The Hindu : Petitioner has not learnt a lesson, says SC

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Dec 12, 2002

National

National

Petitioner has not learnt a lesson, says SC

By J. Venkatesan

NEW DELHI Dec. 11. The Supreme Court today rejected a petition filed by an advocate challenging the election of A.P.J. Abdul Kalam as the President of India in July.

A five-Judge Constitution Bench, comprising the Chief Justice, G.B. Pattanaik, the Chief Justice-designate, V.N. Khare, Justice K.G. Balakrishnan, Justice Ashok Bhan and Justice Arun Kumar, held that there was no merit either in the election petition or in the special leave petition (SLP) filed by Charan Lal Sahu. It imposed exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioners. Mr. Justice Ashok Bhan, writing the judgment, said the petitioner (who had filed four similar petitions in the past in 1974, 1977, 1982 and 1997) had not learnt a lesson from the observations made by this court in the earlier judgments. ``It is regrettable that in spite of being cautioned four times by this court not to challenge the election of the President of India in a cavalier and light-hearted manner, the petitioner has challenged the election of Dr. Kalam on the same grounds... ''

``Our regret is compounded by the fact that the petitioner is an advocate and we presume that he knows the value of earlier binding precedents declaring the law by the highest court of the land.''

The petitioner had alleged that his nomination papers were wrongly rejected and Dr. Kalam's papers were illegally accepted. His petition having been dismissed by the Delhi High Court, he filed an SLP as well as an election petition. The Bench pointed out that the nomination papers of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that it was not proposed and seconded by the requisite number of proposers and seconders.

The Bench noted that in the case of the same petitioner against the former President, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, the court had held that if he wanted to challenge the election, he must come within the four corners of the procedures laid down. In view of the authoritative pronouncements of this court in the above case, as well as in other cases, the petitioner could not be regarded as a person who had been nominated or could claim to have been duly nominated as a candidate at the election in question, the Bench said.

The Bench rejected the petitioner's contention that the procedure prescribed for Presidential election was not valid, as such a procedure had already been upheld in various judgments.

The Bench directed that the costs deposited by the petitioner be transferred to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Further, no petition filled by the petitioner in person shall be entertained in this court till the costs imposed was deposited, the Bench added.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National