{"id":257063,"date":"1957-05-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1957-05-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957"},"modified":"2016-05-09T01:23:22","modified_gmt":"2016-05-08T19:53:22","slug":"narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957","title":{"rendered":"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 694, 1957 SCR 1081<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Imam, Syed Jaffer, Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L. & Gajendragadkar, P.B. & Sarkar, A.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nNARAYAN BHASKAR KHARE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA(and connected petition)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n03\/05\/1957\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ)\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\nDAS, S.K.\nKAPUR, J.L.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1957 AIR  694\t\t  1957 SCR 1081\n\n\nACT:\nPresident, Election of-Doubts and Disputes relating to\tsuch\nelection-jurisdiction  and Power of Supreme Court, when\t can\nbe  exercised-'Election' Meaning of-Constitution  of  India,\nArts. 71, 62-The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election\nAct<\/a>, 1952 (XXXI Of 1952), s. 14<\/a>.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe petitioners entertained grave doubts as to the propriety\nof  holding  the Presidential election\tbefore\tthe  general\nelections had been completed throughout the entire territory\nof India and, by applications filed under Art. 71(1)<\/a> of\t the\nConstitution as citizens of India, invoked the\tjurisdiction\nand  power of the Supreme Court thereunder to  inquire\tinto\nsuch doubts and sought for an order restraining the Election\nCommission  from  taking  the poll in  connection  with\t the\nelection  of the President, fixed for May 6, 1957, till\t the\ngeneral elections in the Union territory of Himachal Pradesh\nand in two Lok Sabha Constituencies of the State of  Punjab,\nwhich were still to be held, had been completed.  The expiry\nof the term of office of the then President which caused the\nPresidential election was to come about on the mid-night  of\nMay 12, 1957.  One of the petitioners alleged that he was  a\ncandidate  for\tthe  Presidential  election  and  the\ttime\nintervening between the date when he received his nomination\npaper and the date fixed for the filing of it was too  short\nto  enable  him to file it within time and the case  of\t the\nother  was that he was a prospective candidate for  election\nto  the\t Lok Sabha from one of\tthe  Punjab  Constituencies,\nwhere  election was yet to be held, and would  be  prevented\nfrom  exercising his right to vote for the election  of\t the\nPresident.\nHeld, that the present petitions were premature and must  be\ndismissed.\n^\nThe jurisdiction and power conferred on the Supreme Court by\nArt.  71(1)<\/a> of the Constitution to inquire into\t and  decide\ndoubts\tand disputes arising out of and in  connection\twith\nthe election of the President can be exercised only after  a\nparticular  candidate  has been declared elected and  on  an\nelection petition filed under S. 14<\/a> of the Presidential\t and\nVice-Presidential Election Act<\/a> of 1952.\nThe  word 'election' in Art. 71<\/a> of the Constitution is\tused\nin the wider sense to denote the entire process of  election\nculminating\n139\n1082\nin  a  candidate  being\t declared  elected  and\t doubts\t and\ndisputes arising out of and in connection with such election\nmust  include  all  doubts  and\t disputes  relating  to\t any\nparticular stage of it.\nN.   P.\t  Ponnuswamy   v.   Returning\tOfficer,    Namakkal\nConstituency<\/a>,  (1952) S.C.R. 218, referred to.\nIt   is\t a well recognised principle of the law of  election\nthat  an  election  cannot  be held  up\t to  facilitate\t the\nventilation  of individual grievances in derogation  of\t the\ninterest  of  the  people  in general and  Art.\t 62<\/a>  Of\t the\nConstitution, which requires that the election of  President\nmust  be completed within the time fixed by it and has\tbeen\nconceived in such interest, is mandatory in character,\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petitions Nos. 63 and 64 of 1957.
