{"id":164922,"date":"1965-02-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-02-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965"},"modified":"2015-02-03T12:38:15","modified_gmt":"2015-02-03T07:08:15","slug":"brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965","title":{"rendered":"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1892, \t\t 1965 SCR (3)\t 53<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBRUNDABAN NAYAK\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n12\/02\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nDAYAL, RAGHUBAR\nSIKRI, S.M.\nRAMASWAMI, V.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1892\t\t  1965 SCR  (3)\t 53\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1966 SC 356\t (7)\n R\t    1971 SC1630\t (5)\n\n\nACT:\n    Constitution  of  India, Art. 192(1)  and  (2)--Who\t can\nraise  question\t as to disqualification of  sitting  member-\nWhether\t question has to be raised on floor of the  Assembly\nand referred to the Governor by Speaker--Enquiry to be\theld\nby Governor or Election Commission?\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t appellant  was elected to  the\t Orissa\t Legislative\nAssembly in 1961. In 1964 respondent No. 2 made a  complaint\nto  the Governor alleging that the appellant had incurred  a\ndisqualification subsequent to his election as\tcontemplated\nin Art. 191(1)(e) of the Constitution read with s.  7 of the\nRepresentation\t of  the People Act (Act 43  of\t 1951).\t The\nChief  Secretary  Orissa forwarded the\tsaid  complaint\t ,to\nrespondent  No. 1, the Election Commission of  India,  under\nthe  instructions  of the Governor, requesting\tit  to\tmake\nenquiry into the complaint and give its opinion. Accordingly\nrespondent  No. 1 served notice on the appellant and  called\nupon  him to submit his reply. The appellant challenged\t the\njurisdiction of respondent No. 1 to conduct the enquiry\t and\nfiled  a  writ\tpetition in the High  Court.  On  its  being\ndismissed he appealed to this Court by special leave.\n   It  was  contended on behalf of the appellant   that\t  no\nquestion  under\t Art.  192(1) had arisen in the\t case  as  a\nquestion relating to the disqualification of a member  under\nArt.  191(1)(e) could not be raised by an ordinary  citizen.\nIt  was urged that considering the context of Art.  192\t and\nthe provisions of Art. 199 the question could only be raised\non  the\t floor of the House and thereafter referred  to\t the\nGovernor  by  the Speaker of the Assembly.  It\twas  further\ncontended  that\t only  the  Governor who  had  to  give\t the\ndecision could hold the enquiry, and the Election Commission\nwas  only to give its opinion on the materials forwarded  to\nit by the Governor.\n    HELD:  (i)\tThe argument t that no question\t had  arisen\nunder  Art.  192(1) could not be accepted. What\t Art  192(1)\nrequires is that a question should arise; how it arises,  by\nwhom  it is raised, in what circumstances it is\t raised\t are\nnot  relevant  for the purpose of the  application  of\tthis\nclause. [59 H]\n    The\t words\tin Art. 192(1) that \"the question  shall  be\nreferred for the decision of the Governor\" merely  emphasise\nthat  any  question  of the type contemplated  in  the\tsaid\nclause shall be decided by the Governor and Governor  alone;\nno other authority, including the courts, can decide it.  Ii\nthe  intention\t was  that  the\t question  must\t b.e  raised\nfirst  in the legislative Assembly and after a\tprima  facie\nexamination  by the Speaker it should be referred by him  to\nthe  Governor,\tArt.  192(1) would have been  worded  in  an\nentirely different manner. [59 B-C]\n    The object of Art 192 is that no member who has incurred\na  disqualification under Art. 191(1) should b.e allowed  to\ncontinue  as a member.The Constitution itself in Art  190(3)\nprovides   for\tthe vacation of the seat of such  a  member.\nFurther it is in the interests of the member's\tconstituency\nthat no longer being entitled to the status of a member.  he\nshould be removed.  In view\n54\nof these considerationS a citizen  is certainly entitled  to\nmake a complaint to the Governor about the  disqualification\nincurred by a member under Art. 191(1). [59. E-G]\n    (ii)  The enquiry for the purpose of the decision  under\nArt.  192 has to be held by the Election Commission and\t not\nby  the Governor. When the Governor pronounces his  decision\nunder Art. 192(1) he is not required to consult his  Council\nof Ministers; he has merely to forward 'the question to\t the\nElection  Commission  for its opinion, and as  soon  as\t the\nopinion\t is  received,\t\"he  shall  act\t according  to\tsuch\nopinion\". It is the opinion of the Election Commission which\nis  in\tsubstance decisive, and it is  legitimate  that\t the\nCommission  should  proceed to try the complaint  before  it\ngives its opinion. [60 D-H]\n    [Legislation to vest Election Commission with powers  of\na  Commission  under the Commissions of Enquiry\t Act,  1952,\nrecommended.] [62 B]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CIVIL,  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  50  of
\n1965.\n<\/p>\n
    Appeal by special leave from the order dated January  6,
\n1965 of the Circuit Bench of the Punjab High Court at  Delhi
\nin Civil Writ No. 8-D of 1965.\n<\/p>\n
    M.C. Setalvad, Ravinder Narain, J.B. Dadachanji and O.C.
