RAJU V.B. Vs. CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER, STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein anguished by the rigour of the party discipline in a Democratic State and inspired with a spirit of crusade to establish and maintain constitutional right and guarantee of having free and independent election challenges the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, viz. Section 34 (a) and Section 56 as well Sections 33, 34, 35, 36 (1), 36 (2) (b), 36 (2) (c) and Section 39 (2) of the said Act as ultra vires Article 84 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, void and ineffective. The challenge has been raised in the following circumstances :

(2.) THE petitioner desired to contest the election to the Loksabha in the elections held in 1971 and for the election to the Council of States held in March, 1972. The petitioner was required to deposit and in fact deposited Rs. 500/ - with the Returning Officer to contest the election to the Loksabha from Ahmedabad constituency in March 1971. As he did not obtain a prescribed percentage of votes, his deposit came to be forfeited under Section 158 of the aforesaid Act. Similarly, he deposited a sum of Rs. 250/ - by way of deposit for election to the Council of States held in March, 1972. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even though he entreated and begged, no one was willing to nominate him on account of party discipline. The petitioner apprehended that even if he would go a begging he would not be nominated by any person for the election to Rajyasabha. The statutory requirement of filing nomination would thus deprive him his constitutional right to contest election. The petitioner, as he intended to contest the election to the Council of States by the members of Gujarat Legislative Assembly without filing nomination and only by making a declaration of his intention to stand, apprehended that he would not be allowed to contest the election. He, therefore, approached this Court by this petition, challenging the constitutional validity of the aforesaid provisions so as to obtain an urgent relief of permitting him to contest the election without nomination paper. However, it appears, as averred by the petitioner in para, 2 of his petition, that he had deposited on 29th March, 1972 the requisite amount of deposit of Rs. 250/ - under the relevant provisions of the aforesaid Act. The petitioner, however, apprehended at the time of filing this petition that the said deposit amount would not be returned and would be forfeited under Section 158 of the said Act.

(3.) AT the time of hearing of this petition, Mr. R.A. Mehta, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised the following points for our consideration : -