{"id":201122,"date":"1997-11-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-11-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997"},"modified":"2018-10-22T21:23:14","modified_gmt":"2018-10-22T15:53:14","slug":"charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997","title":{"rendered":"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997<\/div>\n
Author: S.C.Agrawal<\/div>\n
Bench: S.C.Agrawal, G.N.Ray, A.S.Anand, S.P.Bharucha, S.Rajendra Babu<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nElection Petition  1 of 1997\n\nPETITIONER:\nCHARAN LAL SAHU & ANR.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.R. NARAYANAN & ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/11\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nS.C.AGRAWAL & G.N.RAY & A.S.ANAND & S.P.BHARUCHA & S.RAJENDRA BABU\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Election Petition No. 1 of 1997          <\/p>\n
Delivered By:\n<\/p>\n
S.C.AGRAWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
S.C. AGRAWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
     This election  petition has  been filed  jointly by two
\npetitioners, namely,  Charan Lal  Sahu and  Mitheles  Kumar.
\nThey have challenged the election of respondent No. 1 to the
\noffice of  the president  of India  in the election that was
\nheld for  the said  office in  pursuance of the notification
\ndated June  9, 1997 published by the Returning Officer, Shri
\nS. Gopalan,  Secretary General, Lok Sabha. The said election
\nwas conducted  under the  provisions of the presidential and
\nvice-Presidential Elections  Act, 1952 [hereinafter referred
\nto as ‘the Act’].\n<\/p>\n
     Part  II  of  the\tAct  (Sections\t3  to  12)  contains
\nprovisions relating  to conduct\t of presidential  and  Vice-
\nPresidential elections.\t Section 3  provides for appointment
\nof  the\t  Returning  officer  and  the\tAssistant  Returning
\nofficer\/Officers by the Election Commission. Section 4(1) of
\nthe Act\t makes provision  for issuance\tof a notification by
\nthe Election Commission prescribing the last date for making
\nnominations, the  date for  the scrutiny of nominations, the
\nlast date  for the  withdrawal of  candidatures, the date on
\nwhich a\t poll shall,  if  necessary,  be  taken.  Section  5
\nprovides for  giving of\t a public  notice of election by the
\nreturning Officer  after the  issuance of  the\tnotification
\nunder sub-section  (1) of  Section 4.  Section 5A prescribes
\nthat any person may be nominated as a Candidate for election
\nto the\toffice of  President  or  Vice-President  if  he  is
\nqualified  to\tbe  elected   to  that\t office\t under\t the
\nConstitution.  Section\t 5B  provides  for  presentation  of
\nnomination papers and lays down the requirements for a valid
\nnomination. Sub-section\t (1) of Section 5B requires that the
\nnominating paper  completed in\tthe prescribed\tform must be
\nsubscribed by  the candidate as assenting to the nomination.
\nIn clause  (a) of sub-section (1), as it stood prior to June
\n5, 1997.  it was  further prescribed  that in  the  case  of
\npresidential Election,\tthe nomination\tpapers shall also be
\nsubscribed by  at least\t ten electors  as proposers  an\t dat
\nleast ten  electors as seconders. Sub-section (2) of Section
\n5B lays down that each nomination paper shall be accompanied
\nby   a certified copy of the entry relating to the candidate
\nin the\telectoral roll for the parliamentary constituency in
\nwhich  the   candidate\tin   the  electoral   roll  for\t the
\nparliamentary  constituency   in  which\t  the  candidate  is
\nregistered as  an elector.  A nomination paper to which such
\ncertified copy\tis not\tattached is  required to be rejected
\nunder sub-section  (4) of  Section 5B.\tSection 5C, prior to
\nJune 5,\t 1997, prescribed  that a  candidate  shall  not  be
\ndeemed to  be duly nominated for election unless he deposits
\nor causes to be deposited a sum of two thousand five hundred
\nrupees.\t Section   5E  makes   provision  for\tscrutiny  of
\nnominations and under sub-section (4) a nomination paper can
\nbe rejected  by the  returning officer on the grounds (a) to\n<\/p>\n
(e) of\tthat sub-section.  Ground (c) provides for rejection
\nof  a  nomination  paper  on  the  ground  that\t it  is\t not
\nsubscribed by  the required number of proposers or seconders
\nand g  round (e)  provides for\trejection on the ground that
\nthere  has  been  a  failure  to  comply  with\tany  of\t the
\nprovisions of Section 5B or Section 5C. Section 6 deals with
\nwithdrawal of candidature. Section 8 lays down the procedure
\nin contested  and uncontested  elections. Section 9 provides
\nfor manner  of voting at elections and Section 10 deals with
\ncounting of  votes. Section  11 provides  for declaration of
\nresult after the counting of votes has been completed.\n<\/p>\n
     Part III  of the  Act  [Sections  13  to  20]  contains
\nprovisions relating  to Disputes  regarding elections.\tSub-
\nsection (1)  of Section 14 prescribes that no election shall
\nbe called  in question\texcepting by  presenting an election
\npetition and  under sub-section\t (2)  this  Court  has\tbeen
\nspecified as  the authority which shall have jurisdiction to
\ntry an\telection petition.  Sub-section (1)  of Section\t 14A
\nlays down  that an election petition can either be presented