\nPetitions  under Article 71(1)<\/a> of the Constitution of  India
\nfor clarification of doubts in connection with the  election
\nof the President.\n<\/p>\n
R.   V. S. Mani and I. R. V. Sastri, for the  petitioner  in
\nPetition No. 63 of 1957.\n<\/p>\n
R.   Patnaik, for the petitioner in Petition No. 64 of 1957.
\nM.   C.\t Setalvad Attorney-General for India, G.  N.  Joshi,
\nPorus  A.  Mehta  and  R. H.  Dhebar,  for  the\t respondents
\n(Caveators) in both the petitions.\n<\/p>\n
1957.  May 3. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nDAS C. J.-The petitioners in the above petitions have  moved
\nthis Court to exercise the jurisdiction and power vested  in
\nit by and under Art. 71(1)<\/a> of the Constitution of India\t and
\nto  inquire  into and decide what has been  described  as  a
\n“grave\tdoubt”\tin  connection\twith  the  election  of\t the
\nPresident of India and to direct the Election Commission not
\nto  proceed  with the polling in connection  with  the\tsaid
\nelection  which has been fixed for May 6, 1957, but to\thold
\nthe same after duly completing all the elections to the\t Lok
\nSabha  and the Legislatures in all the States of the  Indian
\nUnion  including  the  Union  territory.   The\tfirst\tmain
\npetition was presented on April 26, 1957, and the second  on
\nApril  29, 1957.  Along with each of the said petitions\t has
\nbeen filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition asking for a\tstay
\nof the polling for the Presidential election fixed
\n1083<\/span>
\nfor  May 6, 1957.  In the first main petition the  Returning
\nOfficer\t has  not  been\t made a party,\tbut  in\t the  second
\npetition he has been impleaded as a respondent.\t The learned
\nAttorney-General  has  appeared on behalf  of  the  Election
\nCommission  and has waived the service of notice.   We\tcan,
\ntherefore, dispose of all the petitions before us.
\nThere  is  no  dispute as to the material  facts  which\t may
\nshortly be stated as follows:\n<\/p>\n
After  the  general elections in all the  States  and  Union
\nterritories  of\t India,\t except in the\tUnion  territory  of
\nHimachal Pradesh, which is to return four members to the Lok
\nSabha and in two constituencies in the State of Punjab,\t the
\nold Lok Sabha was dissolved on April 4, 1957 and the New Lok
\nSabha  was constituted on April 5, 1957, under s. 73 of\t the
\nRepresentation\tof  the\t People Act  (XLIII  of\t 1951).\t  As
\nrequired  by s. 4<\/a> of the Presidential and  Vice-Presidential
\nElection  Act<\/a>, 1952 (XXXI of 1952), the Election  Commission
\nissued\ta  notification in the official\t Gazette  appointing
\nApril  16, 1957, as the last date for  making  nominations,-
\nApril  17,  1957,  as  the date\t for  the  scrutiny  of\t the
\nnominations,  April  20,  1957, as the\tlast  date  for\t the
\nwithdrawal of candidatures, May 6, 1957, as the polling date
\nand May 10, 1957, as the date for the counting of the  votes
\nand  the declaration of the result.  The term of  office  of
\nthe  present President is due to expire on the mid-night  of
\nMay 12, 1957.  The reason for fixing the above time schedule
\nobviously  was\tthat  the Presidential\telection  should  be
\ncompleted before the term of office of the present President
\nexpired.\n<\/p>\n
After  the notification constituting the new Lok  Sabha\t was
\npublished  in the Press on April 7, 1957, the petitioner  in
\nthe  first petition applied to the Election  Commission\t for
\nthe  supply  of the nomination papers, which  he  eventually
\nreceived at Nagpur in the afternoon of April 10, 1957.\tThis
\nleft a period of five days for the filing of the  nomination
\npaper  before  the  Returning Officer  at  New\tDelhi.\t The
\npetitioner  submits that the time was too short and  he\t was
\nprevented  from filing his nomination paper due to  want  of
\ntime.  He
\n1084<\/span>
\nhas  filed  the\t petition as a citizen of India\t and  as  an
\n“intending candidate” for the Presidential election.
