Presidential election? Should
it be before the completion of election process or after declaration of the
result?

 Dr. N.B.Khare v Election Commission, AIR1957 SC 694

 The Petitioner challenged the holding of the election on the ground that
since the general election in certain parts of Punjab & Haryana had not
taken place and the electoral college as envisaged by Arts. 54 & 55 for that
purpose would be incomplete , therefore , the election of the President
should be postponed until the completion of electoral college by election
in the state.

 S.C held that it would not entertain any petition challenging the
Presidential election before the completion of the election process and
declaration of the result.
The reason of this stand is Article 62(a)
 Limitation Period
 Order XLVI of Supreme Court Rules 2013

Rule 10: The petition may be presented at any time after the date of
publication of the declaration containing the name of the returned
candidate at the election under Section 12 of the Act, but not later
than thirty days from the date of such publication.

 Section 14A. (2) of Presidential & V-C Amendment Act,1974

Any such petition may be presented at any time after the date
of publication of the declaration containing the name of the
returned candidate at the election under section 12, but not
later than thirty days from the date of such publication.
 Locus Standi
Who can challenge the President’s election?
 Locus Standi
 N.B.Khare v Election Commission,AIR1958 SC 139
A person who is neither a candidate nor an elector could not file a petition to
challenge the Presidential election.

Order XLVI of Supreme Court Rules, 2013

 Rule 7. A petition calling in question an election may be presented on one or more
of the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 18 and section 19 of the Act,
by any candidate at such election, or
 (i) in the case of Presidential election, by twenty or more electors joined together
as petitioners;
 (ii) in the case of Vice-Presidential election, by twenty or more electors joined
together as petitioners.
Locus Standi

 The Presidential & Vice-Presidential Elections(Amendment) Act, 1974.

 14A. Presentation of petition.—(1) An election petition calling in question
an election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified in
sub-section (1) of section 18 and section 19, to the Supreme Court by any
candidate at such election, or—
 (i) in the case of Presidential election, by twenty or more electors joined
together as petitioners;
 (ii) in the case of Vice-Presidential election, by ten or more electors joined
together as petitioners.
 (2) Any such petition may be presented at any time after the date of
publication of the declaration containing the name of the returned
candidate at the election under section 12, but not later than thirty days
from the date of such publication.
Relief that may be claimed by the
petitioner
 Section 16 of President and V.P Elections Act, 1952

A petitioner may claim either of the following

declarations:—
(a) that the election of the returned candidate is void;
(b) that the election of the returned candidate is void and
that he himself or any other candidate has been duly
elected.
 Orders of the Supreme Court
 Section 17 of President and V.P Elections Act, 1952

 (1) At the conclusion of the trial of the election petition, the

Supreme Court shall make an order—
(a) dismissing the election petition; or
(b) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void;
or
(c) declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void
and the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly
elected.
 (2) At the time of making an order under sub-section (1), the
Supreme Court shall also make an order fixing the total amount
of costs payable and specifying the persons by and to whom
costs shall be paid.
 Grounds for declaring the election of a returned
candidate to be void

 Section 18 of President andV.P Elections Act, 1952

(1) If the Supreme Court is of opinion,—

(a) that the offence of bribery or undue influence at the election
has been committed by the returned candidate or by any person
with the consent of the returned candidate; or
(b) that the result of the election has been materially affected—
(i) by the improper reception or refusal of a vote; or
(ii) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under
this Act; or
Grounds for declaring the election of a returned candidate to be
void

(iii) by reason of the fact that the nomination of any candidate (other
than the successful candidate), who has not withdrawn his
candidature, has been wrongly accepted; or
(c) that the nomination of any candidate has been wrongly
rejected or the nomination of the successful candidate has
been wrongly accepted;
the Supreme Court shall declare the election of the
returned candidate to be void.