\nby any\tcandidate at  such  election  or,  in  the  case  of
\nPresidential election,\tby twenty  or more  electors  joined
\ntogether  as  petitioners.  The\t expression  “candidate’  is
\ndefined in clause (a) of Section 13 to mean a person who has
\nbeen or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at
\nan election.  Section 18 prescribes the grounds on which the
\nelection of a returned candidate can be declared to be void.\n<\/p>\n
     On June  5, 1997  the president of India promulgate the
\nPresidential  and  Vice-Presidential  Elections\t (Amendment)
\nOrdinance, 1997\t (No. 13  of 1997), hereinafter referred t o
\nas ‘the\t Ordinance’,  to  further  amend  the  Act.  By\t the
\nOrdinance clause  (a) of  Sub-section  (1)  Section  5B\t was
\namended and  for the  words “ten  electors” the words “fifty
\nelectors”  were\t substituted  and  as  a  result  it  became
\nnecessary that\ta nomination paper for presidential election
\nshould be subscribed by at least fifty electors as proposers
\nand at\tleast fifty electors as seconders. By the Ordinance,
\nSection 5C  was also amended and for the words “two thousand
\nfive hundred  rupees” the  words ”  fifteen thousand rupees”
\nwere substituted  and as  a result the amount o be deposited
\nas security was raised from two thousand five hundred rupees
\nto fifteen  thousand rupees.  The Ordinance  was replaced by
\nthe Presidential  and Vice-Presidential\t Election  Amendment
\nAct, 1997  [Act 35 of 1997], hereinafter referred to as ‘the
\nAmendment Act’,\t which was  enacted by\tparliament on August
\n29, 1997.  Charan Lal  Sahu, Petitioner\t No. 1, filed a writ
\npetition [No.  293\/97] in this Court under Article 32 of the
\nConstitution wherein  he  challenged  the  validity  of\t the
\nOrdinance. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Court
\nby the following order passed on June 9, 1997:-\n<\/p>\n
     ‘The Writ petition is dismissed”\n<\/p>\n
     Another writ petition [No. 322\/97 ] was filed by one
\nP.H. Parmar.  The said\twrit petition  was also dismissed by
\nthe Court by the following order passed on July 11,1997:-\n<\/p>\n
     “This writ\t petition under\t Article
\n     32 is  misconceived. So  far as the
\n     challenge\tto   the  Ordinance   is
\n     concerned, this stands concluded by
\n     dismissal\tof   an\t  earlier   writ
\n     petition [W.P.  No. 237\/97 entitled
\n     C. L.  Sahu vs. UOI & Ors. ] We are
\n     constrained to observe that this is
\n     misuse of the PIL jurisdiction.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After the\tenactment of  the Amendment  Act, petitioner
\nNo. 1  again  filed  a\twrit  petition\t[No.  D13334\/97]  to
\nchallenge the  validity of  the Amendment Act. The said writ
\npetition was  also dismissed  by the  Court by the following
\norder passed on October 13,1997:-\n<\/p>\n
     “This  writ   petition  is\t  wholly
\n     misconceived.  We\t are  unable  to
\n     appreciate\t    the\t    petitioner’s
\n     persistence  with\t the  same  even
\n     after we  tole him\t so and\t also in
\n     view of  the fact\tthat  a\t similar
\n     challenge has already been rejected
\n     earlier by\t orders dated  19\/6\/1997
\n     and 11\/7\/1997 in W.P.(C) No. 293\/97
\n     and    W.P.    (C)\t   No.\t  322\/97
\n     respectively. we have no doubt that
\n     this petition  is a  clear abuse of
\n     the process of the Court.
\n     The writ  petition\t is,  therefore,
\n     dismissed.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     After the\tissuance of  the notification  under Section
\n4(1) of\t the Act  by the  Election Commission  the Returning
\nOfficer published  a notification  dated June  9, 1997 under
\nSection 5 of the Act for election of the President of India.
\nIn response  to the  said notification nomination forms were
\nfiled by  a number of persons including the petitioners. The
\nnominations of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were accepted and the
\nnominations of\tthe rest,  including the  petitioners,\twere
\nrejected by the Returning officer. Since there was a contest
\nbetween respondents  Nos. 1  and 2, poll was taken and after
\ncounting of  votes, respondent\tNo. 1  was declared  to have
\nbeen elected to the office of the president of India on July
\n17, 1997.  On August  14,1997  the  petitioners\t filed\tthis
\nelection petition wherein they have prayed that the election
\nof respondent No. 1 be declared void.\n<\/p>\n
     The petitioners  have  asserted  that  they  were\tduly
\nnominated candidates  and are competent to file the election
\npetition.  They\t have  claimed\tthat  their  nomination\t was
\nimproperly rejected  and the nomination of respondent Nos. 1
\nand  2\t was  improperly   accepted.  The  petitioners\thave
\nchallenged the\tvalidity  of  the  provisions  contained  in
\nSections 5B  and 5C  of the  Act as  they stood prior to the
\namendments  introduced\t in  the   said\t provisions  by\t the
\nordinance and have challenged the validity of the amendments
\nmade in\t Section 5B  and 5C  by the  Ordinance. There  is no
\naverment in  the election  petition that the nomination form
\nfor nomination\tof petitioner No.. 1 was subscribed by fifty
\nelectors as  proposers and  fifty electors  as seconders  as
\nrequired by  Section 5B(1) (a), as amended by the Ordinance.