\nThe  petitioner\t in the second petition is a member  of\t the
\nHindu  Mahasabha and is contenting the election to  the\t Lok
\nSabha as an independent candidate from Kangra  Parliamentary
\nconstituency   in  the\tState  of  Punjab.   He\t filed\t his
\nnomination  paper  on January 28, 1957,\t as  originally\t the
\npolling\t was scheduled to commence in that  constituency  on
\nFebruary  24,  1957.  The polling, however, has\t since\tbeen
\npostponed  and\tfixed for June 2, 1957.\t He  has  filed\t the
\npetition  as a citizen of India and as a prospective  member
\nof Lok Sabha and contends that if the Presidential  election
\nis held on May 6, 1957, he will be deprived of his right  to
\nvote for the election of the President of the Union.  He has
\nalso complained of discrimination offending against Art.  14<\/a>
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
Under Art. 56<\/a> of the Constitution the President holds office
\nfor  a term of five years from the date on which  he  enters
\nupon  his office.  The present incumbent of the high  office
\nentered\t upon  his office on May 12, 1952, and,\t as  already
\nstated,\t his term is due to expire on the mid-night  of\t May
\n12,  1957.   Article 62(1)<\/a> peremptorily\t requires  that\t the
\nelection to fill the vacancy caused by the expiration of the
\nterm  of office of the President shall be  completed  before
\nthe expiration of the term.  It is necessary to bear in mind
\nthis  clear  mandatory provision of the\t Constitution.\t For
\nascertaining  how such election of President is to be  held,
\nwe have to go back to Art. 54<\/a>, which runs thus:
\n”  54.\tThe President shall be elected by the members of  an
\nelectoral college consisting of-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  the elected members of both Houses of Parliament ; and\n<\/p>\n
(b)  the  elected members of the Legislative  Assemblies  of
\nthe States.”\n<\/p>\n
On  one\t side it is said that the electoral  college  is  to
\nconsist of those members falling under clauses (a) and\t(b),
\nwho  are  elected at the crucial date, that is to  say,\t the
\ndate  when  the election is to take place.  Suppose,  it  is
\nsaid, that the term of the President’s office expires during
\nthe currency of the life of Parliament; as it
\n1085<\/span>
\nmay well do in cases contemplated by Art. 62(2)<\/a> and  suppose
\nthere  are vacancies in Parliament or in the Legislature  of
\none  or\t more States, surely the election of  the  President
\nrequired  by Art. 62(1)<\/a> to be held before the expiry of\t the
\nterm  of the outgoing President cannot be held up until\t the
\nvacancies are filled up.’ On the other hand it is  contended
\nthat  the  electoral college must be constituted  after\t the
\nelections in all States and Union territories are  completed
\nand should consist of all the elected members falling within
\nboth  the categories.  Inasmuch as elections have not  taken
\nplace  at all in Himachal Pradesh and in two  constituencies
\nof  the\t State of Punjab, the electoral\t college  cannot  be
\nconstituted until after those members are also elected.\t  It
\nis pointed out that though on the present occasion only four
\nmembers\t of  Himachal Pradesh and only two  members  in\t the
\nState of Punjab have not been elected, nevertheless, if\t the
\nobjection of the petitioners is not now heeded any party  in
\npower  may  in future arrange for the election\tof  its\t own
\nnominee as President by postponing the elections in  several
\nStates, where it may not expect to get a majority of  seats.
\nIt  is said that on March 28, 1957 some members of the\tthen
\nLok  Sabha  had\t raised\t a question as\tto  the\t danger\t and
\nimpropriety of holding the election of the President  before
\nthe completion of the elections throughout the territory  of
\nIndia.\tBoth the petitioners share the same view and contend
\nthat  a\t ” grave doubt ” has arisen in connection  with\t the
\nelection of the President and that such a doubt must,  under
\nArt.  71<\/a>, be inquired into and decided by this\tCourt.\t The
\nextreme contention put forward on behalf of the\t petitioners
\nis that it does not matter whether the doubt is well founded
\nor not or whether it is good, bad or indifferent; this Court
\nis  bound to inquire into and decide the same as soon  as  a
\ndoubt  arises and a citizen brings it before this Court\t for
\nresolution  thereof. For the purpose of this case it is\t not
\nnecessary for us to express any opinion on the merits of the
\nrespective  contentions\t for  these petitions  may  well  be
\ndisposed of on a narrower preliminary ground.\n<\/p>\n
1086<\/span><\/p>\n
Article 71 (1)<\/a> Undoubtedly confers jurisdiction and power on
\nthis  Court  to\t inquire into and decide ”  all\t doubts\t and
\ndisputes  arising out of or in connection with the  election
\nof President or Vice-President ” and this Court will have to
\ninquire\t into  and  decide the same.  But  the\tquestion  is
\nwhether there is anything in the Constitution indicating the
\ntime  at  which\t and the manner in  which  such\t doubts\t and
\ndisputes  have to be inquired into and decided.\t Under\tArt.
