{"id":76602,"date":"1953-02-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1953-02-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953"},"modified":"2019-03-19T19:03:49","modified_gmt":"2019-03-19T13:33:49","slug":"flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953","title":{"rendered":"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 210, \t\t 1953 SCR 1144<\/div>\n
Author: M P Sastri<\/div>\n
Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nFLECTION COMMISSION, INDIA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSAKA VENKATA SUBBA RAOUNION OF INDIA-Intervener.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n27\/02\/1953\n\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nBENCH:\nSASTRI, M. PATANJALI (CJ)\nMUKHERJEA, B.K.\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nHASAN, GHULAM\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  210\t\t  1953 SCR 1144\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1954 SC 207\t (3)\n R\t    1954 SC 440\t (5)\n R\t    1956 SC 246\t (21,23)\n F\t    1961 SC 532\t (3)\n R\t    1962 SC1513\t (3,4)\n R\t    1963 SC1124\t (1,2,5)\n R\t    1965 SC1892\t (7)\n R\t    1967 SC 112\t (10)\n D\t    1967 SC1244\t (12)\n R\t    1976 SC2283\t (43)\n RF\t    1986 SC1272\t (83)\n R\t    1992 SC1277\t (19,61)\n\n\nACT:\nConstitution of India, 1950, arts. 132, 192, 226-High  Court\n-Power\tto issue writs-\t Limitations-Power to issue writ  on\npersons\t residing outside territorial  jurisdiction-Election\nto  Madras  Assembly-Reference to Election  Commission,\t New\nDelhi-Jurisdiction  of\tMadras\tHigh  Court  to\t issue\twrit\nagainst\t Commission-Disqalificatioin before  election-Effect\nof -Appeals from Single Judge.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n The  respondent,  who had been convicted  and\tsentenced  to\n rigorous imprisonment for seven years, was elected a  member\n of   Madras  Legislative Assembly.  At the instance  of  the\n Speaker the Assembly, the Governor of Madras referred to the\n Election  Commission,\twhich  had  its\t offices  permanently\n located  at New Delhi, the question whether  the  respondent\n was disqualified and could be allowed to sit and vote in the\n Assembly.   The  respondent thereupon applied\tto  the\t High\n Court of Madras under article 226 of the Constitution for  a\n writ restraining the Election Commission from enquiring into\n his alleged disqualification for membership of the Assembly:\n    Held,  that\t the power of the High Court to\t issue\twrits\n under article 226 of the Constitution is subject to the two-\n fold limitation\n 1145\n that such writs cannot run beyond the territories subject to\n its  jurisdiction  and the person or authority to  whom  the\n High Court is empowered to issue such writs must be amenable\n to the jurisdiction of the High Court either by residence or\n location within the territories subject to its jurisdiction.\n The  High Court of Madras bad therefore no  jurisdiction  to\n issue\ta writ under article 226 of the Constitution  against\n the Election Commission.\n Held further, that articles 190(3) and 192(1) are applicable\n only to disqualifications to which a member becomes  subject\n after heis elected as such, and neither the Governor nor the\n Election  Commission  had jurisdiction to enquire  into  the\n respondent's  disqualification which arose long  before  his\n election.\n A  tribunal  or authority permanently located\tand  normally\n carrying on its activities outside the territorial limits of\n a High Court cannot be regarded as functioning within\tthose\n territorial   limits\tand   therefore\t  amenable   to\t  the\n jurisdiction of that High Court, merely because it exercises\n jurisdiction within those territorial limits so as to affect\n the rights of parties therein.\n The fact that the matter referred to it for decision related\n to  the  opposite  party's  right to sit  and\tvote  in  the\n Legislative  Assembly\tat  Madras and\tthe  parties  to  the\n dispute  resided  in  the State of  Madras  could  not\t give\n jurisdiction  to  the High Court of Madras to issue  such  a\n writ against the Election Commission.\n An appeal lies to the Supreme Court under article 132 of the\n Constitution even from a judgment, decree or final order  of\n a  Single  Judge  of a High Court,  provided  the  requisite\n certificate is given.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1952.
\n  Appeal  from\tthe  Judgment  and  Order  dated  the\t16th
\nSeptember,  1952, of the High Court of Judicature at  Madras
\n(Subba Rao J.) in Writ Petition No. 599 of 1952 filed  under
\nthe  Special Original Jurisdiction of the High\tCourt  under
\narticle 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
     M.C.  Setalvad,  Attorney-General.for  India  (G.\t  N.
\nJoshi, with him) for the appellant and Intervener.\n<\/p>\n
     Mohan Kumaramangalam, for the respondent.