\nOn  the\t other\thand,  in  the\tletter\tdated  June  24,1997
\naddressed by  the petitioner  No. 1 to the Returning Officer
\nwhich has  been\t filed\tas  Annexure  III  to  the  Election
\npetition, petitioner  No. 1  has stated\t that his nomination
\npaper  was   proposed  by  seven  electors  and\t that  fifty
\nproposers and  fifty seconders were not required. As regards
\npetitioner No.\t2 it  has  been\t asserted  in  the  Election
\npetition  that\t his  nomination  paper\t was  signed  by  64
\nproposers and 61 seconders.\n<\/p>\n
     During  the  pendency  of\tthe  election  petition\t the
\nOrdinance was replaced by the Amendment Act. The petitioners
\nhave filed  an application  for amendment  of  the  election
\npetition to substitute the Ordinance by the Amendment Act at
\npages 5\t and 40 of the election petition. The application is
\nallowed and  the petitioners  are permitted to carry out the
\nsaid amendment in the election petition.\n<\/p>\n
     In response  to  the  notice  issued  on  the  Election
\npetition an Affidavit-in-Opposition to the Election petition
\nhas been  filed by  respondent No. 1. In the said Affidavit-
\nin-Opposition a\t preliminary objection\thas been raised with
\nregard to  the maintainability\tof the\tElection petition by
\nthe petitioners\t on the ground that the petitioners were not
\ncandidates at  the election  and they  are not\tentitled  to
\nmaintain the Election petition under Section 14A of the Act.
\nReference has  been made  to the  letter of petitioner No. 1
\ndated June  24, 1997  addressed\t to  the  Returning  Officer
\n(Annexure III  to the  Election petition) wherein petitioner
\nNo. 1  had claimed  that he  had seven proposers and did not
\nclaim any seconders at all and it is submitted that the said
\nletter shows  that petitioner  No.  1  did  not\t have  fifty
\nproposers and  fifty seconders.\t As regards  t he nomination
\npaper of  petitioner No.2  it is stated in the Affidavit-in-
\nOpposition  that   in  the  nomination\tpaper  names  of  64
\nproposers had  been mentioner  but 29  out of  them had\t not
\nsubscribed their  signatures  at  all  and,  therefore,\t the
\nnumber of proposers was 35 only. similarly, there were names
\nof 61  seconders but  out of  them  28\tdid  not  sign\tand,
\ntherefore, there  were only  33 seconders. It is also stated
\nthat the  nomination of petitioner No. 2 was rejected on the
\nthreshold as it was not accompanied by the certified copy of
\nthe electoral  roll as\trequired under\tSection 5B(2) of the
\nAct. In the said Affidavit-in-Opposition reply has also been
\ngiven to the averments contained in the Election petition on
\nmerits and  it\tis  denied  that  the  nomination  paper  of
\nrespondent No.\t1 was wrongfully accepted and it is asserted
\nthat the  certified copy  of the entry in the electoral roll
\nwas filed  as required\tunder Section  5B(2) of\t the Act. As
\nregards challenge  to the validity o the ordinance, reliance
\nhas been  placed on  the Orders\t of  this  Court  dismissing
\nW.P.(Civil) No.\t 293 of\t 1997 filed  by petitioner No. 1 and
\nW.P.No. 322 of 1997 filed by Shri P.H. Parmar.\n<\/p>\n
     Rejoinder affidavit  of petitioner No. 1 has been filed
\nin reply  to the  said Affidavit-in-Opposition of respondent
\nNo. 1.\tIn the said Rejoinder affidavit the averments in the
\nAffidavit-in-Opposition\t that\tthe  nomination\t  paper\t  of
\npetitioner No.1\t was subscribed\t by 35 electors as proposers
\nand 33\telectors as  seconders and that the nomination paper
\nof petitioner No.2 was not accompanied by the certified copy
\nof the\telectoral roll\thave not been controverted. We must,
\ntherefore, proceed  on the  basis that the nomination papers
\nof both\t the petitioners  did not fulfil the requirements of
\nSection 5B(1)(\ta)   of the Act inasmuch as neither of these
\nnomination papers  was subscribed by the requisite number of
\nfifty electors\tas proposers  and fifty elector as seconders
\nand that  in so\t far as\t petitioner No.\t 1 is concerned, his
\nnomination paper was not even subscribed by ten propoers but
\nwas subscribed\tby seven proposers only and further that the
\nnomination paper  of petitioner\t No.  2\t was  filed  without
\ncomplying with the requirements of Section 5B(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Rules governing  election petition filed under part III
\nof the Act are contained in Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court
\nRules, 1966. Rule 34 of Order XXXIX provides that subject to
\nthe provisions\tof the\tsaid order  or any  special order or
\ndirection of the Court the Procedure on an election petition
\nshall  follow,\tas  nearly  as\tmay  be,  the  procedure  in
\nproceedings before the Court in the exercise of its original
\njurisdiction. As  regards proceedings in the exercise of the
\noriginal jurisdiction  of  the\tCourt  Order  XXIII  Rule  6
\nprovides that  the plait shall be rejected (a) where it does
\nnot disclose  a cause  of action,  or  (b)  where  the\tsuit
\nappears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any
\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n
     The preliminary objection raised by respondent No. 1 in
\nthe Affidavit-in-Opposition  is that the petitioners are not
\nentitled to  maintain  the  Election  petition\tin  View  of
\nSection 14A of the Act since they were not candidates at the
\nelection. if the said preliminary objection is accepted, the
\nelection petition  will be  liable to  be rejected  as being
\nbarred by  law, i.e.,  section 14A  of\tthe  Act.  We  have,
\ntherefore, heard  the petitioners  as well  as\tthe  learned
\ncounsel for  respondent\t No.  1\t and  the  learned  Attorney
\nGeneral of India on the said preliminary objection.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 14A  of the Act relating to the presentation of
\nthe election petition provides as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
     “14a.  (1)\t  An  Election\tpetition
\n     calling in question an election may
\n     be presented  on one or more of the
\n     grounds  specified\t in  sub-section