\nMathur, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
    C.K.    Daphtary,\t Attorney-General,    S.V.    Gupte,
\nSolicitor  General, B.R.L. lyengar and R.H. Dhebar, for\t the
\nrespondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
    Santosh  Chatterjee B. B. Ratho and M.L.  Chhibber,\t for
\nrespondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was .delivered by
\n    Gajendragadkar,  C.J. The principal question which\tthis
\nappeal\tby special leave raises for our decision relates  to
\nthe  construction  of Article 192 of the  Constitution.\t The
\nsaid  question arises in this way. The\tappellant  Brundaban
\nNayak was elected to the Legislative Assembly of Orissa from
\nthe Hinjili 23 Constituency in Ganjam district in 1961,\t and
\nwas  appointed\tone  of\t the Ministers\tof  the\t Council  of
\nMinisters in the said State. On August 18, 1964,  respondent
\nNo. 2, P. Biswal, applied to the Governor of Orissa alleging
\nthat   the   appellant\thad  incurred\ta   disqualification
\nsubsequent  to\this  election under Art.  191(1)(e)  of\t the
\nConstitution  read with section 7 of the  Representation  of
\nthe  People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951)\t(hereinafter  called
\nthe Act). In his application, respondent No. 2 made  several
\nallegations in support of his contention that the  appellant
\nhad  become  disqualified  to  be a  member  of\t the  Orissa
\nLegislative  Assembly.\tOn  September 10,  1964,  the  Chief
\nSecretary  to the Government of Orissa forwarded  the  ,said
\ncomplaint  to respondent No. 1, the Election  Commission  of
\nIndia,\tunder  the  instructions of the\t Governor.  In\tthis
\ncommunication,\tthe Chief Secretary stated that\t a  question
\nhad arisen under Article 191(1) of the Constitution  whether
\nthe member in
\n55<\/span>
\nquestion had been subject to the disqualification alleged by
\nrespondent  No. 2 and so, he requested respondent No.  1  in
\nthe name of the Governor to make such enquiries as it thinks
\nfit  and give its opinion for communication tO the  Governor
\nto enable him to give a decision on the question raised.
\n    On\tNovember 17, 1964, respondent No. 1 served a  notice
\non  the\t appellant forwarding to him a copy  of\t the  letter
\nreceived by it from respondent No. 2 dated the 4th November,
\n1964. The notice intimated to the appellant that  respondent
\nNo.  1 proposed to enquire in the matter before\t giving\t its
\nopinion on the Governor’s reference, and, therefore,  called
\nupon him to submit on or before the 5th December, 1964,\t his
\nreply with supporting affidavits and documents, if any.\t The
\nappellant  was also told that the parties would be heard  in
\nperson\tor through authorised counsel at 10-30 A.M.  on\t the
\n8th December, 1964. in the office of respondent No. 1 in New
\nDelhi.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tDecember 1, 1964, the appellant sent a\ttelegram  to
\nrespondent No. 1 requesting it to adjourn the hearing of the
\nmatter.\t On  the same day, he also  addressed  a  registered
\nletter\tto  respondent\tNo.  1\tmaking\tthe  same   request.
