SH. MOHD. AYUB KHANversusPROF. BHIM SINGH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 382
- Decided
- 14 March 1996
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the question of the Election Commission’s power to order a repoll is academic and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
Summary
The Election Commission issued a notification for a bye‑election to the Udhampur Parliamentary Constituency and, after a reference by the Returning Officer, directed a repoll at certain polling stations, which was carried out. The election result was challenged before an election petition, and the High Court set aside the election on the ground that, under Section 64‑A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Commission lacked authority to order a repoll, further noting that the previous Parliament had been dissolved and a new one constituted. On appeal, senior counsel for the appellant argued that the Commission does possess such power, but the Supreme Court held that the issue was purely academic because no substantive relief could be granted after the new Parliament was in place. Consequently, the Court declined to examine the merits and treated the High Court’s declaration as having only academic value. The appeal was dismissed with no costs awarded.
Issues considered
- Whether the Election Commission has power under Section 64‑A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to order a repoll in a parliamentary election.
- Whether an order for repoll is void if the previous Parliament has been dissolved and a new Parliament has been constituted.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Judgment
A SH. MOHD. A YUB KHAN
v.
PROF. BHIM SINGH AND ORS.
MARCH 14, 1996
B [K. RAMASWA.\1Y, S.P. BHARUCHA AND
K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]
Representation of People Act, 1951: Section 64-A.
C Election Commission-Power to order repoll-Parliamentwy elec-
tion-Reference by Retwning Officer-Direction for repoll by Election Com-
mission---Cha/lengc-High 'Cow1 held that Commission had no power to
direct repoll-lt took note of the fact since previous Parliament stood dis-
solved and new constituted no order for repoll could be made-Appeal-Held
direction given by High Cowt has only academic value-Supreme Court
D would not go into said acade111ic question since no substantial relief could be
given, if the niatter is to be heard on n1e1its.
Constitution of India, 1950: Anicle 324.
Election Conzmission-Power of superintendence, Direction and con-
E trol of elections.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4970 of
1992.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.10.1992 of the .Tammu &
F Kashmir High Court in E.P. No. 1 of 1988.
M.C. Bhandare and Ms. C.K. Sucharita for the Appellants.
L.R. Singh, Irshad Ahmed, A.M. Khanwilkar and Ashok Mathur for
the Respondents.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The Election Conunission had issued notification on May 16, 1988
for holding bye-elections to the 5-Udhampur Parliamentary Constituency
in the State of J ammu & Kashmir and the result of the election was
H declared. Counting of the vote commenced on June 20, 1992. On a refer-
420
t
MOHD. AYUB KHANv. BHIM SINGH 421
ence by the Returning Officer on June 21, 1988, the Election Commission A
directed repoll at certain polling stations. Accordingly, repoll was done in
those booths. The result of the election was challenged in the Election
Petition No. 1 of 1988. The High Court in the impugned order dated
October 13, 1992 has set aside the election on the grounds that under
Section 64-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951, the Election B
Commission had no power to order repoll and that, therefore, the election
was void. The High Court, however, noted that since the previous Parlia-
ment stood dissolved and new Parliament was constituted, no order for
repoll could be made.
Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel- C
!ant, contended that the Election Commission has got power to order
repoll and, therefore, the order of the High Court is clearly illegal. It is not
necessary for us at this stage to go into that question since it is only an
academic issue. The High Court having noticed that the previous Parlia-
ment to which the election came to be held stood dissolved and that a new
Parliament was constituted, should have declined to go into the question. D
Nonetheless, the High Court has given it declaration which has only an
academic value. We need not go into the said academic question since no
substantial relief could be given, if the matter is to be heard on merits.
We are not expressing.any opinion on merits since we have already E
held that the view expressed by the High Court is an academic issue. The
findings recorded therein would not be treated as a binding precedent.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.
T.N.A. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.