\n     (1) of Section 18 and Section 19 to
\n     the Supreme  Court by any candidate
\n     at such election, or-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) in  the  case\tof  Presidential
\n     election,\t by   twenty   or   more
\n     election may be presented on one or
\n     more of  the grounds  specified  in
\n     sub-section (1)  of Section  18 and
\n     Section 19\t to the Supreme Court by
\n     any candidate at such election, or-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (i) in  the  case\tof  Presidential
\n     election,\t by   twenty   or   more
\n     electors\tjoined\t  together    as
\n     petitioners;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (ii)   in\t the   case   of   Vice-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Presidential election,  by\t ten  or
\n     more electors  joined   together as
\n     petitioners.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)  Any\tsuch  petition\t may  be
\n     presented at  any\ttime  after  the
\n     date  of\tpublication  of\t  t   he
\n     declaration containing  the name of
\n     the  returned  candidate\t at  the
\n     election under  Section 12\t but not
\n     later than\t thirty\t days  from  the
\n     date of such declaration.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The word “candidate” is defined in section 13(a) of the
\nAct as under:-\n<\/p>\n
     “(a) “candidate” means a person who
\n     has been  or claims  to  have  been
\n     duly nominated as a candidate at an
\n     election;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The word  “elector” is  defined  in
\n     section 2(d)  of the  Act in  these
\n     terms:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “(d) “elector”,  in relation   to a
\n     presidential  election,   means   a
\n     member  of\t the  electoral\t college
\n     referred to  in article  54, and in
\n     relation  t   a   Vice-Presidential
\n     election, means  a\t member\t of  the
\n     electoral college\treferred  to  in
\n     article 66;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Shri Sorabjee, the learned senior counsel appearing for
\nrespondent No.1,  arguing  in  support\tof  the\t preliminary
\nobjection, has\turged that  an election\t petition calling in
\nquestion the  presidential election can either be filed by a
\ncandidate at  such election  or by  twenty or  more electors
\njoined together\t as petitioners.  In the  present  case\t the
\nelection   petition has\t not been  filed by  twenty or\tmore
\nelectors joined\t together as  petitioners but has been filed
\nby two\tpetitioners only.  It can  be  entertained  only  if
\neither of  the petitioners  can be  held to  be a candidate”
\nReferring to  the definition  of ”  candidate” contained  in
\nSection 13(a)  of the  Act, Shri Sorabjee has submitted that
\nneither of  the petitioners  was a  duly nominated candidate
\nnor could  he  claim  to  have\tbeen  duly  nominated  as  a
\ncandidate  at\tan  election  since  the  nomination  papers
\nsubmitted by  both of  them were  not  subscribed  by  fifty
\nproposers and  fifty seconders\tas  required  under  Section
\n5B(1) a) of the Act, as amended by the Amendment Act. It is,
\ntherefore, submitted  that the\tpetitioners  have  no  locus
\nstandi to  file this  election petition\t and  it  should  be
\ndismissed as  not maintainable.\t It has also been urged that
\nthe question as to the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the
\nAct, cannot  be raised\tin an  election petition filed under
\nSection 14A  of the Act and that an Election petition can be
\nmaintained only\t on any\t of the grounds mentioned in Section
\n18 of  the Act. It has also been submitted that in any event
\nthe validity  of Sections  5B and 5C, as the said provisions
\nstood prior  to June  5, 1997, requiring that the nomination
\nshould be  subscribed by  ten electors\tas proposers and ten
\nelectors as seconders has been upheld in Charan Lal Sahu vs.
\nNeelam Sanjeeva Reddy,<\/a> 1978 (3) SCR 1, decided by a bench of
\n7 Judges  of this  Court  and  that  the  challenge  to\t the
\nvalidity of  the amendments introduced in Sections 5B and 5C
\nby the Ordinance and the Amendment Act has been negatived by
\nthis Court  while dismissing  the three\t writ  petitions  to
\nwhich reference\t has been made earlier and that two of these
\nwrit petitions were filed by petitioner No. 1 himself.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  Attorney General  has also  taken the same
\nstand  and   has  submitted   that  since   neither  of\t the
\npetitioners can\t be held  to be\t a candidate  under  Section
\n13(a) of  the Act  they are  not entitled  to  maintain\t the
\nelection petition  under section 14A of the Act and that the
\nsame is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.\n<\/p>\n
     Petitioner No.  1, Charan Lal Sahu, has argued the case
\nas  petitioner-in-person   and\t as   counsel\trepresenting
\npetitioner No.2.  he has submitted that both the petitioners
\nwere candidates\t under section\t13(a) of  the Act since they
\nwere duly  nominated candidates.  it has been urged that the
\nrequirement that  the nomination paper\tfor the presidential
\nelection should\t be subscribed\tby ten electors as proposers
\nand ten\t electors as  seconders contained  in Section  5B(1)\n<\/p>\n
(a), as\t it stood  prior to  the amendment introduced in the
\nsaid provision\tby the\tOrdinance and  the Amendment Act and
\nthe requirement\t introduced in\tthe  said  provision  y\t the
\nOrdinance and  the Amendment  Act that\tthe nomination paper
\nshould be  subscribed by  fifty electors  as  proposers\t and
\nfifty electors\tas seconders,  is unconstitutional and void.
\nThe submission\tof the petitioners is that they are entitled
\nto challenge  the validity  of the  provisions contained  in
\nSection 5B, as t stood prior to the amendments introduced by
\nthe Ordinance  and the\tAmendment Act and also the amendment
\nmade therein  by the  Ordinance and the Amendment Act in the
\nelection petition  and that  such a challenge is not barred.