\nRespondent  No.\t 2  objected  to the  request  made  by\t the
\nappellant  for adjourning the hearing of the  complaint.  On
\nDecember  8, 1964. respondent No. 1 took up this matter\t for
\nconsideration. Respondent No. 2 appeared by his counsel\t Mr.
\nChatterjee,  but the appellant was absent. Respondent No.  1
\ntook the view that an enquiry of the nature contemplated  by
\nArt.   192(2)  must  be\t conducted  as\t  expedtiously\t  as
\npossible,  and so, it was necessary that whatever his  other
\ncommitments  may be, the appellant should arrange to  submit
\nat  least his statement in reply to the allegations made  by
\nrespondent  No.\t 2, even if he required some more  time\t for
\nfiling\taffidavits  and\/or  documents  in  support  of\t his
\nstatement. Even so, respondent No. 1 gave the appellant time
\nuntil the 2nd January, 1965, 10-30 A.M. when it ordered that
\nthe matter would be heard.\n<\/p>\n
    On\tJanuary\t 2,  1965, the\tappellant  appeared  by\t his
\ncounsel Mr. Patnaik and respondent No. 2 by his counsel\t Mr.
\nChatterjee.  On\t this  occasion,  Mr.  Patnaik\traised\t the
\nquestion about the maintainability of the proceedings before
\nrespondent No. 1 and its competence to hold the enquiry. Mr.
\nChatterjee repelled Mr. Patnaik’s contention. Respondent No.
\n1  over-ruled  Mr.  Patnaik’s contention  and  recorded\t its
\nconclusion  that it was competent to hold the enquiry  under
\nArt. 192(2). Mr. Patnaik then asked for adjournment and made
\nit  clear  that\t he was making the  motion  for\t adjournment
\nwithout submitting to the jurisdiction of respondent No.  1.
\nIn  view of the attitude adopted by Mr. Patnaik,  respondent
\nNo.  1 took the view that it would be pointless\t to  adjourn
\nthe proceedings. and so, it heard Mr. Chatterjee in  support
\nof  the\t case  of  respondent  No.  2.\tAfter  hearing\t Mr.
\nChatterjee.  respondent\t No. 1 reserved its  orders  on\t the
\nenquiry and noted that its
\n56<\/span>
\nopinion\t would be communicated\tto the Governor as early  as
\npossible.\n<\/p>\n
    When  matters had reached this stage  before  respondent
\nNo. 1, the appellant moved the Punjab High Court under\tArt.
\n226  of\t the  Constitution praying that\t the  enquiry  which
\nrespondent  No.\t 1  was holding, should be  quashed  on\t the
\nground\tthat  it was incompetent and  without  jurisdiction.
\nThis writ petition was summarily dismissed by the said\tHigh
\nCourt on January 6, 1965. Thereafter, the appellant  applied
\nto  this  Court for special leave on January  8,  1965,\t and
\nspecial\t leave was granted to him on January 14,  1965.\t The
\nappellant  then\t moved\tthis  Court  for  stay\tof   further
\nproceedings before respondent No. 1, and the said prayer was
\ngranted.  When special leave was granted to  the  appellant,
\nthis  Court  had made an order that the preparation  of\t the
\nrecord\tand the filing of statements of the case  should  be
\ndispensed with and the appeal should be heard on the  paper-
\nbook filed along with the special leave petition and must be
\nplaced\tfor  hearing  within three weeks. That\tis  how\t the
\nmatter has come before us for final disposal.
\n    Since  the\tPunjab\tHigh Court had\tdismissed  the\twrit
\npetition  filed by the appellant in limine, neither  of\t the
\ntwo respondents had an opportunity to file their replies  to
\nthe  allegation made by the appellant in his writ  petition.