(2) For the purposes of this section, the offences of bribery and
undue influence at an election have the same meaning as in
Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).
 Grounds for which a candidate other than the returned
candidate may be declared to have been elected
 Section 19 of President andV.P Elections Act, 1952

 If any person who has lodged an election petition has, in addition to

calling in question the election of the returned candidate, claimed a
declaration that he himself or any other candidate has been duly elected
and the Supreme Court is of opinion that in fact the petitioner or such
other candidate received a majority of the valid votes, the Supreme Court
shall, after declaring the election of the returned candidate to be void,
declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as the case may be, to have
been duly elected:
 Provided that the petitioner or such other candidate shall not be declared to be duly
elected if it is proved that the election of such candidate would have been void if he had
been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his
election.
Cases mentioned in red are must read cases.
 Baburao Patel Vs. Zakir Husain, decided on: 07.11.1967
 Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Fakruddin Ali Ahmed, decided on : 14.10.1974
 Charan Lal Sahu Vs. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam , decided on : 11.12.2002
 Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Giani Zail Singh , decided on : 13.12.1983
 Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, , decided on : 15.02.1978
 Mithilesh Kumar Sinha Vs.Returning Officer for Presidential Election,decided
On: 17.09.1992
 Mithilesh Kumar Vs. R. Venkataraman , decided on : 16.10.1987
 Narayan Bhaskar Khare Vs. The Election Commission of India , decided on :
03.05.1957
 N.B. Khare Vs. Election Commission of India, decided on : 14.10.1957
 Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee, decided on : 05.12.2012
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012
Kindly read the full judgement
Hon'ble Judges:
Altamas Kabir, C.J.I., P. Sathasivam, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Ranjan
Gogoi and J. Chelameswar, JJ.
 Issue before the SC
 Whether the election petition deserves a regular hearing under
Rule 20 of Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966?
 In any event, since the holder of the post of Chairman of the Institute has
been excluded from disqualification for contesting the Presidential election,
by the 2006 amendment to Section 3 of the Parliament (Prevention of
Disqualification) Act, 1959, the submissions of Mr. Jethmalani in this regard
is of little or no substance. (Read the minority opinion of Justice Gagoi and
Chelmeshwar)
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012
 Petitioners Contention
 Respondent was not eligible to contest the Presidential
election in view of the provisions of Article 58 of the
Constitution of India.

 At the time of filing the nomination papers as a candidate

for the Presidential elections, the Respondent, Shri Pranab
Mukherjee, held "offices of profit", namely,
 (i) Office of Chairman of the Council of Indian Statistical
Institute, Calcutta; and
 (ii) Leader of the House in the Lok Sabha.
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012

 Objection raised before returning Officer

 At the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers on 2nd July,
2012, an objection to that effect had been raised before the
Returning Officer by the Petitioner's authorized representative,
who urged that the nomination papers of the respondent were
liable to be rejected.
 Petition submitted before the Election Commission of India
 Immediately after the rejection of the Petitioner's objection by
the returning officer, a petition was submitted to the Election
Commission of India, under Article 324 of the Constitution,
praying for directions to the Returning Officer to re-scrutinize
the nomination papers of the Respondent and to decide the
matter afresh after hearing the Petitioner.
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012
 Election Commission rejected the Petition
 The Election Commission rejected the said petition as not
being maintainable before the Election Commission, since
all disputes relating to Presidential elections could be
inquired into and decided only by this Court.
 Petition before the Supreme Court
 Aggrieved by the decision of the Returning Officer in
accepting the nomination papers of the Respondent being
valid, the Petitioner has questioned the election of the
Respondent as the President of India under Article 71 of
the Constitution read with Order XXXIX of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966, and, in particular, Rule 13 thereof.
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012

 Supreme Court held (Majority)

 In the instant case, the office of Chairman of the Institute did
not provide for any of the amenities indicated hereinabove and,
in fact, the said office was also not capable of yielding profit or
pecuniary gain.
 In regard to the office of the Leader of the House, it is quite
clear that the Respondent had tendered his resignation from
membership of the House before he filed his nomination
papers for the Presidential election.
 We are not convinced that in the facts and circumstances of the
case, the Election Petition deserves a full and regular hearing as
contemplated under Rule 20 of Order XXXIX of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966.
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012

 Supreme Court held (Majority)

 It may not be inappropriate at this stage to mention
that this Court has repeatedly cautioned that the
election of a candidate who has won in an election
should not be lightly interfered with unless
circumstances so warrant.