\nIt has\tbeen contended that the earlier decisions negativing
\nthe challenge  to the  validity of  Section 5B\tdid not take
\ninto consideration the provision regarding secrecy of ballot
\ncontained in  Article 55(3)  of the Constitution and that in
\nview of\t the said  provision in the Constitution the earlier
\nrequirement that  the nomination paper must be subscribed by
\nten proposers  and ten seconders and the present requirement
\nabout subscription by fifty proposers and fifty seconders is
\nunconstitutional. It  is urged that if the said provision in
\nSection\t 5B   is  held\t to  be\t unconstitutional  then\t the
\npetitioners must  be regarded  as duly\tnominated candidates
\nand they are  entitled to file this Election petition.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t view of Section 14A of the Act an election petition
\ncalling in  question a presidential election can be resented
\neither by  a candidate\tat such\t election or  twenty or more
\nelectors joined\t together as  petitioners are  claiming\t the
\nright to  file the  petition on\t the basis  that  they\twere
\ncandidates  at\t the  election.\t  The  said   claim  of\t the
\npetitioners  has   to  be  examined  on\t the  basis  of\t the
\ndefinition of  “candidate”  as contained in Section 13(a) of
\nthe Act\t whereunder a  person who has been or claims to have
\nbeen duly  nominated as\t a candidate at an election is to be
\ntreated as  a ‘candidate’. The question for consideration is
\nwhether the  petitioners, whose\t nomination papers  did\t not
\nsatisfy the  requirements of  Section 5B(1)(a)\t of the Act,
\ncan be\tregarded as  persons who  had been  nominated  as  a
\ncandidate at  an election is to be treated as a candidate at
\nan election is to be treated as a ‘candidate’.\tThe question
\nfor  consideration   is\t whether   the\tpetitioners,   whose
\nnomination  papers  did\t not  satisfy  the  requirements  of
\nSection 5B(1) (a) of the Act, can be regarded as persons who
\nhad been  nominated or can claim to have been duly nominated
\nas ‘candidate’ at the election in question.\n<\/p>\n
     In Charan\tLal Sahu  vs. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy<\/a> [Supra],
\nthis Court  has dealt  with the\t question of locus standi of
\nthe petitioner\t(petitioner No.1  herein) who  had filed the
\nElection Petition.  In that  case also the Election petition
\nwas filed by a person whose nomination was not subscribed by
\nthe requisite  number of  proposers and\t seconder as per the
\nprovisions contained  in Section  5B (1)  (a) applicable  at
\nthat time.  This Court held that the petitioner had no locus
\nstandi\tto  challenge  the  election  and  to  maintain\t the
\npetition. After\t stating that the petitioner had admitted in
\nthe petition  that he  was  not\t nominated  as\tprovided  by
\nSection 5B  of the Act and had also not deposited the sum of
\nmoney as  required by  Section 5C  of the Act, the Court has
\nheld:-\n<\/p>\n
     “Thus,   on the  very admissions in
\n     the   petition   or   plaint,   the
\n     petitioner\t was   not  a  candidate
\n     either duly  nominated or\tone  who
\n     could claim  to be\t son nominated.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [pp. 5-6]
\n     Again in  Charan Lal Sahu & Ors. vs. Giani Zail Singh &
\nAnr.,<\/a> 1984  (2)\t  SCR 6,  it was  found that  the nomination
\npapers filed  of the  two  petitioners\twho  had  filed\t the
\nelection petition  were not  subscribed by  ten electors  as
\nproposers and ten electors as seconders. It was contended on
\nbehalf of  the petitioners that even if it is held that they
\nwere  not   duly  nominated   as  candidates,  the  election
\npetitions could\t not be\t dismissed on that ground since they
\nwere “claiming\tto have\t been duly nominated as candidates”.
\nRejecting the said contention this Court said:-\n<\/p>\n
     “It is  true that\tin the matter of
\n     claim to  candidacy, a  person  who
\n     claims to\thave been duly nominated
\n     is on  par with  a person\twho,  in
\n     fact, was\tduly nominated.\t But the
\n     claim to  have been  duly nominated
\n     cannot be\tmade by\t a person  whose
\n     nomination paper  does  not  comply
\n     with the  mandatory requirement  of
\n     Section 5B(1)  (a) of the Act. That
\n     is\t  to   say,   a\t  person   whose
\n     nomination paper,\tadmittedly,  was
\n     not  subscribed  by  the  requisite
\n     number of electors as proposers and
\n     seconders cannot  claim that he was
\n     duly nominated.  Such a  claim  can
\n     only be  made  by\ta  person  whose
\n     electors as proposers and seconders
\n     cannot  claim   that  he  was  duly
\n     nominated. Such a claim can only be
\n     made by  a person who can show that
\n     his nomination  paper conformed  to
\n     the provisions  of Section\t 5B  and
\n     yet it  was the  Returning\t Officer
\n     rejects a\tnomination paper  on the
\n     ground  that   one\t  of   the   ten
\n     subscribers who  had  proposed  the
\n     nomination is  not an  elector; the
\n     petitioner can  claim to  have been
\n     duly nominated  if he  proves  that
\n     the said  proposer was  in fact  an
\n     ‘elector’.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     “Thus, the occasion for a person to