\n   1953.   February  27.   The judgment\t of  the  court\t was
\ndelivered by
\n   PATANJALI SASTRI C.J.–This is an appeal from an order of
\na  Single  Judge of the High Court of Judicature  at  Madras
\nissuing a writ of prohibition restraining the
\n1146<\/span>
\nElection  Commission, a statutory authority  constituted  by
\nthe President and having its offices permanently located  at
\nNew Delhi, from enquiring into the alleged  disqualification
\nof  the respondent for membership of the Madras\t Legislative
\nAssembly.\n<\/p>\n
  The respondent was convicted by the Sessions Judge of East
\nGodavari  and sentenced to a term of seven  years’  rigorous
\nimprisonment in 1942, and he was released on the occasion of
\nthe  celebration  of the ludependence Day  on  15th  August,
\n1947.\tIn  June, 1952, there was to be a by-election  to  a
\nreserved  seat\tin the Kakinada constituency of\t the  Madras
\nLegislative Assembly, and the respondent, desiring to  offer
\nhimself\t as  a candidate but  finding  himself\tdisqualified
\nunder section 7 (b) of the Representation of the People Act,
\n1951,  as  five\t years had not\telapsed\t from  his  release,
\napplied\t to  the Commission on 2nd April, 1952,\t for  exemp-
\ntion so as to enable him to contest the election.  No  reply
\nto the application having been received till 5th May,  1952,
\nthe  last day for filing nominations, the  respondent  filed
\nhis nomination on that day, but no exception was taken to it
\neither\tby the Returning Officer or any other  candidate  at
\nthe  scrutiny  of the nomination papers.  The  election\t was
\nheld on 14th June, 1952, and the respondent, who secured the
\nlargest number of votes, was declared elected on 16th  June,
\n1952.  The result of the election was published in the\tFort
\nSt.  George Gazette (Extraordinary) on 19th June, 1952,\t and
\nthe respondent took his seat as a member of the Assembly  on
\n27th  June,  1952.  Meanwhile, the Commission  rejected\t the
\nrespondent’s application for exemption and communicated such
\nrejection  to the respondent by its letter dated  13th\tMay,
\n1952,  which however was not received by him.  On 3rd  July,
\n1952,  the Speaker of the Assembly read out to the  House  a
\ncommunication  received from the Commission bringing to\t his
\nnotice\t“for such action as he may think fit to\t take”,\t the
\nfact  that  the respondent’s application for  exemption\t had
\nbeen   rejected.    A  question\t as  to\t  the\trespondent’s
\ndisqualification  having  thus\tbeen  raised,  the   Speaker
\nreferred the question to the Governor of
\n1147<\/span>
\nMadras\twho  forwarded the case to the\tCommission  for\t its
\n“opinion”  as required by article 192 of  the  Constitution.
\nThe respondent having thereupon challenged the competency of
\nthe reference and the action taken thereon by the  Governor,
\nthe  Commission notified the respondent that his case  would
\nbe  heard  on  21st August, 1952.   Accordingly,  the  Chief
\nElection  Commissioner\t(who  wag the  sole  Member  of\t the
\nCommission for the time being) went down to Madras and heard
\nthe respondent’s counsel and the Advocate-General of  Madras
\non  21th August, 1952, when it was agreed that, in case\t the
\npetitioner’s  counsel  desired to put  forward\tany  further
\nrepresentations\t or  arguments, the same should be  sent  in
\nwriting\t so  as\t to reach the Commission in  Delhi  by\t28th
\nAugust,\t 1952,\tand  the Commission should  take  them\tinto
\nconsideration before giving its opinion to the Governor.
\nOn  the same day (21st August, 1952) the respondent  applied
\nto  the\t High Court under article 226  of  the\tConstitution
\ncontending  that  article 192 thereof  was  applicable\tonly
\nwhere a member became subject to a disqualification after he
\nwas  elected  but not where, as here,  the  disqualification
\narose  long  before  the election, in which  case  the\tonly
\nremedy was to challenge the validity of the election  before
\nan  Election Tribunal.\tHe accordingly prayed for the  issue
\nof  a  writ  of mandamus or  of\t prohibition  directing\t the
\nCommission  to\tforbear from proceeding with  the  reference
\nmade by the Governor of Madras who was not, however, made  a
\nparty to the proceeding.  On receipt of the rule nisi issued
\nby   the  High\tCourt,\tthe  Commission\t demurred   to\t the
\njurisdiction  of the court to issue the writs asked for,  on
\nthe  ground  that  the\tCommission  was\t not  “with  in\t the
\nterritory  in  relation to which the  High  Court  exercised
\njurisdiction”.\t A further objection to the  maintainability
\nof  the application was also raised to the effect  that\t the
\naction\tof  the\t Governor  in seeking  the  opinion  of\t the
\nCommission  could not be challenged in view of the  immunity
\nprovided  under\t article 361 (1), and  that  the  Commission
\nitself,\t  which\t had  not  to  “decide”\t the   question\t  of
\ndisqualification, but had merely to give its
\n1148<\/span>
\n“opinion”, could not be proceeded against under article 226.