\nThat  is  why  both  respondent No. 1 and respondent  No.  2
\nhave filed counter-affidavits in  the present appeal setting
\nout  all the relevant facts on which they wish to rely.\t The
\nappellant  has\tfiled  an  affidavit-in-reply.\t All   these
\ndocuments  have been taken on the record at the time of\t the
\nhearing of this appeal. It appears from the affidavit  filed
\nby  Mr. Prakash Narain. Secretary to respondent No. 1,\tthat
\nwhen notice issued by respondent No. 1 on the 17th November,
\n1964,  was  served on the appellant, through  oversight\t the
\noriginal  complaint  flied by respondent No.  2\t before\t the
\nGovernor of Orissa and the reference made by the Governor to
\nrespondent No. 1 were not forwarded to the appellant. At the
\nhearing before us, it is not disputed by the appellant\tthat
\na complaint was in fact made by respondent No. 2 before\t the
\nGovernor  of Orissa and that the Governor had then  referred
\nthe matter to respondent No. 1 for its opinion.
\nLet us then refer to Article 192 which fails to be construed
\nin  the\t present appeal. Before reading this articl,  it  is
\nrelevant to refer to Art. 191. Article 191(1) provides\tthat
\na person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and\t for
\nbeing,\ta member of the Legislative Assembly or\t Legislative
\nCouncil of a State if,
\n57<\/span>
\nto  the Governor. As we have already  indicated,  respondent
\nNo.  2’s  case\tis  that  the  appellant  has  incurred\t the
\ndisqualification  under Art. 191(1)(e) read with s. 7(d)  of
\nthe Act, and this disqualification has been incurred by\t him
\nsubsequent  to\this election. It is  well-settled  that\t the
\ndisqualification  to  which  Art.  191(1)  refers,  must  be
\nincurred  subsequent  to the election of  the  member.\tThis
\nconclusion  follows from the provisions of  Art.  190(3)(a).
\nThis Article refers to the vacation of seats by members duly
\nelected.  Sub-Article (3)(a) provides that if a member of  a
\nHouse  of the Legislature of a State becomes subject to\t any
\nof  the\t disqualifications mentioned in clause (1)  of\tArt.
\n191,  his seat shall thereupon become vacant.  Incidentally,
\nwe may add that corresponding provisions with regard to\t the
\ndisqualification of members of both Houses of Parliament are
\nprescribed by Articles 101,102 and 103 of the  Constitution.
\nIt has been held by this Court in Election Commission, India
\nv.    Saka    Venkata\t Subba\t  Rao\t and\tUnion\t  of<\/a>
\nlndia–Intervener\/that\tArticles  190(3)   and\t192(1)\t are
\napplicable  only  to  disqualifications to  which  a  member
\nbecomes\t subject  after being elected as such. There  is  no
\ndoubt  that the allegations made by respondent No. 2 in\t his
\ncomplaint  before the Governor, prima facie,  indicate\tthat
\nthe  disqualification on which respondent No. 2\t relies\t has
\narisen subsequent to the election of the appellant in 1961.
\nReverting  then to Art. 192, the question which we  have  to
\ndecide\tin the present appeal  is whether respondent No.   1
\nis  entitled to hold an enquiry\t  before giving its  opinion
\nto     the Governor as required by Art.\t 192(2). Let us read
\nArt. 192:–\n<\/p>\n
\t\t    “(1)  If  any  question  arises  as\t  to
\n\t      whether a member of a House of the Legislature
\n\t      of  a State has become subject to any  of\t the
\n\t      disqualifications\t mentioned in clause (1)  of
\n\t      Article  191, the question shall\tbe  referred
\n\t      for  the\tdecision  of the  Governor  and\t his
\n\t      decision shall be final.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t    (2)\t Before giving any decision  on\t any
\n\t      such  question. the Governor shall obtain\t the
\n\t      opinion  of the Election Commission and  shall
\n\t      act according to such opinion”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mr. Setalvad for the appellant contends that in the  present
\ncase.  no question can be said to have arisen as to  whether
\nthe   appellant\t  has\tbecome\tsubject\t to   any   of\t the
\ndisqualifications  mentioned  in  clause (1)  of  Art.\t191,
\nbecause his case is that such a question can be raised\tonly
\non  the floor of the Legislative Assembly and can be  raised
\nby members of the Assembly and not by an ordinary citizen or
\nvoter  in  the\tform of a complaint  to\t the  Governor.\t Mr.