\n     make  a  claim  that  he  was  duly
\n     nominated can  arise  only\t if  his
\n     nomination paper  complies with the
\n     statutory requirements which govern
\n     the filing of nomination papers and
\n     not otherwise.  The claim\tthat  he
\n     was  ‘duly’  nominated  necessarily
\n     implies and involves the claim that
\n     his nomination  paper conformed  to
\n     the requirements  of  the\tstatute.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Therefore,\t  a   contestant   whose
\n     nomination paper  is not subscribed
\n     by\t at   least  ten   electors   as
\n     proposers\tand   ten  electors   as
\n     seconders, as  nominated, any  more
\n     than  a   contestant  who\thad  not
\n     subscribed his  assent to\this  own
\n     nomination\t can.  The  claim  of  a
\n     contestant\t  that\t he   was   duly
\n     nominated must  arise  out\t of  his
\n     compliance with  the provisions  of
\n     the Act. It cannot arise out of the
\n     violation of  the act. Otherwise, a
\n     person  who   had\tnot   filed  any
\n     nomination paper at all but who had
\n     only informed the Returning Officer
\n     orally that  he desired  to contest
\n     the  election  could  also\t contend
\n     that he  ‘claims to  have been duly
\n     been   duly    nominated\t as    a
\n     candidate.'” [pp.- 15-16]
\n     In Mithilesh Kumar Sinha etc. vs. Returning Officer for
\nPresidential Election  & Ors.,\t1992 (1)  SCR Supp. 651, the
\nsame question  arose with  regard to  the election  petition
\nfiled by  petitioner No.  2 whose  nomination paper had been
\nrejected on  the ground\t that it  was not  subscribed by the
\nrequisite number  of proposers\tand seconders  since some of
\nthe proposers  and  seconders  who  had\t subscribed  to\t the
\nnomination paper  of petitioner No. 2 had earlier subscribed
\nto  the\t nomination  paper  of\tanother\t candidate  and\t the
\nsubsequent signatures  of such\tproposers and  seconders had
\nbecome Inoperative  on the  nomination paper  of  petitioner
\nNo.2. The  Election petition  filed by\tPetitioner No. 2 was
\nrejected  by  this  Court  on  the  ground  that  since\t the
\nnomination paper of petitioner No.2. did not comply with the
\nmandatory requirements\tof Section 5B(1) (a) he had no locus
\nstandi to file the petition. It has been held:-\n<\/p>\n
     “To  be   entitled\t to  present  an
\n     election\tpetition    calling   in
\n     question an election the petitioner
\n     should have  been a  ‘candidate’ at
\n     such election within the meaning of
\n     Section 13(a)  for which  he should
\n     have  been\t `duly\tnominated  as  a
\n     candidate’ and this he cannot claim
\n     unless the\t mandatory  requirements
\n     of Section\t 5B (1)\t (a) and Section
\n     5C were complied with by him. Where
\n     on undisputed  facts there was non-
\n     compliance\t  of\tany   of   these
\n     mandatory requirements  for a valid
\n     nomination, the  petitioner was not
\n     a ‘candidate’ within the meaning of
\n     Section 13(a)   and, therefore, not
\n     competent according  to Section 14A
\n     to present the petition.”
\n     “It  is   also   settled\tby   the
\n     decisions of  this\t Court\tthat  in
\n     order to  have the\t requisite locus
\n     standi as\ta ‘candidate’ within the
\n     meaning of\t section 13(a) for being
\n     entitled\tto   present   such   an
\n     election  petition\t  in  accordance
\n     with Section  14A of  the\tAct  the
\n     petitioner must  be duly  nominated
\n     as a  candidate in\t accordance with
\n     Section 5B(1)(a)\tand  Section 5C.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Unless  it\t is  so\t the  petitioner
\n     cannot even claim to have been duly
\n     nominated as  a  candidate\t at  the
\n     election  as  required  by\t Section
\n     13(a). [pp. 685-686]
\n     In view  of the decisions referred to above, it must be
\nheld that  neither of  the petitioners\twas a `candidate’ as
\nthe said  expression is\t defined in  Section 2(d) of the Act
\nsince neither  of them\thad been duly nominated nor could he
\nclaim to  have been nominated as a candidate inasmuch as the
\nnomination papers  filed by both of them did not comply with
\nthe mandatory  requirements of\tSection 5B(1)(a)  of the Act
\nand nomination\tpaper of  petitioner No.2. was filed without
\ncomplying with the requirements of Section 5B(2) of the Act.
\nOn that view it must be held that neither of the petitioners
\nhas the locus standi to maintain the petition.\n<\/p>\n
     As regards\t the  submission  urged\t on  behalf  of\t the
\npetitioners regarding  the Validity  of\t the  provisions  of
\nSections 5B  and 5C  as they stood prior to June 5, 1997, it
\nmay be\tstated that  the sad  provisions has  been upheld by
\nthis Court in Charan Lal Sahu VS. Shri Fakruddin Ali Ahmed &
\nOrs. AIR  1975 SC  1288; Charan Lal Sahu vs. Neelam Sanjeeva
\nReddy<\/a> [supra]  and Charan  lal sahu  vs.  Giani\t Zail  Singh
\n[supra].  Petitioner   No.  1  was  a  party  to  all  these
\ndecisions. The\tchallenge to  the validity of the amendments
\nintroduced by  the Ordinance  and the Amendment Act has been
\nnegatived by this court in the three writ petitions referred
\nto above,  two out  of which  were filed by petitioner No.1.