\n324<\/a> the superintendence, direction and control of the prepa-
\nration\tof the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of,\t all
\nelection,%  to\tParliament and to the Legislature  of  every
\nState and of elections to the office of President and  Vice-
\nPresident  held\t under\tthis  Constitution,  including\t the
\nappointment of election tribunals for the decision of doubts
\nand disputes arising out of or in connection with  elections
\nto Parliament and the Legislatures of States shall be vested
\nin  the\t Election  Commission.\t It  will  be  noticed\tthat
\nidentical  words  are used, namely, ”  doubts  and  disputes
\narising\t out of or in connection with elections ” which\t are
\nalso  to be found in Art. 71 (1).<\/a>  By Art.  327<\/a>,  Parliament
\nwas authorised to make provision with respect to all matters
\n”  relating  to\t or  in\t connection  with  elections  ”\t  to
\nParliament  or to the Legislatures of the States.  Art.\t 329<\/a>
\nprovides,   amongst  other  things,   that   notwithstanding
\nanything in this Constitution no election to either House of
\nParliament  or either House of Legislature of a State  shall
\nbe  called  in\tquestion  except  by  an  election  Petition
\npresented  to  such authority and in such manner as  may  be
\nprovided  for  by  or  under any  law  made  by\t the  proper
\nlegislature.   In exercise of powers thus conferred  on\t it,
\nParliament  enacted  the Representation of the\tPeople\tAct<\/a>,
\n1951, providing how elections are to be held and how and  on
\nwhat  grounds such elections may be called in question.\t  It
\nalso set up a special forum called Election Tribunal for the
\ndecision  of  ”\t doubts and disputes arising  out  of  or in
\nconnection  with  such\telections.” In\tN.P.  Ponnuswami  v.
\nReturning  Officer, Namakkal Constituency<\/a> (1) the  Returning
\nOfficer for that constituency had rejected, the
\n(1)  (1952) S.C.R. 218.\n<\/p>\n
1087<\/span><\/p>\n
nomination paper of the appellant.  Thereupon the  appellant
\napplied\t to the High Court of Madras under Art. 226<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution for a writ of certiorari to quash the order  of
\nthe Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and  to
\ndirect the Returning Officer to include his name in the list
\nof  valid  nominations to be published.\t The High  Court  of
\nMadras\tdismissed the petition and the appellant brought  an
\nappeal\tto this Court.\tThe Full Court held that in view  of
\nthe provisions of Art. 329 (b)<\/a> of the Constitution and s. 80<\/a>
\nof  the\t Representation of the People Act,  1951,  the\tHigh
\nCourt had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the
\nReturning  Officer.   The  main controversy  in\t the  appeal
\ncentered  round\t the words “no election shall be  called  in
\nquestion except by an election petition ” occurring in\tArt.
\n329  (b).<\/a>  The most important question for determination  by
\nthis  Court  was  the  meaning to be given  to\tthe  word  ”
\nelection ” in Art. 329 (b).<\/a>  This Court said at page 226:
\n“That word has by long usage in connection with the  process
\nof   selection\tof  proper  representatives  in\t  democratic
\ninstitutions, acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning.  In
\nthe narrow sense, it is used to mean the final selection  of
\na  candidate which may embrace the result of the  poll\twhen
\nthere  is polling or a particular candidate  being  returned
\nunopposed  when\t there is no poll.  In the wide\t sense,\t the
\nword is used to connote the entire process culminating in  a
\ncandidate being declared elected.”\n<\/p>\n
After  referring to the cases of Srinivasalu  v.  Kuppuswami<\/a>
\n(1)  and Sat Narain v. Hanuman Prasad (2 ) and a passage  in
\nHalsbury’s  Laws  of England, 2nd edition, Volume  12,\tpage
\n237,  this  Court took the view that the  word\t“election  ”
\ncould  be  and had been properly used with  respect  to\t the
\nentire\tprocess\t which\tconsisted  of  several\tstages\t and
\nembraced  many steps some of which might have  an  important
\nbearing\t on the result of the process and,  therefore,\theld
\nthat  in  view\tof the provisions of Art.  329\t(b)<\/a>  of\t the
\nConstitution  and s. 80<\/a> of the Representation of the  People
\nAct,  1951, the High Court had no jurisdiction to  interfere
\nwith the
\n(1) A.I.R. (1928) Mad. 253, 255.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A.I.R. (1945) Lah. 85.\n<\/p>\n
1088<\/span><\/p>\n
order of the Returning Officer under Art. 226.<\/a>\tThe only way
\nsuch  an order could be called in question was as laid\tdown
\nin  Art.  329  (b)<\/a>  of the Constitution and  s.\t 80<\/a>  of\t the
\nRepresentation\tof the People Act, 1951, and this  could  be
\ndone  only  by\tan election petition  presented\t before\t the
\nElection  Tribunal  after  the entire  process\tof  election
\nculminating  in a candidate being declared elected had\tbeen
\ngone  through.\t On such election petition being  filed\t the
\nElection  Tribunal would be properly bound to  inquire\tinto
\nand  decide  “all doubts and disputes arising out of  or  in
\nconnection with the election ” irrespective of the stage  in
\nthe  entire  election  process to which\t the  ”\t doubts\t and
\ndisputes relate”.  We now approach the construction of\tArt.
