J9S7 October, 14. [1958] Dr. N. B. KHARE v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA (S. R. DAS, C.J,, VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.) Presidential Election-Validity of Election-Enquiry into dis- putes-Forum ond Procedure-Presidential
ond Vice-Presidentiaf Elections Aci, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), ss. 14, 18–Supreme Court Rule.•, 1950, Or. XXXVII-A, Rr. 3, 12-Constitution of India, Art. 71(1)(3). The petitioner describing himself as an intending candidate for the Presidental Election filed a petition in the Supreme Court under Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India impugning the election. of the President, but it was returned by the Registrar of the Court on the ground that it was not in conformity ·with the provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, and the Rules of the Supreme Court contained in Or.
XXXVII-A. 011 appeal to the Court it was contended for the appellant that (I) tpe petition was founded upon doubts as to the validity of the election and, in consequence, was not convered either by the Act or the Rules of the Supreme Court, (2) the Act and the Rules in question were void on the ground that they derogate from the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court under Art. 71(1)· and (3) in any case, the petitioner has a ri!lht as a citizen to approach this Court for relief whenever an election has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions.
Held, that Art, 71(1) merely prescribes the forum in which doubts and disputes in connection with the election of the Presi- dent and Vice-President would be enquired into, but the right to move the Supreme Court as well as the procedure therefor, are determined by the Act of Parliament as authorised by Art. 71(3). Accordingly the Act and the Rules in question are valid, and the petitioner bas no rights apart from those given by the statute to file an application for setting aside an election.
OmmNAL .JURISDICTION : Civil Miscellaneous Peti- tion No. 915 of 1957. Appeal under Order V, rule 3 of the Supreme Court Rules; R. V. S Mani artd Gangat Rai, for the petitioner. 1957. October 14. The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered by VENKATA~MA AIYAR J.-This is a petition under Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India. On May 6, 1957, there was an election to the office of the Presi- S.C.R.
dent and Shri Rajendra Prasad was declared elected. Thereafter Dr. N. B. Khare filed the present petition describing himself as an intending candidate and alleging that there had been violations of the provi-
sions of the Constitution and that the election was in consequence not valid. The prayers in the petition are "that grave doubts that exist in connection with the Presidential election be enquired into, resolved
and decided" and "the entire proceedings of the Presi- dential election be quashed as void". The Registrar of this Court returned the petition as not being in conformity with the provisions of the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), and as not satisfying the require- ments of the Rules of this Court contained in. 0. XXXVII-A. Section 14 of Act XXXI of 1952 provides
that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to the Supreme Court in accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the Rules made by the Supreme Court under Art; .145 of
the Constitution; and it further provides that it should be presented by any candidate at such election or by ten or more electors. The Rules framed by this Court .with reference to this matter are contained in 0.
XXXVII-A. Rule 3 prescribes that a court-fee of the value of Rs. 250 should be paid on the petition and r. 12 requires the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000 in cash as security for the payment of costs
that may become payable by him. The petitioner is not a person entitled to apply under s. 14 of the Act and his petition was also defective as it did not comply with the .requirements or rr. 3 and 12. It was accord-
ingly returned qy the Registrar. Against that order, the present appeal has been brought. It is firstly contended by Mr. Mani that the present petition is outside the purview of Act XXXI of
1952 and of 0. XXXVII-A of the Supreme Court Rules. It is argued that the Supreme Court is invested with jurisdiction to enquire into and decide all doubts· and disputes arising out of or in connection with the-
election of the President, that Act XXXI of 1952· and 0. XXXVII-A apply only when there is a dispute- Dr. N. B. Khare v. Electio11 Co1111nissio11 of India Ve11kata1'1111111 A1)•a1-,J.
[1958] as to the election but where the petition is founded »r. N. B. Khare upon doubts as to the validity of the election, it is not v. covered either by the Act or the Rules. We are unable
Election Commission to accept this contention. When once an election has of I11dia been held, any doubt concerning its validity is mate- .ve,,katarama rial only as a ground for setting aside the election and Aiyar,J.
that in fact is the prayer in the petition itself. In sub- stance the petition is one calling the election in ques- tion and it must satisfy the requirements of Act XXXI of 1952 and of the Rules in 0. XXXVII-A.
It is next contended that the Act and the Rules in question are void on the ground that they derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enquire into and decide all disputes and doubts arising out of
or in connection with the election of the President or the Vice-President. It is argued that under s. 18, the election could be set aside only on certain grounds and that further under clause (b) it could be done only if
the result of the election is shown to have been mate- rially affected, and that these are restrictions on the jurisdiction conferred by Art. 71 (1) and are ultra vires, Articies 71 ( 1) merely prescribes the forum in
which disputes in connection with the election of the President and Vice-President would be enquired into. It does not prescribe the conditions under which the petition for setting aside an election could be present-
ed. Under Art. 71(3), it is Parliament that is authoris- ed to make law for regulating any matter relating to or connected with the election of the President or Vice-President, and Act XXXI of 1952 has been passed
by Parliament in accordance with this provision. The right to stand for election and the right to move. for setting aside an election are not common law rights. They must be conferred by statute and can be enforc-
ed only in accordance with the conditions laid down therein. The contention that the Act and the Rules derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court · under Art. 71(1) must accordingly be rejected. The
petitioner has, therefore, no right to move for setting aside the election except in accordance with the pro- visions of Act XXXI of 1952. S.C.R. SUPR~E COURT REPORTS And finally it is contended that the petitioner has
a right as a citizen to approach this Court under Art. 71(1) whenever an election has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions. For the re~sons already given, this contention must fail. The right of a person
to file an application for setting aside an election must be determined by the statute which gives it, and that statute is Act XXXI of 1952 passed under Art. 71(3). The petitioner must strictly bring himself within the
four corners of that statute and has no rights apart from it. The order appealed against is clearly right and this appeal is dismissed. Petition dismissed. MESSRS. CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS
'V. THEIR WORKMEN. (BHAGWATI, S. K. DAS and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.~ Industrial Dispute-Adjudication-Constitution of wage struc- ture-Revision of such structure, if can be made to the prejudice of workmen-Convention-Governing principle.
Although there can be no rigid and inexorable convention that a wage structure once fixed can never be changed to the prejudice ·of the workmen, there are well-recognised principles on which such revision must be founded, one important principle, to which there can be no exceptions, is that the wages of workmen cannot be allowed to fall below the bare subsistence level. It- follows, therefore, that no industry can have the right to exist if it cannot be maintained except by bringing the wages below that level.
The Constitution of J ndia seeks to create a democratic welfare state and secure social and economic justice to the citizens. Growth of industries and the advent of collective bargaining
between organized labour and capital with consequent industrial legislation have made absolute freedom of contract and the- doctrine of laissez faire things of the past and they have now to yield place to principles of social welfare and common good. Industrial adjudication has, thus, to keep in view the ideal of a democratic welfare state and its immediate objectiye in constitut- ing a wage structure must be to secure the genuine and whole- hearted co-operation between labour and capital in the task of production by a just adjustment of their conflicting interests by Dr. N. B. Khare
v. Election Commission of India Venkatarama Aiyar, J. October, 15.