 We are not inclined, therefore, to set down the

Election Petition for regular hearing and dismiss the
same under Rule 13 of Order XXXIX of the Supreme
Court Rules, 1966.
 Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012

 Ranjan Gogoi, J. (Dissenting)

 Whether the said office carries any remuneration and/or
perquisites or the same is under the control of the Union
Government as also the question whether the Respondent
had resigned from the said office on 20.6.2012 are all
questions of fact which are in dispute and, therefore,
capable of resolution only on the basis of such evidence as
may be adduced by the parties.
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012
 If, therefore, it is assumed that the office of Chairman, ISI is
an office of profit and the Respondent had held the said
office on the material date(s) consequences adverse to the
Respondent, in so far as the result of the election is
concerned, are likely to follow. The said facts, will therefore,
be required to be proved by the election Petitioner. No
conclusion that a regular hearing in the present case will be a
redundant exercise or an empty formality can be reached, so
as to dispense with the same and terminate the Election
Petition at the stage of its preliminary hearing under Order
XXXIX Rule 13.
 The Election Petition, therefore, deserves a regular hearing
under Order XXXIX Rule 20 in accordance with what is
contained in the different provisions of Part III of the
Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
 Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012

 80. The next question is with regard to the office of the Chairman of the Council of
Indian Statistical Institute, Kolkata. Whether the said office carries any remuneration
and/or perquisites or the same is under the control of the Union Government as also the
question whether the Respondent had resigned from the said office on 20.6.2012 are all
questions of fact which are in dispute and, therefore, capable of resolution only on the
basis of such evidence as may be adduced by the parties. The Court, therefore, will have
to steer away from any of the said issues at the present stage of consideration which is one
under Order XXXIX, Rule 13. Instead, for the present, we may proceed on the basis that
the office in question is an office of profit which the Respondent held on the relevant date
(which facts, however, will have to be proved at the regular hearing if the occasion so
arises) and on that assumption determine whether the election of the Respondent is still
not void on the ground that, in view of the provisions of Article 58(2) of the Constitution,
the nomination of the Respondent had been wrongly accepted, as claimed by the
Respondent. In this regard the specific issue that has to be gone into as whether the office
of the Chairman, ISI, Kolkata has been exempted from bringing any disqualification by
virtue of the provisions of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act 1959, as
amended.
 Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012

8 4 . The net result of the above discussion is that the Parliament (Prevention of
Disqualification) Act, 1959 as amended by the Amendment Act No. 31 of 2006 has no
application insofar as election to the office of the President is concerned. The disqualification
incurred by a Presidential candidate on account of holding of an office of profit is not
removed by the provisions of the said Act which deals with removal of disqualification for
being chosen as, or for being a Member of Parliament. If, therefore, it is assumed that the
office of Chairman, ISI is an office of profit and the Respondent had held the said office on
the material date(s) consequences adverse to the Respondent, in so far as the result of the
election is concerned, are likely to follow. The said facts, will therefore, be required to be
proved by the election Petitioner. No conclusion that a regular hearing in the present case
will be a redundant exercise or an empty formality can be reached so as to dispense with the
same and terminate the Election Petition at the stage of its preliminary hearing under Order
XXXIX Rule 13. The Election Petition, therefore, deserves a regular hearing under Order
XXXIX Rule 20 in accordance with what is contained in the different provisions of Part III of
the Supreme Court Rules, 1966.
Purno Agitok Sangma Vs. Pranab Mukherjee
Decided On: 05.12.2012
 J. Chelameswar (Dissenting)
 Similarly, accepting the statement of the Respondent that he did not derive
any pecuniary benefit by virtue of his having had been Chairman of the
Indian Statistical Institute without permitting the Petitioner to test the
correctness of that statement by cross-examining the Respondent or
confronting the Respondent with such documents which the Petitioner
might discover if such a discovery is permitted would be a denial of
equality of law to the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Such facility is afforded to every litigant pursuing
litigation in a court of civil judicature in this country. Therefore, I do not
subscribe to the view that the election petition does not deserve a regular
hearing.
 At stake is not the Presidency of India but the constitutional declaration of
equality and the credibility of the judicial process.
Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, , decided on : 15.02.1978

Issues Framed:
 (1) Has the petitioner a locus standi to maintain his election petition, or, in other
words, is he a duly nominated candidate in accordance with provisions of Section
5B and 5C of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections, Act?
 (2) Is the petition maintainable?
 (3) Is it open to the petitioner to challenge the validity of Section 5B and 5C 16-02-
2021 (Page 2 of 6) www.manupatra.com GNLU user of the Act?
 (4) If so, are the two provisions mentioned in issue No. 3 valid?