\nOn  the\t merits, the Commission contended that\tarticle\t 192
\nwas,  on  its  true construction,  applicable  to  cases  of
\ndisqualification arising both before and after the  election
\nand  that  both\t the reference of the  question\t as  to\t the
\nrespondent’s disqualification to the Governor of Madras\t and
\nthe latter’s reference of the same to the Commission for its
\nopinion were competent and valid.\n<\/p>\n
The application was heard by Subba Rao J. who overruled\t the
\npreliminary objections and held that article 192 on its true
\nconstruction   applied\t only  to   cases   of\t supervening
\ndisqualifications and that the Commission had, therefore, no
\njurisdiction to deal with the respondent’s  disqualification
\nwhich  arose  long  before  the\t election  took\t place.\t  He
\naccordingly  issued a writ prohibiting the  Commission\tfrom
\nproceeding  with  the  enquiry in  regard  to  the  question
\nreferred  to  it  by the Governor under\t article  192.\t The
\nlearned Judge, however, granted a certificate under  article
\n132  that the case involved substantial questions of law  as
\nto   the  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,   and\t the
\nCommission has accordingly preferred this appeal.
\nA   preliminary\t  objection   was  raised   by\t Mr.   Mohan
\nKumaramangalam, who argued the case for the respondent\twith
\nmarked ability, that the appeal brought from the judgment of
\na  single  Judge  was barred under  article  133(3)  of\t the
\nConstitution despite the certificate granted by the  learned
\nJudge  overruling the same objection which was\talso  raised
\nbefore him.  It has been urged that, so far as civil matters
\nare concerned, the more comprehensive provisions in  article
\n133(1)\t(c)  for the grant of a certificate of\tfitness\t for
\nappeal\tto  the\t Supreme Court\tcompletely  overlap  article
\n132(1) which relates only to one specific ground, namely,  a
\nsubstantial  question  of  law\tbeing  involved\t as  to\t the
\ninterpretation\tof  the Constitution, and that\tthe  court’s
\npower,\ttherefore, to grant a certificate of fitness on\t any
\nground including the ground referred to above, must be deem-
\ned  to arise under article 133(1) (c), with the result\tthat
\nthe exercise of such power is excluded by the opening
\n1149<\/span>
\nwords  of  clause (3) of that article which bars  an  appeal
\nfrom  the judgment, decree or final order of one Judge of  a
\nHigh  Court.   The argument was sought to be  reinforced  by
\nreference  to clause (2) of that article and the proviso  to
\narticle\t 145(3) both of which contemplate appeals  involving
\nsubstantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the
\nConstitution being brought without a certificate having been
\nobtained  under\t article 132.  The argument  has  no  force.
\nWhile  it  is true that constitutional\tquestions  could  be
\nraised in appeals filed without a certificate under  article
\n132, the terms of that article make it clear that an  appeal
\nis  allowed from “any judgment, decree or final order  of  a
\nHigh  Court” provided, of course, the requisite\t certificate
\nis  given,  and\t no restriction is placed on  the  right  of
\nappeal having reference to the number of Judges by whom such
\njudgment,  decree  or final order was passed.  Had  it\tbeen
\nintended  to  exclude the right of appeal in the case  of  a
\njudgment  etc.,\t by one Judge, it would have  been  easy  to
\ninclude a reference to article 132 also in the opening words
\nof  article 133(3), as in the immediately preceding  clause.