\n71<\/a> in the light of the decision of this Court.
\nAs  already  indicated Art. 71(1)<\/a> confers  jurisdiction\t and
\npower on this Court to inquire into and decide id all doubts
\nand  disputes  arising\tout of or  in  connection  with\t the
\nelection  of a President or Vice-President”.   The  question
\nis:  Is\t there in this Article or in any other part  of\t the
\nConstitution or anywhere else any indication as to the\ttime
\nwhen  such inquiry is to be held ? In the first place,\tArt.
\n71<\/a>  postulates\tan  ” election of  the\tPresident  or  Vice-
\nPresident  ”  and  provides  for  inquiry  into\t doubts\t and
\ndisputes  arising  out\tof or in  connection  with  such  an
\nelection.   What  is the meaning to be given to the  word  ”
\nelection ” as used in this Article?  If we give to the\tword
\n,election” occurring in Art. 71(1)<\/a> the same wide meaning  as
\ncomprising  the\t entire election process  culminating  in  a
\ncandidate  being declared elected, then clearly the  inquiry
\nis  to be made after such completed election, i.e., after  a
\ncandidate  is declared to be elected as President  or  Vice-
\nPresident  as  the case may be.\t We see no reason  why\tthis
\naccepted  meaning should not be given to the critical  word.
\nIn the second place, under cl. 3 of Art. 71<\/a>, subject to\t the
\nprovisions  of\tthis  Constitution, Parliament\tmay  by\t law
\nregulate  any  matter ” relating to or\tconnected  with\t the
\nelection ” of a President or Vice-President.  The words here
\nalso  are similar to those used in Art. 327<\/a> and are  equally
\nwide enough to cover matters relating to or
\n1089<\/span>
\nconnected with any stage of the entire election process.  In
\nexercise of powers conferred on it by Art. 71(3<\/a>), Parliament
\nhas enacted the Presidential and Vice-Presidential  Election
\nAct<\/a>,  1952  (XXXI  of  1952)  to  regulate  certain  matters
\nrelating  to  or connected with elections to the  office  of
\nPresident and Vice-President of India.\tA glance through the
\nprovisions  of\tthis Act will indicate that in the  view  of
\nParliament the time for the exercise of jurisdiction by this
\nCourt to inquire into and decide doubts and disputes arising
\nout  of or in connection with the Presidential\telection  is
\nafter the entire election process is completed.\t Under s. 14<\/a>
\nof   this   Act,  which\t corresponds  to  s.   80<\/a>   of\t the
\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1951, no election, meaning
\nthe  election of the President or Vice-President,  shall  be
\ncalled in question except by an election petition  presented
\nto this Court in accordance with the provisions of Part\t III
\nof  that Act and of the rules made by this Court under\tArt.\n<\/p>\n
145.  Section 18<\/a>, which lays down the grounds for  declaring
\nthe  election  of a returned candidate to be void,  runs  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
18.  Grounds  for  declaring  the  election  of\t a  returned
\ncandidate to be void:-If the Supreme Court is of opinion-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  that  the offence of bribery or undue influence at\t the
\nelection has been committed by the returned candidate or  by
\nany person with the connivance of the returned candidate; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)  that  the\tresult of the election has  been  materially
\naffected-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  by\t reason\t that  the  offence  of\t bribery  or   undue
\ninfluence  at the election has been committed by any  person
\nwho  is neither the returned candidate nor a  person  acting
\nwith his connivance; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii)by the improper reception or refusal of a vote, or\n<\/p>\n
(iii)by\t the  non-compliance  with  the\t provisions  of\t the
\nConstitution or of this Act or of any rules or, orders\tmade
\nunder this Act; or\n<\/p>\n
(c)  that  the nomination of any candidate has been  wrongly
\nrejected or the nomination of the successful candidate or of
\nany other candidate who has
\n140<\/span>
\n1090<\/span>