\nSetalvad  did not dispute the fact that this contention\t has
\nnot been taken by the appellant either in his writ  petition
\nbefore the High Court or even in his application for special
\nleave before this Court. In fact, the case sought to be made
\nout  by the appellant in the present proceedings appears  to
\nbe that though a question may have arisen about
\n  (1)[1953]S.C.R.1144.\n<\/p>\n
58<\/span><\/p>\n
his disqualification, it is the Governor alone who can\thold
\nthe  enquiry  and  not respondent No. 1. Even  so,  we\thave
\nallowed\t Mr.  Setalvad to raise this point,  because  it  is
\npurely a question of law depending upon the construction  of
\nArt. 192(1).\n<\/p>\n
   In  support of his argument, Mr. Setalvad refers  to\t the
\nfact  that Art. 192 occurs in Chapter III of Part  VI  which
\ndeals  with  the  State\t Legislature,  and  he\tinvited\t our
\nattention  to  the fact that under Art. 199(3)\twhich  deals
\nwith  a\t question  as to whether a Bill\t introduced  in\t the
\nLegislature of a State which has a Legislative Council is  a
\nMoney\tBill  or  not,\tthe  decision  of  the\tSpeaker\t  of
\nthe  Legislative  Assembly of such State  thereon  shall  be
\nfinal.\tHe urges that just as the question  contemplated  by
\nArt. 199(3) can be raised only on the floor of the House, so
\ncan  the question about a subsequent disqualification  of  a
\nmember\tof a Legislative Assembly be raised on the floor  of
\nthe  House  and nowhere else. He concedes that\twhereas\t the
\nquestion  contemplated by Art. 199(3) has to be\t decided  by
\nthe  Speaker  and his decision is final,  the  authority  to
\ndecide\tthe question under Art. 192(1) is not vested in\t the
\nSpeaker. but is vested\tin the Governor. In other words, the
\ncontext in which Art. 192(1) occurs is pressed into  service
\nby Mr. Setalvad in support of his argument.
\n    Mr.\t Setalvad also relies on the fact that\tArt.  192(1)
\nprovides  that if any question arises, it shall be  referred
\nfor the, decision of the Governor and this clause, says\t Mr.
\nSetalvad,  suggests  that  there should\t be  some  referring
\nauthority  which  makes a reference of the question  to\t the
\nGovernor for his decision. According to him, this  referring
\nauthority,  by necessary implication, is the Speaker of\t the
\nLegislative Assembly. There is another argument which he has
\nadvanced before us in support of this construction.  Article
\n192(2) requires that whenever a question is referred to\t the
\nGovernor,  he  shall  obtain the  opinion  of  the  Election
\nCommission and Mr. Setalvad suggests that it could not\thave
\nbeen  the  intention  of the  Constitution  to\trequire\t the
\nGovernor to refer to the Election Commission every  question
\nwhich  is  raised  about an alleged  disqualification  of  a
\nmember of a Legislative Assembly even though such a question
\nmay be patently frivolous or unsustainable.
\n    We\t are  not  impressed  by  these\t arguments.  It\t  is
\nsignificant  that the first clause of Art. 192(1)  does\t not
\npermit\tof  any limitations such as Mr.\t Setalvad  suggests.
\nWhat  the  said clause requires is that\t a  question  should
\narise;\thow  it\t arises,  by whom  it  is  raised,  in\twhat
\ncircumstances it is raised, are not relevant for the purpose
\nof  the application of this clause. All that is relevant  is
\nthat  a question of the type mentioned by the clause  should
\narise;\tand so, the limitation which Mr. Setalvad  seeks  to
\nintroduce  in  the construction of the’ first part  of\tArt.