\nThe  petitioners  have\turged  that  in\t this  petition\t the
\nchallenge to  the validity  of Section\t5B is  based on\t the
\nground that  it violates  the principle of secrecy of ballot
\nincorporated in\t Article 55(3)\tof the Constitution and that
\nthis  ground   has  not\t  been\tconsidered  in\tthe  earlier
\ndecisions. We do not find any merit in this contention.\t The
\nrequirement in\tSection 5B(1)(a)  about the nomination paper
\nbeing subscribed  by a\tparticular  number  of\telectors  as
\nproposers and  seconders does  not, in\tany way, involve the
\ninfringement of\t the  secrecy  of  ballot  at  the  election
\ninasmuch as  the elector  who has  subscribed the nomination
\npaper of  a person as a proposer or as a seconder is free to
\ncast his vote in favour of any candidate and is not bound to
\nvote for the person whose nomination paper he has subscribed
\nas a  proposer or seconder. The identity of the candidate in
\nwhose favour he has cast his vote is not to be disclosed.\n<\/p>\n
     In order  to  get\tover  the  requirements\t of  Section
\n5B(1)(a) of  the Act  petitioner No.1 has submitted that his
\nnomination paper  was subscribed  by seven  members  of\t the
\nLegislative Assembly  of Uttar\tPradesh as proposers and six
\nmembers of  the said  Assembly as  seconders.  It  has\tbeen
\npointed out  that as  per the statement of value of votes of
\nelected members\t of the\t State Legislative Assemblies issued
\nas per\tthe provisions\tof Article 55(2) of the Constitution
\nvalue of  vote of  a member  of the  Legislative Assembly of
\nUttar Pradesh  is 208  while the  value of  a member  of the
\nLegislative  Assembly\tof  Arunachal\tPradesh\t is  8.\t The
\nsubmission is  that the\t combined value\t of the votes of the
\nseven members  of the  Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh
\nwho had\t subscribed the nomination paper of petitioner No. 1
\nas proposers and six members who had subscribed as seconders
\nis much\t more than  the value  of votes of 50 members of the
\nLegislative Assembly  of Arunachal  Pradesh and,  therefore,
\nthe nomination\tpaper of  petition No.\t1 must be treated as
\nhaving been  subscribed by  50\telectors  as  proposers\t and
\nseconders. Under Section 5B(1) (a)  what is required is that
\nthe nomination\tpaper must  be subscribed  by 50 electors as
\nproposers and  by 50 electors as subscribers. In relation to
\nPresidential election the expression “elector” is defined in
\nSection 2(d)  of the  Act to  mean a member of the electoral
\ncollege referred  to in\t Article 54.  Under Article 54 every
\nelected member of the Legislative Assembly of the State is a
\nmember\tof   the  electoral  college  for  election  of\t the
\nPresident. In  other words,  each member  of the Legislative
\nAssembly of  a State is an elector under Section 2(d) of the
\nAct to mean a member of the electoral college referred to in
\nArticle 54.  Under Article  54 every  elected member  of the
\nLegislative Assembly  of  the  State  is  a  member  of\t the
\nelectoral college  for election\t of the\t President. In other
\nwords, each member of the Legislative Assembly of a State is
\nan elector under Section 2(d) of the Act. For the purpose of
\nSection 5B(1)  (a) of  the Act\tthe nomination paper must be
\nsubscribed by  the requisite  number of members of the State
\nLegislative  Assemblies\t  or  parliament  as  proposers\t and
\nseconders and  the value  of the  votes of the member has no
\nbearing\t on  the  said\trequirement  laid  down\t in  Section
\n5B(1)(a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons aforementioned,  it must\tbe held that
\nsince the  nomination papers  of  the  petitioners  did\t not
\nfulfil the  mandatory requirements  of Section\t5B(1) (a) of
\nthe Act\t and Petitioner No. 2 also failed to comply with the
\nrequirements of\t Section 5B(2)\tof the\tAct, the petitioners
\nwere not  duly nominated  as candidate\tat the\telection and
\nthey cannot  also claim to be duly nominated as candidate at
\nthe election and they cannot also claim to be duly nominated
\nas candidate  at the  election and they cannot also claim to
\nbe duly\t nominated as  candidate at  the election  and\tthey
\ncannot also  claim to  be duly nominated as candidate at the
\nelection and  they cannot  be regard  as  “candidate”  under
\nSection 13(a)  of the  Act. The preliminary objection raised
\nby respondent No. 1 that the petitioners cannot maintain the
\nelection petition  must,  therefore,  be  accepted  and\t the
\nelection petition must be dismissed on this ground alone.\n<\/p>\n
     Before we\tconclude, we  would like  to  advert  to  an
\naspect which cannot be ignored. Before filling this election
\npetition, petitioner  no. 1 had earlier filed three election
\npetition challenging the election of the returned candidates
\nin the\tpresidential elections\theld in years 1974, 1977 and
\n1982. All  these election  petition were  dismissed  on\t the
\nground that  petitioner had  no locus standi to maintain the
\nelection petition.  [See: Charan Lal Sahu vs. Shri Fakruddin
\nAli Ahmed  & Ors.<\/a>  [supra]; Charan  Lal Sahu vs. Shri Neelam
\nSanjeeva Reddy<\/a>;\t and Charan  Lal Sahu  vs. Gaini  Zail Singh<\/a>
\n[supra]. Similarly  petitioner No.2  had earlier  filed\t two
\nelection petitions  challenging the election of the returned
\ncandidates in  the presidential\t elections  challenging\t the
\nelection of  the returned  candidates  in  the\tpresidential
\nelections held\tin the\tyears  1987  and  1992.\t Both  these
\nelection  petitions   were  dismissed  on  the\tground\tthat
\npetitioner had\tno locus  standi to  maintain  the  Election
\npetition. [See\t: Mithilesh  Kumar vs. Sri R. Venkataraman &
\nOrs.<\/a> (1988)  1\tSCR  525  and  Mithilesh  Kumar\t Sinha\t  vs
\nReturning Officer  for Presidential  Election  (supra)].  In
\nCharan Lal  Sahu vs.  Giani Zail  Singh<\/a> {Supra]\t this Court,
\nwhile referring\t to the Election petition fled by petitioner
\nNo.1. had observed:\n<\/p>\n
     ” It  is regrettable  that election
\n     petition challenging  the\telection
\n     to the high office of the president
\n     of\t India\tshould\tbe  filed  in  a
\n     fashion  as  cavalier  as\tthe  one
\n     which   characterises   these   two
\n     petitions. The  petitions\thave  an
\n     extempore appearance and not even a
\n     second look,  leave alone\ta second
\n     thought appears  to have  given  to
\n     the  manner   of\tdrafting   these
\n     petitions\tor  to\tthe  contentions
\n     raised   therein.\t In   order   to
\n     discourage\t the   filing  of   such
\n     petitions,\t we   would  have   been
\n     justified in  passing a heavy order
\n     of costs against the two petitions,
\n     we would  have  been  justified  in
\n     passing a\theavy order    of  costs
\n     against the  two  petitioners.  But