\nnot withdrawn his candidature has been wrongly accepted;
\nthe Supreme Court shall declare the election of the returned
\ncandidate to be void.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  For  the  purposes\t of this section,  the\toffences  of
\nbribery\t and  undue influence at an election have  the\tsame
\nmeaning as in Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code<\/a> (Act XLV
\nof 1860).\n<\/p>\n
It is quite clear from the language of the section that\t any
\nimproper  reception  or\t refusal  of a\tvote,  or  any\tnon-
\ncompliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the
\nAct  or\t of any rules or orders made under the\tAct  or\t the
\nimproper  acceptance or rejection of a nomination paper\t may
\nbe  made a ground for challenging the election.\t This  means
\nthat  all doubts and disputes relating to any stage  of\t the
\nentire\telection process is to be canvassed by\tan  election
\npetition  presented to this Court after the election in\t its
\nwide sense is concluded.\n<\/p>\n
The  above  stated  interpretation appears to us  to  be  in
\nconsonance with the other provisions of the Constitution and
\nwith  good sense.  If doubt or dispute arising out of or  in
\nconnection  with  the  election\t of  a\tPresident  or  Vice-
\nPresident can be brought before this Court before the  whole
\nelection  process is concluded then conceivably\t the  entire
\nelection  may be held up till after the expiry of  the\tfive
\nyears’\tterm  which will involve a  no-compliance  with\t the
\nmandatory  provisions  of  Art.\t 62.<\/a>   The  well  recognised
\nprinciple  of  election\t law, Indian and  English,  is\tthat
\nelections  should  not\tbe  held  up  and  that\t the  person
\naggrieved   should  not\t be  permitted\tto   ventilate\t his
\nindividual interest in derogation of the general interest of
\nthe  people,  which requires that elections should  be\tgone
\nthrough\t according to the time schedule.  It is,  therefore,
\nin  consonance both with the provisions of Art. 62<\/a> and\twith
\ngood sense to hold that the word “election” used in Art.  71<\/a>
\nmeans  the  entire  process  of\t election.   That  is\twhat
\nParliament  understood to be the meaning of Art.,, 71 as  is
\napparent   from\t the  Presidential   and   Vice-Presidential
\nElection Act<\/a>, 1952.  Again this Court has framed rules under
\nArt. 145<\/a> to regulate the
\n1091<\/span>
\nprocedure  and a perusal of those rules will  also  indicate
\nthat  ”\t all  doubts  and disputes  arising  out  of  or  in
\nconnection  with  the  election\t of  a\tPresident  or  Vice-
\nPresident  ”  should be brought before the court  after\t the
\nresult\tof the entire election is declared, that is to\tsay,
\nafter a candidate is declared to be elected to the office of
\nPresident or Vice-President.\n<\/p>\n
It  is pointed out that if the petitioners are compelled  to
\nwait  until after the entire election process  is  concluded
\nand then to file election petitions, they will have to\tshow
\nthat the result of the election has been materially affected
\nas  required  by  s.  18<\/a>  of  the  Presidential\t and   Vice-
\nPresidential Election Act<\/a>, 1952.  It is contended that there
\nis  no reason why this extra, burden or hardship,  which  is
\nnot  in terms imposed by Art. 71<\/a>, should be placed upon\t the
\npetitioners.   It  is  not necessary  for  the\tpurposes  of
\ndisposing  of these petitions to express any opinion  as  to
\nthe  validity or otherwise of this requirement of s. 18<\/a>\t and
\nwe  do not do so. But the plea of alleged  hardship  brought
\nabout  by s. 18<\/a> cannot alter the true meaning and import  of
\nArt. 71.<\/a> In our judgment Art. 71<\/a> postulates an election\t and
\nthe  word “election ” occurring in Art. 71<\/a> means the  entire
\nelection  process culminating in a candidate being  declared
\nelected\t and  doubts  and  disputes arising  out  of  or  in
\nconnection with any of the stages of such completed election
\nhave to be inquired into and decided by this Court which, in
\npoint  of time, must necessarily be after the completion  of
\nthe entire process compendiously called the election.