\nIf the respondent’s contention were accepted, not only would
\narticle\t 132 become redundant so far as it relates to  civil
\nproceedings,  but  the\tobject of the  Explanation  to\tthat
\narticle, which was designed to supersede the decision of the
\nFederal Court in S. Kuppuswami Rao v. The King (1) and\tthus
\nto  secure a speedy determination of  constitutional  issues
\ngoing  to  the\troot of a case, would be  defeated,  as\t the
\nExplanation  is not made applicable to the  same  expression
\n“final\torder” used in article 133(1).\tThe whole scheme  of
\nthe  appellate\tjurisdiction of the  Supreme  Court  clearly
\nindicates  that questions relating to the interpretation  of
\nthe Constitution are placed in a special category  irrespec-
\ntive  of  the nature of the proceedings in  which  they\t may
\narise,\tand  a right of appeal of the  widest  amplitude  is
\nallowed\t in cases involving such questions.  We\t accordingly
\noverrule the preliminary objection and hold that the  appeal
\nis maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1947] F.C.R. 180.\n<\/p>\n
149<\/span>
\n1150<\/span><\/p>\n
Turning now to the question as to the powers of a High Court
\nunder  article\t226,  it will be noticed  that\tarticle\t 225
\ncontinues to the existing High Courts the same\tjurisdiction
\nand   powers  as  they\tpossessed  immediately\tbefore\t the
\ncommencement  of  the Constitution.  Though there  had\tbeen
\nsome  conflict\tof  judicial opinion on\t the  point  it\t was
\nauthoritatively\t  decided  by  the  Privy  Council  in\t the
\nParlakimedi case(1) that the High Court of Madras–the\tHigh
\nCourts of Bombay and Calcutta were in the same\tposition-had
\nno power to issue what were known as high prerogative  writs
\nbeyond the local limits of its original civil  jurisdiction,
\nand  the power to issue such writs within those\t limits\t was
\nderived by the court as successor of the Supreme Court which
\nhad been exercising jurisdiction over the Presidency Town of
\nMadras\tand  was replaced by the High Court  established  in
\npursuance  of  the  Charter Act of 1861.   The\tother,\tHigh
\nCourts in India had no power to issue such writs at all.  In
\nthat  situation,  the  makers of  the  Constitution,  having
\ndecided\t to  provide for certain basic\tsafeguards  for\t the
\npeople\tin  the new set up, which  they\t called\t fundamental
\nrights,\t evidently  thought it necessary to provide  also  a
\nquick  and  inexpensive remedy for the enforcement  of\tsuch
\nrights\tand,  finding that the prerogative writs  which\t the
\nCourts\tin  England had developed and used  whenever  urgent
\nnecessity  demanded  immediate and  decisive  interposition,
\nwere  peculiarly suited for the purpose, they conferred,  in
\nthe  States’ sphere, new and wide powers on the High  Courts
\nof  issuing directions, orders, or writs primarily  for\t the
\nenforcement  of fundamental rights, the power to issue\tsuch
\ndirections,  etc.,  “for  any  other  purpose”\tbeing\talso
\nincluded with a view apparently to place all the High Courts
\nin  this country in somewhat the same position as the  Court
\nof  King’s  Bench in England.  But wide as were\t the  powers
\nthus conferred, a two-fold limitation was placed upon  their
\nexercise.  In the first place, the power is to be  exercised
\n“throughout   the  territories\tin  relation  to  which\t  it
\nexercises jurisdiction”, that is to say, the writs issued
\n(1)  70 I.A, 129
\n1151<\/span>
\nby  the court cannot run beyond the territories\t subject  to
\nits jurisdiction.  Secondly, the person or authority to whom
\nthe  High  Court is empowered to issue such  writs  must  be
\n“within those territories”, which clearly implies that\tthey
\nmust be amenable to its jurisdiction either by residence  or
\nlocation within those territories.\n<\/p>\n
  Such\tlimitation  is indeed a logical consequence  of\t the
\norigin\tand  development of the power to  issue\t prerogative
\nwrits as a special remedy in England.  Such power formed  no
\npart  of the original or the appellate jurisdiction  of\t the
\nCourt of King’s Bench.\tAs pointed out by Prof.\t  Holdsworth
\n(History of English Law, Vol. 1, p. 212 et seq.) these writs
\nhad  their origin in the exercise of the King’s\t prerogative
\npower of superintendence over the due observance of the\t law
\nby his officials and tribunals, and were issued by the Court
\nof  King’s  Bench-habeas  corpus, that\tthe  King  may\tknow
\nwhether\t his  subjects\twere  lawfully\timprisoned  or\tnot;
\ncertiorari,  that  he  may  know  whether  any\t proceedings
\ncommenced against them are conformable to the law; mandamus,
\nto  ensure  that his officials did such acts  as  they\twere
\nbound  to do under the law, and prohibition, to\t oblige\t the
\ninferior  tribunals  in\t his realm to  function\t within\t the
\nlimits\tof  their  respective jurisdiction.   See  also\t the
\nintroductory  remarks  in the judgment\tin  the\t Parlakimedi
\ncase(1).  These writs were thus specifically directed to the
\npersons\t or authorities against whom redress was sought\t and
\nwere made returnable in the court issuing them and, in\tcase
\nof   disobedience,  were  enforceable  by   attachment\t for
\ncontempt.   These  characteristics of the  special  form  of
\nremedy rendered it necessary for its effective use that\t the
\npersons or authorities to whom the court was asked to  issue
\nthese  writs should be within the limits of its\t territorial
\njurisdiction.  We are unable to agree with the learned Judge
\nbelow  that if a tribunal or authority\tpermanently  located
\nand normally carrying on its activities elsewhere  exercises
\njurisdiction within those territorial
\n (1) 70 I.A. 129, 140.\n<\/p>\n
1152<\/span><\/p>\n
limits\tso as to affect the rights of parties therein,\tsuch
\ntribunal  or  authority must be\t regarded  as  “function’mg”
\nwithin\tthe territorial limits of the High Court  and  being
\ntherefore amenable to its jurisdiction under article 226.