\n192(I)\tis plainly inconsistent with the words used  in\t the
\nsaid clause.\n<\/p>\n
59<\/span><\/p>\n
    Then as to the argument based on the words “the question
\nshall  be referred for the decision of the Governor”,  these
\nwords do not import the assumption that any other  authority
\nhas  to\t receive the complaint and after a prima  facie\t and
\ninitial\t investigation\tabout the complaint, send it  on  or
\nrefer  it  to  the Governor for his  decision.\tThese  words
\nmerely emphasise that any question of the type\tcontemplated
\nby  clause (1) of Art. 192 shall be decided by the  Governor
\nand  Governor alone; no other authority can decide  it,\t nor
\ncan  the decision of the said question as such\tfall  within
\nthe jurisdiction of the Courts. That is the significance  of
\nthe  words  “shall  be\treferred for  the  decision  of\t the
\nGovernor”.  If the intention was that the question  must  be
\nraised\tfirst in the Legislative Assembly and after a  prima
\nfacie  examination by the Speaker it should be\treferred  by
\nhim  to the Governor, Art. 192(1) would have been worded  in
\nan  entirely different manner. We do not think there is\t any
\njustification  for reading such serious limitations in\tArt.
\n192(1) merely by implication.\n<\/p>\n
    It\tis  true that Art. 192(2) requires that\t whenever  a
\nquestion\t\tarises\t as   to   the\t  subsequent
\ndisqualification of a member of the Legislative Assembly, it
\nhas  to\t be  forwarded\tby  the\t Governor  to  the  Election
\nCommission  for its opinion. It is conceivable that in\tsome
\ncases,\tcomplaints made to the Governor may be frivolous  or
\nfantastic; but if they are of such a character, the Election
\nCommission will find no difficulty in expressing its opinion
\nthat  they  should be rejected straightaway. The  object  of
\nArt.  192  is plain. No person who has incurred any  of\t the
\ndisqualifications  specified by Art. 191(1), is entitled  to
\ncontinue  to  be a member of the Legislative Assembly  of  a
\nState,\tand  since the obligation to vacate his\t seat  as  a
\nresult\tof his subsequent disqualification has been  imposed
\nby  the Constitution itself by Art. 190(3)(a), there  should
\nbe no difficulty in holding that any citizen is entitled  to
\nmake a complaint to the Governor alleging that any member of
\nthe   Legislative   Assembly  has  incurred   one   of\t the
\ndisqualifications  mentioned  in Art. l 91 (1)\tand  should,
\ntherefore,  vacate his seat. The whole object of  democratic
\nelections is to constitute legislative chambers composed  of
\nmembers\t who are entitled to that status, and if any  member
\nforfeits   that\t  status   by\treason\t of   a\t  subsequent
\ndisqualification, it is in the interests of the constituency
\nwhich  such  a member represents that the matter  should  be
\nbrought to the notice of the Governor and decided by him  in
\naccordance  with the provisions of Art. 192(2).\t  Therefore,
\nwe  must reject Mr. Setalvad’s argument that a question\t has
\nnot  arisen in the present proceedings as required  by\tArt.
\n192(1).\n<\/p>\n
    The\t next  point which Mr. Setalvad has raised  is\tthat
\neven if a question is held to have arisen under Art. 192(1),
\nit  is for the Governor to hold the enquiry and not for\t the
\nElection  Commission. He contends that Art. 192(1)  requires
\nthe question to be referred to the Governor for his decision
\nand  provides  that  his decision shall be final.  It  is  a
\nnormal requirement of the rule of law that a person
\n60<\/span>
\nwho  decides should be empowered to hold the  enquiry  which
\nwould\t  enable  him to reach his decision, and  since\t the
\nGovernor decides the question, he must hold the enquiry\t and
\nnot  the  Election Commission. That, in\t substance,  is\t Mr.
\nSetalvad’s case. He concedes that Art. 192(2) requires\tthat
\nthe  Governor  has to pronounce his decision  in  accordance
\nwith the .opinion given by the Election Commission; that  is
\na  Constitutional  obligation imposed on the  Governor.\t He,
\nhowever,  argues that the Election Commission which  has  to
\ngive  an opinion, is not competent to hold the enquiry,\t but
\nit  is the Governor   who should hold the enquiry  and\tthen
\nforward\t  to  the  Election  Commission\t all  the   material
\ncollected  in  such  an enquiry to enable  it  to  form\t its
\nopinion and communicate the same to the Governor.