 The petitioner went so far as to challenge the validity of the constitutional

amendment introduced in 1974 by which the jurisdiction of any Court to question
the validity of an Act made under Article 71(1) of the Constitution was barred.
 Baburao Patel Vs. Zakir Husain, decided on: 07.11.1967
 Election of Dr. Zakir Husain challenged on two grounds.
 The first ground is that no oath was taken by Dr. Zakir Husain before his nomination as required by
Art. 84 read with Art. 58 of the Constitution.
 The second ground is that the result of the election has been materially affected by reason of undue
influence.
 Issues framed by the Supreme Court
 1. Whether the acceptance of the nomination papers of respondents Nos. 1 to 17 by the Returning
Officer was illegal and contrary to law for the reason that Respondents Nos. 1 to 17 did not
subscribe to the oath required under Article 84(a) of the Constitution read with Article 58(1)(c)
thereof;
 2. Whether the result of the election has been materially affected;
 3 . Whether the acts and conduct alleged in para 12 of the petition and set out under heads A, B, C
and D thereof amount to undue influence within the meaning of s. 18(1)(b) of the Act.
 4 . Whether the allegations made under heads A, B, C, and D in para 12 of the petition in so far as
they are not admitted are true;
 5. Whether the petition is entitled to any relief, and if so, to what relief.
 Charan Lal Sahu Vs. Giani Zail Singh , decided on : 13.12.1983
 In Petition No. 2 of 1982, the petitioner asks for the following reliefs:
 "(1) That the Constitutional Eleventh Amendment Act 1961 be declared ultravires of the Constitution.
 (2) That the Sections 5(B) 6 and 5(c) 21(3) of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Act 1952 (Amended) with
Election Rules 1974 be declared, illegal, void and unconstitutional, under Article 58 of the Constitution.
 (3) That is the post of Prime Minister and other Ministers be declared that they are in office of profit hence they have
played undue influence in the election of the returned Candidate.
 (4) That the election of the (Returned Candidate) Respondent No. 1 be declared void and nomination of respondent
No. 2 be declared illegally
 accepted thus the petitioner be declared as elected as President under the Constitution, as stated in the petition Under
Section 18 of the Act.
 (5) That the above system of election of President is bad and unconstitutional therefore, it should be held directly in
future by all the electorals and Union of India be directed to amend Articles 54, 55 and 56 of the Constitution of
India.
 (6) That Sections 4(1)(2), 5, 6, 7, & 11 of the Salaries and Allowances of Ministers Act 1952 (Act No. 58 of 1952)
along with Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament Act, 1954 be
declared void and unconstitutional." (Advisedly, we have not touched up the prayer-clauses.)
 In Petition No. 3 of 1982, the petitioner prays that the election of Respondent 1 be set aside on the various grounds
mentioned in the petition.
 Since the petitioners contested their alleged lack of locus to file the petitions, the following issue was framed by us a
preliminary issue in each of the two election petitions :
 Does the petitioner have no locus standi to maintain the petition on the ground that he was not a 'candidate' within the
meaning of Section 13(a) read with Section 14A of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 ?
Charan Lal Sahu Vs. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam , decided on : 11.12.2002

Points for consideration before the Supreme Court:

 (1) Does the petitioner have a locus standi to maintain his election
petition, or in other words, is he duly nominated candidate in
accordance with provisions of Sections 5B and 5C of the Presidential
and Vice Presidential Elections Act?
 (2) Has the petition put a valid challenge to the validity of Sections
5B and 5C of the Act or any other provisions of the Act and the
Rules?
 (3) Is the petition maintainable?