\n     that is likely to create a needless
\n     misconception  that   this\t  Court,
\n     which has\tbeen constituted  by the
\n     Act  as  the  exclusive  forum  for
\n     deciding election\tpetition whereby
\n     a presidential or vice-presidential
\n     election is  challenged, is  loathe
\n     to entertain  such petitions. It is
\n     of the  essence of\t the functioning
\n     of a  democracy  that  election  to
\n     public offices  must be open to the
\n     scrutiny\t of    an    independent
\n     tribunal. A heavy order of costs in
\n     these  two\t  petitions,   howsoever
\n     justified on their own facts should
\n     not result\t in nipping in the bud a
\n     well-founded  claim   on  a  future
\n     occasion.\tTherefore,   we\t refrain
\n     from passing any order of costs and
\n     , instead,\t express our disapproval
\n     of\t   the\t   light-hearted     and
\n     indifferent manner\t in which  these
\n     two  petitions   are  drafted   and
\n     filed.”[1.7]
\n     In Mithilesh  Kumar vs.  Sri  R.  Venkataraman  &\tOrs.<\/a>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
[supra],       this\t   Court\thad\t   observed:<\/p>\n
     “While\twe\texpect\t   every
\n     conscientious citizen  eligible  to
\n     file  an\telection   petition   to
\n     question an election on the grounds
\n     prescribed by  the Act,  we do  not
\n     wish  that\t any  petitioner  should
\n     make use  of this\tCourt as a forum
\n     to file  a petition  without giving
\n     adequate thought  to  its\tcontents
\n     and  also\tthe  provisions\t of  law
\n     governing the  case merely\t to seek
\n     some chap\tpublicity. We  regret to
\n     say  that\t seeing\t one’s\tname  in
\n     newspapers\t everyday   has\t  lately
\n     become the worst intoxicant and the
\n     number of\tpeople who  have  become
\n     victims of\t it is increasing day by
\n     day.” [.537]
\n     In Mithilesh  Kumar Sinha.\t vs. Returning\tOfficer\t for
\npresidential Election  it was  observed\t by  this  Court  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
     “……….  Experience  has  shown
\n     that the solemnity and significance
\n     attaching\tto  such  petitions  has
\n     been reduced  to  a  farce\t by  the
\n     cavalier fashion in which resort is
\n     had to  this remedy.  The mere fact
\n     that the entire gamut of both these
\n     petitions\tis   fully  covered   by
\n     several earlier  decisions of  this
\n     Court to  some of\twhich these very
\n     petitioners were parties shows that
\n     the   existing    provisions    are
\n     inadequate to prevent such abuse of
\n     the process of law.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     [p.698]
\n     We find  that these  observations have  had no  effect.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This election  petition which  has been jointly filed by the
\ntwo petitioners\t shows no  improvement. It  suffers from the
\nsame  defects\tas  the\t  earlier  petitions  filed  by\t the
\npetitioners. It seems that the petitioners are obsessed with
\na desire  that they  should find  a place  in some  Book  of
\nRecords. They  find  the  temptation  to  file\tan  election
\npetition after\tthe presidential  election too\tdifficult to
\nresist. It  is a  matter of  regret the petitioner No.1, who
\nhappens to  be an  advocate himself,  has been persisting in
\nthis past  time knowing\t well that such conduct\t on his part
\namounts to an abuse of the process of law. This Court has so
\nfar refrained  from imposing costs in the election petitions
\nthat were  filed by the petitioners earlier. It is high time
\nthat the  petitioners who  have persisted  in  filling\tthis
\npetition in  spite of  the law\tlaid down authoritatively by
\nthis Court in the earlier decisions are saddled with costs.\n<\/p>\n
     The Election  petition is\taccordingly  dismissed\twith
\ncosts. The  costs are  quantified at R. 10,000\/- [Rupees ten
\nthousand only].\t The said amount of costs shall be deposited
\nwith the  Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. It is also
\ndirected that no petition filed by either of the petitioners
\nin person shall be entertained in this Court till the amount
\nof costs imposed in paid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 Author: S.C.Agrawal Bench: S.C.Agrawal, G.N.Ray, A.S.Anand, S.P.Bharucha, S.Rajendra Babu CASE NO.: Election Petition 1 of 1997 PETITIONER: CHARAN LAL SAHU & ANR. RESPONDENT: K.R. NARAYANAN & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/11\/1997 BENCH: S.C.AGRAWAL & G.N.RAY & A.S.ANAND […]<\/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-201122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCharan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 - 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\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\" \/>\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=\"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-22T15:53:14+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=\"31 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T15:53:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\"},\"wordCount\":6226,\"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\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\",\"name\":\"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-22T15:53:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997\"}]},{\"@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":"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 - 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\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-22T15:53:14+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":"31 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997","datePublished":"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T15:53:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997"},"wordCount":6226,"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\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997","name":"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-11-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-22T15:53:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-sahu-anr-vs-k-r-narayanan-anr-on-24-november-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Charan Lal Sahu & Anr vs K.R. Narayanan & Anr on 24 November, 1997"}]},{"@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\/201122","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=201122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/201122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=201122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=201122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=201122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}