\n  It  was, however, urged by the respondent’s  counsel\tthat
\nthe  High  Court  had jurisdiction to issue a  writ  to\t the
\nCommission at New Delhi because the question referred to  it
\nfor  decision related to the respondent’s right to  sit\t and
\nvote  in the Legislative Assembly at Madras and the  parties
\nto  the\t dispute also resided in the State of  Madras.\t The
\nposition,  it  was  claimed,  was  analogous  to  the  court
\nexercising  jurisdiction over persons outside the limits  of
\nits jurisdiction, provided the cause of action arose  within
\nthose  limits.\t Reliance  was\tplaced\tupon  the  following
\nobservations  of  the  Privy  Council  in  the\t Parlakimedi
\ncase(1):  “The question of jurisdiction must be regarded  as
\none of substance and that it would not have been within\t the
\ncompetence  of the Supreme Court to claim  juisdiction\tover
\nsuch  a matter as the present of issuing certiorari  to\t the
\nBoard  of  Revenue on the strength of its  location  in\t the
\ntown.\tSuch a view would give jurisdiction to\tthe  Supreme
\nCourt  in  the matter of the settlement of  rents  of  ryoti
\nholdings in Ganges between parties not otherwise subject  to
\nits  jurisdiction,  which  it would not have  had  over\t the
\nRevenue\t  Officer  who\tdealt  with  the  matter  at   first
\ninstance.” We cannot accede to this argument., The rule that
\ncause  of action attracts jurisdiction in suits is based  on
\nstatutory enactment and cannot apply to writs issuable under
\narticle 226 which makes no reference to any cause of  action
\nor where it arises but insists on the presence of the person
\nor  authority within the territories” in relation  to  which
\nthe   High  Court  exercises  jurisdiction.   Nor  is\tmuch
\nassistance to be derived from the observations quoted above.
\nThat case arose out of proceedings before a special  Revenue
\nOfficer\t for  settlement of fair rent for  certain  holdings
\nwithin\tthe zemindary estate of Parlakimedi situated  beyond
\nthe  local limits of the original civil jurisdiction of\t the
\nMadras High Court.  Dissatisfied
\n (1) 70 I.A. 129.\n<\/p>\n
1153<\/span><\/p>\n
with  the settlement made by the Revenue Officer, the  ryots
\nappealed  to the Board of Revenue which had its\t offices  at
\nMadras.\t  The appeal was accepted by a single member of\t the
\nBoard  who  reduced the rent as desired by the\tryots.\t The
\nzemindar appealed by way of revision to the Collective Board
\nwhich  sanctioned  an  enhancement.   Thereupon\t the   ryots
\napplied\t to  the  High\tCourt for the issue  of\t a  writ  of
\ncertiorari  to\tbring up and quash the\tproceedings  of\t the
\nCollective Board which passed the order complained of in the
\ntown  of Madras.  The Privy Council considered the  question
\nof jurisdiction from two separate standpoints:-
\n   “(a) independently of the local civil jurisdiction  which
\nthe High Court exercises over the Presidency town; or\n<\/p>\n
   (b)solely  by  reason  thereof, as  an  incident  of\t the
\nlocation of the Board of Revenue within the town.”