\n    We are satisfied that this contention also is not  well-
\nfounded. The scheme of Article 192(1) and (2) is  absolutely
\nclear. The decision on the question raised under Art. 192(1)
\nhas  no\t doubt to be pronounced by the\tGovernor,  but\tthat
\ndecision  has  to be in accordance with the opinion  of\t the
\nElection Commission. The object of this provision clearly is
\nto leave it to the Election Commission to decide the matter,
\nthough the decision as such would formally be pronounced  in
\nthe  name of the Governor. When the Governor pronounces\t his
\ndecision  under Art. 192(1), he is not required\t to  consult
\nhis  Council  of  Ministers;  he is  not  even\trequired  to
\nconsider  and  decide the matter himself; he has  merely  to
\nforward\t the  question to the Election\tCommission  for\t its
\nopinion,  and as soon as the opinion is received, “he  shall
\nact according to such opinion”. In regard to complaints made
\nagainst the election of members to the Legislative Assembly.
\nthe jurisdiction to decide such complaints is left with\t the
\nElection Tribunal under the relevant provisions of the\tAct.
\nThat  means  that  all\tallegations  made  challenging\t the
\nvalidity of the election of any member, have to be tried  by
\nthe   Election\t Tribunals  constituted\t by   the   Election
\nCommission.   Similarly,  all  complaints  in\trespect\t  of
\ndisqualifications subsequently incurred by members who\thave
\nbeen validly elected, have, in substance, to be tried by the
\nElection  Commission, though the decision in form has to  be
\npronounced  by the Governor. If this scheme of\tArt.  192(1)
\nand  (2) is borne in mind, there would be no  difficulty  in
\nrejecting Mr. Setalvad’s contention that the enquiry must be
\nheld  by  the Governor. It is the opinion  of  the  Election
\nCommission  which  is  in  substance  decisive\tand  it\t  is
\nlegitimate to assume that when the complaint is received  by
\nthe Governor, and he forwards it to the Election Commission.
\nthe Election Commission should proceed to try the  complaint
\nbefore\tit  gives its opinion. Therefore, we  are  satisfied
\nthat respondent No. 1 acted within its jurisdiction when  it
\nserved\ta notice on the appellant calling upon him  to\tfile
\nhis statement and produce his evidence in support thereof.
\n    Mr. Setalvad faintly attempted to argue that the failure
\nof respondent No. 1 to furnish the appellant with a copy  of
\nthe  complaint made by respondent No. 2 before the  Governor
\nand of the
\n61<\/span>
\norder  of reference passed by the Governor  ,forwarding\t the
\nsaid complaint to respondent No. 1, rendered the proceedings
\nbefore respondent No. 1 illegal. This contention is  plainly
\nmisconceived.  As  soon\t as respondent No.  1  received\t the
\ncomplaint and the order of reference which was\tcommunicated
\nto it by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Orissa, it
\nwas  seized of the matter and it was plainly  acting  within
\nits jurisdiction under Art. 192(2) when it served the notice
\non  the\t appellant.  As we have already\t indicated,  it\t was
\nthrough oversight that the two documents were not  forwarded
\nto  the appellant along with the notice, but that cannot  in
\nany  sense  affect the jurisdiction of respondent No.  1  to
\nhold  the enquiry. In fact, as respondent No. 2 has  pointed
\nout  in\t his affidavit, the fact that a reference  had\tbeen
\nmade by the Governor to respondent No. 1 was known all\tover
\nthe  State,  and it is futile for the appellant\t to  suggest
\nthat  when he received the notice from respondent No. 1,  he
\ndid  not know that a complaint had been made against him  to
\nthe  Governor alleging that subsequent to his  election,  he
\nhad  incurred  a disqualification as  contemplated  by\tArt.
\n191(1)(e) of the Constitution read with s. 7(d) of the\tAct.
\nIt  would have been better if the appellant had\t not  raised
\nsuch a plea in the present proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
   In this connection, we ought to point out that so far the
\npractice   followed  in\t respect  of  such  complaints\t has
\nconsistently  recognised that the enquiry is to be  held  by
\nthe  Election  Commission both under Art.  192(2)  and\tArt.