\nLearned\t counsel appearing for the petitioner in the  second
\npetition  raised  an  additional  point\t that  the  Election
\nCommission  by\tfixing\tthe election on\t May  6,  1957,\t has
\narbitrarily  deprived the members  representing\t territorial
\nconstituencies\tlike  Kangra and Himachal Pradesh  of  their
\nright  to exercise and enjoy other privileges of  membership
\nof  Parliament.\t This argument was raised half heartedly  at
\nthe  fag end of his argument in reply and was not  seriously
\npressed.   In  any  event  he did  not\tadvance\t any  cogent
\nargument showing how the petitioner had been deprived of the
\nequal  protection of the law.  Elections have to be held  in
\nnumerous
\n1092<\/span>
\nconstituencies\tand  different dates have to  be  fixed\t for
\nholding\t the  actual elections in  different  constituencies
\naccording   to\tthe  various  exigencies  relating  to\t the
\nparticular  localities\tin  which  the\tconstituencies\t are
\nsituate.   No good ground has been established\tfor  holding
\nthat there has been any discrimination such as is prohibited
\nby  Art. 14<\/a> of the Constitution.  In so far as\tthe  alleged
\ndiscrimination,\t if any, in breach of the  equal  protection
\nclause\tof the Constitution may be said to be calculated  to
\nraise  any  doubt  in connection with the  election  of\t the
\nPresident  it  will, at best, be a  noncompliance  with\t the
\nprovisions  of the Constitution which may or may not,  after
\nthe  conclusion\t of the entire election, be made  a  ground,
\nunder  s.  18<\/a>  of  the\tPresidential  and  Vice-Presidential
\nElection Act<\/a>, 1952, for calling the election in question  as
\nto which we need formulate no final opinion at this stage.
\nWe  express  no\t opinion  on  the  merits  of  any  of\t the
\ncontroversies  between the parties, but, for  the  foregoing
\nreasons,  we hold that the present petitions  are  premature
\nand  cannot  be entertained at this stage.   We,  therefore,
\ndismiss\t the  petitions\t Nos.  63 and  64  of  1957.   Civil
\nMiscellaneous  Petitions Nos. 563 and 564 of 1957 will\talso
\nstand dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t      Petitions dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957 Equivalent citations: 1957 AIR 694, 1957 SCR 1081 Author: S R Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan (Cj), Bhagwati, Natwarlal H., Imam, Syed Jaffer, Das, S.K., Kapur, J.L. & Gajendragadkar, P.B. & Sarkar, A.K. PETITIONER: NARAYAN BHASKAR KHARE Vs. […]<\/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-257063","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nNarayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of ... on 3 May, 1957 - 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\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of ... on 3 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\" \/>\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=\"1957-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-08T19:53:22+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957\",\"datePublished\":\"1957-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-08T19:53:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\"},\"wordCount\":3743,\"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\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\",\"name\":\"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of ... on 3 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1957-05-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-08T19:53:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957\"}]},{\"@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":"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of ... on 3 May, 1957 - 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\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of ... on 3 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1957-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-08T19:53:22+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957","datePublished":"1957-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-08T19:53:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957"},"wordCount":3743,"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\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957","name":"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of ... on 3 May, 1957 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1957-05-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-08T19:53:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/narayan-bhaskar-khare-vs-the-election-commission-of-on-3-may-1957#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Narayan Bhaskar Khare vs The Election Commission Of … on 3 May, 1957"}]},{"@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\/257063","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=257063"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/257063\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=257063"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=257063"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=257063"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}