\n   On question (a), they examined the powers of the  Supreme
\nCourt  at Madras to issue certiorari beyond  the  Presidency
\nTown  under  clause  8 of the Charter of  1800,\t as  it\t was
\nsuggested that the High Court succeeded to the\tjurisdiction
\nand  powers of the Supreme Court which had been granted\t the
\nsame  powers  of issuing prerogative writs as the  Court  of
\nKing’s\tBench in England throughout the Province,  and\tthey
\nrecorded their conclusion thus:\n<\/p>\n
” Their Lordships are not of opinion that the Supreme  Court
\nwould  have  had any jurisdiction to correct  or  control  a
\ncountry\t court\tof the company deciding\t a  dispute  between
\nIndian inhabitants of Ganjam about the rent payable for land
\nin that district.”\n<\/p>\n
    Then,  dealing with question (b) and referring to  their
\ndecision  in  Besants  case(1)\tthat  the  High\t Courts\t  of
\nCalcutta, Madras and Bombay had power to issue certiorari in
\nthe exercise of their local jurisdiction, they held that the
\nprinciple  could not be applied “to the settlement  of\trent
\nfor  land in Ganjam merely on the basis of the\tlocation  of
\nthe Board of Revenue as a body which is ordinarily  resident
\nor located within
\n (1) 46 I.A. I 76.\n<\/p>\n
1154<\/span><\/p>\n
the  town  of  Madras,\tor  on\tthe  basis  that  the  order
\ncomplained of was made within the town. if SO, it would seem
\nto  follow that the jurisdiction of the High Court would  be
\navoided\t by the removal of the Board of Revenue\t beyond\t the
\noutskirts of the town and that it would never attach but for
\nthe  circumstance  that\t an\tappeal\tis  brought  to,  or
\nproceedings in revision taken by, the Board of Revenue.”
\n  Then\tfollowed  the passage already quoted  on  which\t the
\nrespondent’s  counsel laid special stress.  It will thus  be
\nseen  that the decision is no authority for dispensing\twith
\nthe necessity of the presence or location, within the  local
\nlimits\tof  the\t court’s  jurisdiction,\t of  the  person  or
\nauthority to whom the writ is to be issued, as the basis  of
\nits  power to issue it.\t Their Lordships considered, in\t the
\npeculiar  situation  they were dealing with, that  the\tmere
\nlocation  of  the appellate authority alone in the  town  of
\nMadras\twas  not  a sufficient basis  for  the\texercise  of
\njurisdiction  whereas  both the\t subject-matter,  viz.,\t the
\nsettlement  of\trent for lands in Ganjam,  and\tthe  Revenue
\nOfficer authorized to make the settlement at first  instance
\nwere  outside  the local limits of the jurisdiction  of\t the
\nHigh  Court.   If the court in Madras  were,  recognised  as
\nhaving\tjurisdiction to issue the writ of certiorari to\t the
\nappellate authority in Madras, it would practically be
\nrecognising  the  court’s  jurisdiction\t over  the   Revenue
\nOfficer\t in  Ganjam and the settlement of  rents  for  lands
\nthere,\twhich their Lordships held it never had.   That\t was
\nthe  “substance”  of the matter they were  looking  at,\t and
\ntheir  observations lend no support to the view that if\t the
\nsubject-matter\tor  the\t cause of  action  and\tthe  parties
\nconcerned   were  within  the  territorial  limits  of\t the
\njurisdiction,  the High Court could issue prerogative  writs
\nto  persons or authorities who are not within those  limits.
\nIn  any case, the decision did not turn on the\tconstruction
\nof  a  statutory  provision similar  in\t scope’\t purpose  or
\nwording\t to article 226 of the Constitution, and is  not  of
\nmuch assistance in the construction of that article.\n<\/p>\n
1155<\/span><\/p>\n
It was said that it could not have been contemplated that an
\ninhabitant  of the State of Madras, feeling aggrieved  by  a
\nthreatened  interference with the exercise of his rights  in
\nthat  State  by\t an authority located in  Delhi\t and  acting
\nwithout\t jurisdiction, should seek his remedy under  article
\n226 in the Punjab High Court.  It is a sufficient answer  to
\nthis argument of inconvenience to say that, the language  of
\nthe article being reasonably plain, it is idle to  speculate
\nas to what was or was not contemplated.\n<\/p>\n
  Our attention has been called to certain decisions of High
\nCourts\tdealing\t with  the  situation  where  the  authority
\nclaiming  to  exercise jurisdiction over a matter  at  first
\ninstance is located in one State and the appellate authority
\nis  located in another State.  It is not necessary  for\t the
\npurposes  of  this appeal to decide which High\tCourt  would
\nhave jurisdiction in such circumstances to issue prerogative
\nwrits under article 226.\n<\/p>\n
In the view we have expressed above as to the  applicability
\nof  article  226 to the present case, it is  unnecessary  to
\nenter  upon  a discussion of the  question  whether  article
\n192(1)\tapplies\t only to members who,  having  been  already
\nelected, have become subject to a disqualification by reason
\nof  events happening after their election; but having  heard
\nthe  point  fully  argued before us, we think  it  right  to
\nexpress\t our opinion thereon, especially as both sides\thave
\ninvited us to do so in view of its general importance.