\n103(2). In fact, the learned Attorney General for respondent
\nNo. 1 stated before us that though on several occasions, the
\nElection Commission has held enquiries before  communicating
\nits opinion either to the President under Art. 103(2) or  to
\nthe  Governor  under  Art. 192(2), no one  ever\t thought  of
\nraising the contention that the enquiry must be held by\t the
\nPresident or the Governor respectively under Art. 103(1) and
\nArt.  192(1).  He  suggested that the  main  object  of\t the
\nappellant  in  taking  such  a\tplea  was  to  prolong\t the
\nproceedings before respondent No. 1. In the first  instance,
\nthe  appellant\tasked for a long adjournment and  when\tthat
\nrequest\t was  refused by respondent No. 1,  he\tadopted\t the
\npresent\t proceedings solely with the object of\tavoiding  an
\nearly decision by the Governor on the complaint made against
\nthe appellant by respondent No. 2.  We cannot say that there
\nis no substance in this suggestion.\n<\/p>\n
There  is  one more point to which we may  refer  before  we
\npart  with  this  appeal. Our attention\t was  drawn  by\t the
\nlearned\t Attorney-General  to the observations made  by\t the
\nChief Election Commissioner when he rendered his opinion  to
\nthe  Governor on May 30, 1964, on a similar  question  under
\nArt.  192(2) in respect of the alleged\tdisqualification  of
\nMr.  Biren  Mitra,  a  member  of  the\tOrissa\t Legislative
\nAssembly,  “Where,  as in the present  case”,  observed\t the
\nChief  Election\t Commissioner, “the relevant  facts  are  in
\ndispute and can only be ascertained after a proper  enquiry,
\nthe  Commission finds itself in the unsatisfactory  position
\nof having to give a decisive
\n L\/B(D)2SCI- 6
\n62<\/span>
\nopinion an the basis of such affidavits and documents as may
\nbe produced before it by interested parties. It is desirable
\nthat  the  Election  Commission should be  vested  with\t the
\npowers of a commission under the Commissions of Enquiry Act,
\n1952, such as the power to summon witnesses and examine them
\non  oath, the power to compel the production  of  documents,
\nand  the power to issue commissions for the  examination  of
\nwitnesses”.  We\t would\tlike  to  invite  the  attention  of
\nParliament to these observations, because we think that\t the
\ndifficulty   experienced  by  the  Election  Commission\t  in
\nrendering  its\topinion\t under Art. 103(2)  or\tArt.  192(2)
\nappears\t to be genuine, and so Parliament may well  consider
\nwhether\t  the\tsuggestion  made  by  the   Chief   Election
\nCommissioner   should  not  be\taccepted   and\t appropriate
\nlegislation adopted in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
   The\tresult\tis, the appeal fails and is  dismissed\twith
\ncosts. In view of the fact that the present proceedings have
\nunnecessarily  protracted the enquiry before respondent\t No.
\n1,  we\tsuggest\t that respondent No.  1\t should\t proceed  to
\nconsider the matter and forward its opinion to the  Governor
\nas  early as possible. It is hardly necessary to  point\t out
\nthat   in   case   the\t allegations   made   against\t the
\nappellant  are\tfound  to  be  valid,  and  the\t opinion  of
\nrespondent  No.1  is  in  favour of  the  case\tset  out  by
\nrespondent  No. 2, complications may arise by reason of\t the
\nConstitutional provision prescribed by Art. 190(3). In\tview
\nof  the\t said  provision, it is of  utmost  importance\tthat
\ncomplaints  made  under Art. 192(1) must be disposed  of  as
\nexpeditiously as possible.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
63<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1892, 1965 SCR (3) 53 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. (Cj), Hidayatullah, M., Dayal, Raghubar, Sikri, S.M., Ramaswami, V. PETITIONER: BRUNDABAN NAYAK Vs. RESPONDENT: ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER. DATE OF JUDGMENT: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-164922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBrundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-02-03T07:08:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-03T07:08:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\"},\"wordCount\":4031,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\",\"name\":\"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-02-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-02-03T07:08:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-02-03T07:08:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965","datePublished":"1965-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-03T07:08:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965"},"wordCount":4031,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965","name":"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And ... on 12 February, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-02-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-02-03T07:08:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/brundaban-nayak-vs-election-commission-of-india-and-on-12-february-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Brundaban Nayak vs Election Commission Of India And … on 12 February, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=164922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}