503

MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE & COMPANY AFFAIRS

(Legislative Department)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 8th April, 1981

S.O. 296(E).—The following Order made by the President

is published for general information :—

ORDER

Whereas two petitions have been filed by Shri Mast Ram,

Advocate, Ferozepur City, on the 15th May, 1980 and on

the 29th May, 1980 alleging that Shri Balram Jakhar, sittlnft

member of the House of the People, has become subject to

disqualification under article 102(l)(e) of the Constitution read

with sections 77, 78 and 10A of the Representation of the

People Act. 1951;

And whereas a reference has been made by the President

to the Election Commission with reference to the said petitions

under article 103 of (he Constitution as to whether Shri

Balram Jakhar has become subject to any of the disqualifica-

tions mentioned under Article 102 of the Constitution;

And whereas the Election Commission has given its opinion

(vide Annexure) that the jurisdiction of neither the President

nor the Commission is attracted under article 103 of the

Constitution in the present case and that on merits also, Shri

Balram Jakhar has not incurred any disqualification under

article 102(l)(e) of the Constitution read with section 10A

of the Representation of the People Act, 1951;

Now, therefore,

T Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, President of

India, in exercise of the powers conferred on me bv article

103 of the Constitution, do hereby decide, in accordance with

the opinion of the Election Commission, that in respect of the

pe'itions, the jurisdiction of neither the President nor the

Commission is attracted under the said article and on merits

also, Shri Balram Jakhar has not incurred any disqualification

under article 102(lXe) of the Constitution read with section

10A of the Representation of the People Act. 1951.

Rashtrapati Bhavan,

New Delhi,

the 2nd April, 1981.

NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY,

President of India

ANNEXURE

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

BEFORE TIIE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Reference Case No. 6 of 1980

In re : Alleged disqualification of Shri Baiaram Jakhar, sitting

member of the House of the People.

OPINION

This is a Reference from the President of India under Article

103(2) of the Constitution of India seeking the opinion of the

Commission on the question of alleged disqualification

Shri Balram Jakhar, a silting member of the House of th«

People, under Article 102(l)(e) of the Constitution read with

Sections 77, 78 and 10A of the Represcntntion of the People

Act, 1951.

The above

question was

raised by Shri Mast

Ram,

Advocate, Ferozepur City by two petitions filed by him before

the President on the 15th May, 1980 and 29th May. 1980.

In thesc petitions, it was alleged that Shri Balram Jakhar, who

was elected to the House of the People from 13-Ferozepur

Parliamentary Constituency at the General Election held in

December, 1979—January, 1980, did not maintain his account

of election expenses as required by law under Section 77 of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that he fabricated

false account for the purpose of lodging the same under Section

78 of the said Act and that he certified the return of expenses

liled by him with the District Election Officer, Ferozepur to be

a true copy of the account knowing and believing the same to

be false and not believing the same to bo true. The petitioner

gave in his aforesaid petitions some extracts from the return

filed by Shri Balram Jakhar to show lhat the account was not

maintained item-wise from day-to-day inasmuch as the date

of expenditure had been shown as the date on which payments

had been made and not the date on which such expenditure

was incurred or authorised. It was further alleged that Shri

Balram Jfikhar had knowingly and intentionally understated

many items of expenses and omitted to show some important

expenses altogether.

On the basis of these allegations, it was

contended by the petitioner that Shri Balram Jakhar had in-

curred disqualification under Article 102(l)(e) of the Consti-

tution read with Sections 77. 78 and 10A of the Representation

of the People Act, 1951 and Sections 171-1, 191, 199 and 200

of 1PC.

It is unnecessary to dilate on thesc contentions of the peti-

tioner and the submissions made by Shri Balram Jakhar in his

written s atement in reply to these contentions as it has to be

considered first whether the jurisdiction of the President and ihe

Election Commission under article 103 is attracted in this

case. Aiticle 103 of the Constitution will be attracted only in

cases where a Member of Parliament has actually incurred any

of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (I) of Article 102

of the Constitution after he has become a member. In other-

words, the provisions in Article 103 are applicable only to

post-election disqualification of a member.

Shri Balram Jakhar, has not been disqualified in terms of

Aiticle 102(1 )(e) of the Constitution read with Section 10A

of ihe Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is not a

case where under orders of the Commission issued under

Section 10A of the Act the member suffers from a disqualifica-

tion for his failure to lodge his account of election expenses

within the time and in the manner required by law. The

petitioner cannot invoke Article 103 for the collateral purpose

into the alleged failure of Shri Jakhar to maintain his account

of election expenses in (he manner required by law, and issue

an order of disqualification under the said Section 10A dis-

qualifying Shri Balram Jakhar,

In the above view, I hold that the jurisdiction of neither

the President nor the Commiision i9 attracted in the present

case.

On merits also, the petitioner has not been able lo prove the

allegations made by him. The only objection which

was

passed by the petitioner at the hearing held in the matter on

the 7th February, 1981, was that Shri Jakhar had not main-

tained a day-to-day account of the election expenses incurred

or authorised by him and lhat he had «hown the expenditure

incurred or authorised on several dates under a single entry

recorded on the date on which Ihe payment in respect of such

expenditure wfa made. The objection raised was thus purely

technical in nature and related to the method of keepinj? the

nccounts by Shri Balram Jakhar. I am not persuaded 10 hold

that by following such method of keeping accounts, Shi

Jakhar had failed to maintain his account in the manner re-

quired by law, as he had given sufficient details in the sta*e-

ment of account in respect of each item of expenditure covered

by the impugned entries. Further, under Section 10A, it is not

the mere failure on the part of a candidate to lodge his account