\nThe  relevant  provisions of the Constitution on  which\t the
\ndetermination of the question turns are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   190.\t  (3) If a member of a House of the Legislature of a
\nState—\n<\/p>\n
 (a) becomes   subject\tto  any\t of  the   disqualifications
\nmentioned in clause (1) of article 191 ; or\n<\/p>\n
   (b)\t  resigns  his\tseat  by  writing  under  his\thand
\naddressed  to the Speaker or the Chairman, as the  case\t may
\nbe,  his seat shall thereupon become vacant,
\n1156<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
191. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as,
\nand  for  being,  a member of the  Legislative\tAssembly  or
\nLegislative Council of a State\n<\/p>\n
  (a)\t  if  he  holds\t any  office  of  profit  under\t the
\nGovernment  of\tIndia  or  the\tGovernment  of\tany   State,
\nspecified  in  the  First Schedule,  other  than  an  office
\ndeclared  by  the  Legislature of the State by\tlaw  not  to
\ndisqualify its holder;\n<\/p>\n
  (b)\t  if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by
\na competent court;\n<\/p>\n
  (c)\t  if he is an undischarged insolvent;\n<\/p>\n
  (d)\t  if   he  is  not  a  citizen\tof  India,  or\t has
\nvoluntarily acquired the citizenship of a foreign State,  or
\nis under any acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to  a
\nforeign\t  State;\n<\/p>\n
  (e)\t  if he is so disqualified by or under any law\tmade
\nby   Parliament.\n<\/p>\n
   192.\t  (1) If any question arises as to whether a  member
\nof a House of the Legislature of a State has become  subject
\nto  any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1)  of
\narticle 191, the question shall be referred for the decision
\nof the Governor and his decision shall be final.
\n  (2)\t  Before  giving any decision on any such  question,
\nthe  Governor  shall  obtain the  opinion  of  the  Election
\nCommission and shall act according to such opinion.\n<\/p>\n
  193.\tIf  a  person  sits or votes  as  a  member  of\t the
\nLegislative  Assembly  or  the\tLegislative  Council  of   a
\nState………… when he knows that he is not qualified  or
\nthat  he is disqualified for membership thereof, or that  he
\nis  prohibited\tfrom so doing by the provisions of  any\t law
\nmade by Parliament or the Legislature of the State, he shall
\nbe  liable  in respect of each day on which he\tso  sits  or
\nvotes to a penalty of five hundred rupees to be recovered as
\na debt due to the State.\n<\/p>\n
  As  has been stated already, the  respondent’s  conviction
\nand sentence in 1942 disqualified him both for being  chosen
\nas,  and  for being, a member of  the  Legislative  Assembly
\nunder  article,\t 191  (1) (e) read with\t section  7  of\t the
\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1951,
\n1157<\/span>
\npassed\tby  Parliament, the period of five years  since\t his
\nrelease on 15th August, 1947, not having elapsed before\t the
\ndate of the election.  The respondent having thus been under
\na  disqualification  since  before his\tnomination  on\t15th
\nMarch,\t1952, could he be said to have “become”\t subject  to
\nthat  disqualification within the meaning of article  192  ?
\nThe rival contentions of the parties centred round the\ttrue
\ninterpretation\tto be placed on that word in the context  of
\nthe provisions quoted above.\n<\/p>\n
    The Attorney-General argued that the whole fasciculus of
\nthe provisions dealing with “disqualifications of  members”,
\nviz.,  articles.190 to 193, should be read together, and  as
\narticles  191  and 193 clearly cover  both  preexisting\t and
\nsupervening  disqualifications, articles 190 and 192  should
\nalso  be similarly understood as relating to both  kinds  of
\ndisqualification.   According  to him all  these  provisions
\ntogether    constitute\t  an   integral\t   scheme    whereby
\ndisqualifications   are\t  laid\tdown   and   machinery\t for
\ndetermining  questions\tarising in regard to  them  is\talso
\nprovided.  The use of the word “become” in articles 190\t (3)
\nand 192 (1) is not inapt, in the context, to include  within
\nits  scope preexisting disqualifications also,\tas  becoming
\nsubject to a disqualification is predicated of “a member  of
\na  House  of Legislature”, and a person who,  being  already
\ndisqualified,  gets  elected, can, not\tinappropriately,  be
\nsaid to “become” subject to the disqualification as a member
\nas  soon as he is elected.  The argument is  more  ingenious
\nthan  sound.  Article 191, which lays down the same  set  of
\ndisqualifications for election as well as for continuing  as
\na  member, and article 193 which prescribes the penalty\t for
\nsitting and voting when disqualified, are naturally  phrased
\nin   terms  wide  enough  to  cover  both  preexisting\t and
\nsupervening  disqualifications; but it does not\t necessarily
\nfollow that articles 190 (3) and 192 (1) must also be  taken
\nto  cover both.\t Their meaning must de end on  the  language
\nused  which, we think, is reasonably plain.  In our  opinion
\nthese two articles go together and
\n150<\/span>
\n1158<\/span>
\nprovide\t a  remedy when a member incurs\t a  disqualification
\nafter  he is elected as a member.  Not only do the  words  ”
\nbecomes subject” in article 190(3) and “has become  subject”
\nin  article 192(1) indicate a change in the position of\t the
\nmember after he was elected, but the provision that his seat
\nis  to\tbecome thereupon vacant, that is to  say,  the\tseat
