1952 Jan. 21. 218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS N. P. PONNUS\VAMI ti. RETURNING OFFICER, NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY and OTHERS [1952J UNION OF INDIA and STATE OF MADHYA BHARA T-INTERVENERS. [PATANJALI SAsTRr C.J., FAZL Au, MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA, DAs and CHANDRASEKHARA ArYAR JJ.J Constitution of India Arts. 226, 324 to 329-Representation of the People Act, 1951, ss. 36, 80--Election to Legislatures-Rejection of nomination paper-Applicati-on to High Court for writ of certiorari -Maintainability-..furisdiction of High Court-Meaning of "election" and "questioning election"-Poli"cy of Legislature with regard to elections-Special remedies. Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India provides that "no election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in ques- tion except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for, by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature." The Representation of the People Act, 1951, which made detailed provisions for election to the various Legislatures of the country also contains a· provi~ sion (sec. 80) that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provi~ sions of the Act. The appellant\ who was a candidate for election to the Legis- lative Assembly of the State of Madras_ and whose nomination paper was rejected by the Returning Officer, applied to the High Court of Madras under article. 226 of the Constitution for a writ of certiorari' to quash the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination paper and to direct the Returning Officer to include his name in the list of valid nominations to be pub- lished: Held by the Full Court (PATANJALI SASTRI, C. J., FAZL Au, MAHAJAN, MuKHERJEA, DAS and CHANDRASEKHAR.A AiYAR JJ.) that in view of the provisions of articles 329 (b) of the Constitu- tion and sec. 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the Returning Officer. The word uelection" has by long usage in connection with the process of selection of proper representatives in democratic institutions acquired both a wide and a narrow meaning. In the ,_ '· 4' . .. S.~.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 219 narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate ·1952 which may embrace the. ·result of the poll when there is polling or a particular candidate being returned unopposed when there is N. P. Ponnu- no poll. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire f.Wam1 process culminating in a candidate being declared elected and it" .v. is in this wide sense that the word is used in Part XV of the Returmng Officer, Constitution in which article 329 (b) occurs. Namak,k,al Constituency a1ld The scheme of Part XV of the Constitution and the Repre- Others. sentation of the People Act, 1951,' seems to . be that any matter which has the effect of vitiating an election should be brought up' only at the appropriate stage in an appropriate manner be- fore a special tribunal and should not be brought up at an inter- mediate stage before any court. Undl:r the election law, the only significance which the rejection of a nomination paper has, consists in the fact that it can be used as a ground to call the election in question. _Article 329 (b) was apparently enacted to preS<:ribe the manner in which and the stage at which this ground, anel other grounds which inay be raised under. the \aw to call the election in question., could be urged. It follows by neces- sary implication from the language of this provision that those grounds cannot be urged in any .other manner, at any other stage and before any other court. If tl1e grounds oh .which. an election can be called in question could be raised at an earlier stage and errors, if any, are rectified, there will be no meaning in enacting a provision like article 329 (b) and in setting up · a special tribunal. Any other meaning ascribed to the words used in the article would lead to anomalies, which the Constitution col,lld not have contemplated, one of them being that canflicting views may be expressed by the High Court at the pre-polling stage and by the election tribunal whicli is to be an independent body, at the stage when the matter is brought up before it. Therefore, questioning the rejection of a nomination paper is "questioning. the election" within the meaning of article 329 (b) of the Constitu- \ tion and sec. 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Having regard to the important functions which tlie legis- latures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance tliat elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time S<:hedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elec- tions should be postponed till after tlie elections are over, . so tliat the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In conformity with this principle, the sclieme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attaclied to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while, it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election" and enable the persons . affected · rn 8:.....3 S. C. India/71 ~ 220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1952] 1952 call it in qu~stion, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the N. P: Ponnu· subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in swami progress. Returning Of/k.r, Th . h J d"d f 1 · ·e rig t to vote or stan as a can i ate or e ection ts not a N, v.kkal civil right but is a creature of statute or specjal law and n1ust be Co ::a c an J subject to the limitations imposed by it. Strictly speaking, it ns ~,:; Y ' is the sole right- of the Legislature to examine and determine all 'S. matters relating to the election of its own members, and if the legislature takes it out of its own hands and vests in a special tribunal an entirely new and unknown jurisdiction, that special jurisdiction should be exercised in accordance with the law which creates it. Where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of. Wolverhampton New Water 'Works Co. v. Hawkesford [6 C. B. -(N. S.) 336], Neville v. London Express Newspaper Limited ([1919] A. C. 368), Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon ·Grant & Co. ([1935] A. C. 532), Secretary of State v. Mask & Co. ( 44 C. W. N. 709), Hurdutrai v. Official Assignee of Calcutta (52 C. W. N. 343), Theberge v. Laudry (1876, 2 App. Cas. 102) referred to. Judgment of the l-Iigh Court of Madras affirmed. CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTioN : Case No. 351 of 1951. Appeal under article 132 of the Constitution from the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Subba Rao and Venkatarama Ayyar JJ.) dated 11th December, 1951, in Writ Peti- tion No. 746 of 1951. The facts of the case and argu- ments of the counsel are set out in detail in the judg- ment. N. Rajagopal Iyengar, for the appellant. R. Ganapathi Iyer, for the 1st respondent. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India ( G. N. Joshi, with him) for the Union of India. K. A. Chiklle, Advocate-General of Madhya Bharat. -(G. N. foshi; with him) for the State of Madhya Bharat. 1952. January 21. Faz! Ali J. delivered as follows. Patanjali Sastri C. J."Mahajan, Das and Chandrasekhara Aiyar JJ. agreed. .Ali J. Judgment Mukherjea, with Faz! - .. S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 221 FAZL Au J.-This is an appeal from an order of the Madras High Court dismissing the petition of the .appellant praying for a writ of certiorari. The appellant was one of the persons who had filed nomination papers for election to the Madras Legislative Assembly fro111 the Namal