\nwhich the member was filling  theretofore becomes vacant  on
\nhis becoming disqualified, further reinforces the view\tthat
\nthe article contemplates only a sitting member incurring the
\ndisability  while  so  sitting.\t  The  suggestion  that\t the
\nlanguage used in article 190(3) can equally be applied to  a
\npre-existing disqualification as a member can be supposed to
\nvacate\this seat the moment he is elected is a strained\t and
\nfarfetched   construction  and\tcannot\tbe  accepted.\t The
\nAttorney-General  admitted  that  if the word ”\t is  ”\twere
\nsubstituted  for “becomes” or ” has become “, it would\tmore
\nappropriately  convey the meaning contended for by him,\t but
\nhe was unable to say why it was not used.\n<\/p>\n
It was said that on the view that articles 190(3) and 192(1)
\ndeal  with  disqualifications incurred after election  as  a
\nmember,\t there\twould be no way of unseating  a\t member\t who
\nbecame\tsubject to a disqualification after  his  nomination
\nand before his election, for, such a disqualification is  no
\nground for challenging the election by an election  petition
\nunder article 329 of the Constitution read with section\t 100
\nof  the Representation of the People Act, 1951.\t If this  is
\nan  anomaly,  it  arises  out of  a  lacuna  in\t the  latter
\nenactment  which  could\t easily have  provided\tfor  such  a
\ncontingency, and it cannot be pressed as an argument against
\nthe   respondent’s   construction  of\tthe   constitutional
\nprovisions.   On  the  other  hand,  the  Attorney-General’s
\ncontention might, if accepted, lead to conflicting decisions
\nby  the Governor dealing with a reference under article\t 192
\nand  by\t the Election Tribunal inquiring  into\tan  election
\npetition  under\t section 100 of\t the  Parliamentary  statute
\nreferrred to above.\n<\/p>\n
For  the reasons indicated we agree with the  learned  Judge
\nbelow in holding that articles 190(3) and 192(1)
\n1159<\/span>
\nare  applicable only to disqualifications to which a  member
\nbecomes\t subject  after\t he is elected\tas  such,  and\tthat
\nneither the Governor nor the Commission has jurisdiction  to
\nenquire\t into the respondent’s disqualification which  arose
\nlong before his election.\n<\/p>\n
As,  however,  we  have held that the  High  Court  was\t not
\ncompetent under article 226 to issue any prerogative writ to
\nthe appellant Commission, the appeal is allowed and the writ
\nof  prohibition issued by the learned Judge is quashed.\t  We
\nmake no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
   Agent for the appellant and the Intervener: G. H.
\nRajadhyaksha.\n<\/p>\n
    Agent for the respondent: S. Subramaniam.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 210, 1953 SCR 1144 Author: M P Sastri Bench: Sastri, M. Patanjali (Cj), Mukherjea, B.K., Bose, Vivian, Hasan, Ghulam, Bhagwati, Natwarlal H. PETITIONER: FLECTION COMMISSION, INDIA Vs. RESPONDENT: SAKA VENKATA SUBBA RAOUNION OF […]<\/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-76602","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nFlection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953 - 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\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\" \/>\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=\"1953-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-19T13:33:49+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=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953\",\"datePublished\":\"1953-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-19T13:33:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\"},\"wordCount\":4708,\"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\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\",\"name\":\"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1953-02-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-19T13:33:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953\"}]},{\"@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":"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953 - 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\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1953-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-19T13:33:49+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":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953","datePublished":"1953-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-19T13:33:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953"},"wordCount":4708,"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\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953","name":"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of ... on 27 February, 1953 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1953-02-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-19T13:33:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/flection-commission-india-vs-saka-venkata-subba-raounion-of-on-27-february-1953#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Flection Commission, India vs Saka Venkata Subba Raounion Of … on 27 February, 1953"}]},{"@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\/76602","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=76602"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76602\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76602"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76602"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76602"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}