_J9S7_
_**October,**_ _**14.**_
#### 648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958]
Dr. N. B. KHARE
### _v._
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
## (S. R. DAS, C.J,, VENKATARAMA AIYAR, s. K. DAS,
#### J. L. KAPUR and VIVIAN BosE, JJ.)
_Presidential Election-Validity_ _of Election-Enquiry_ _into_ _dis-_
_putes-Forum ond Procedure-Presidential_ _ond Vice-Presidentiaf_
_Elections Aci,_ 1952 _(XXXI of_ 1952), _ss._ 14, _18--Supreme_ _Court_
_Rule.•,_ 1950, _Or._ _XXXVII-A,_ _Rr._ 3, _12-Constitution_ _of India,_
_Art._ 71(1)(3).
The petitioner describing himself as an intending candidate
for the Presidental Election filed a petition in the Supreme Court
under Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India impugning the
election. of the President, but it was returned by the Registrar of
the Court on the ground that it was not in conformity ·with the
provisions of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act,
1952, and the Rules of the Supreme Court contained in Or.
XXXVII-A. 011 appeal to the Court it was contended for the
appellant that (I) tpe petition was founded upon doubts as to the
validity of the election and, in consequence, was not convered
either by the Act or the Rules of the Supreme Court, (2) the Act
and the Rules in question were void on the ground that they
derogate from the jurisdiction conferred on the Supreme Court
under Art. 71(1)· and (3) in any case, the petitioner has a ri!lht
as a citizen to approach this Court for relief whenever an election
has been held in breach of the constitutional provisions.
_Held,_ that Art, 71(1) merely prescribes the forum in which
doubts and disputes in connection with the election of the President and Vice-President would be enquired into, but the right to
move the Supreme Court as well as the procedure therefor, are
determined by the Act of Parliament as authorised by Art. 71(3).
Accordingly the Act and the Rules in question are valid, and the
petitioner bas no rights apart from those given by the statute
to file an application for setting aside an election.
OmmNAL .JURISDICTION : Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 915 of 1957.
Appeal under Order V, rule 3 of the Supreme Court
Rules;
#### R. V. S Mani artd Gangat Rai, for the petitioner. 1957. October 14. The following Judgment of the
Court was delivered by
#### VENKATA~MA AIYAR J.-This is a petition under
Art. 71(1) of the Constitution of India. On May 6,
1957, there was an election to the office of the Presi
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 649
dent and Shri Rajendra Prasad was declared elected.
Thereafter Dr. N. B. Khare filed the present petition
describing himself as an intending candidate and
#### alleging that there had been violations of the provi
sions of the Constitution and that the election was in
consequence not valid. The prayers in the petition
#### are "that grave doubts that exist in connection with
the Presidential election be enquired into, resolved
and decided" and "the entire proceedings of the Presidential election be quashed as void".
The Registrar of this Court returned the petition
as not being in conformity with the provisions of the
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
(XXXI of 1952), and as not satisfying the require#### ments of the Rules of this Court contained in. 0.
XXXVII-A. Section 14 of Act XXXI of 1952 provides
#### that no election shall be called in question except by
an election petition presented to the Supreme Court in
accordance with the provisions of the Act and of the
Rules made by the Supreme Court under Art; .145 of
the Constitution; and it further provides that it should
be presented by any candidate at such election or by
ten or more electors. The Rules framed by this Court
#### .with reference to this matter are contained in 0.
XXXVII-A. Rule 3 prescribes that a court-fee of the
value of Rs. 250 should be paid on the petition and
#### r. 12 requires the petitioner to deposit a sum of
Rs. 2,000 in cash as security for the payment of costs
that may become payable by him. The petitioner is not
a person entitled to apply under s. 14 of the Act and
his petition was also defective as it did not comply
#### with the .requirements or rr. 3 and 12. It was accordingly returned qy the Registrar. Against that order,
the present appeal has been brought.
#### It is firstly contended by Mr. Mani that the present petition is outside the purview of Act XXXI of 1952 and of 0. XXXVII-A of the Supreme Court Rules. It is argued that the Supreme Court is invested
with jurisdiction to enquire into and decide all doubts·
and disputes arising out of or in connection with theelection of the President, that Act XXXI of 1952·
and 0. XXXVII-A apply only when there is a dispute
_1957_
_Dr. N._ _B._ _Khare_
v.
_Electio11_
_of India_
_**Co1111nissio11**_
_Ve11kata1'1111111_
_A1)•a1-,J._
#### 650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1958]
#### 1957 as to the election but where the petition is founded
_»r. N._ _B._ _Khare_ upon doubts as to the validity of the election, it is not
v. covered either by the Act or the Rules. We are unable
_**Election**_
_Commission_ to accept this contention. When once an election has
_of I11dia_ been held, any doubt concerning its validity is mate
_.ve,,katarama_ rial only as a ground for setting aside the election and
_Aiyar,J._ that in fact is the prayer in the petition itself. In substance the petition is one calling the election in question and it must satisfy the requirements of Act XXXI
of 1952 and of the Rules in 0. XXXVII-A.
### It is next contended that the Act and the Rules in
#### question are void on the ground that they derogate
from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enquire
into and decide all disputes and doubts arising out of
#### or in connection with the election of the President or the Vice-President. It is argued that under s. 18, the
election could be set aside only on certain grounds and
#### that further under clause (b) it could be done only if
the result of the election is shown to have been mate#### rially affected, and that these are restrictions on the
jurisdiction conferred by Art. 71 (1) and are _ultra_
#### vires, Articies 71 ( 1) merely prescribes the forum in
which disputes in connection with the election of the
President and Vice-President would be enquired into.
### It does not prescribe the conditions under which the
petition for setting aside an election could be presented. Under Art. 71(3), it is Parliament that is authorised to make law for regulating any matter relating to
#### or connected with the election of the President or
Vice-President, and Act XXXI of 1952 has been passed
by Parliament in accordance with this provision. The
# right to stand for election and the right to move. for J
setting aside an election are not common law rights.
They must be conferred by statute and can be enforc#### ed only in accordance with the conditions laid down
therein. The contention that the Act and the Rules
derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
- under Art. 71(1) must accordingly be rejected. The
petitioner has, therefore, no right to move for setting
aside the election except in accordance with the provisions of Act XXXI of 1952.
S.C.R. SUPR~E COURT REPORTS 651
#### And finally it is contended that the petitioner has
a right as a citizen to approach this Court under Art.
71(1) whenever an election has been held in breach of
#### the constitutional provisions. For the re~sons already
given, this contention must fail. The right of a person
#### to file an application for setting aside an election must
be determined by the statute which gives it, and that
statute is Act XXXI of 1952 passed under Art. 71(3).
The petitioner must strictly bring himself within the
#### four corners of that statute and has no rights apart
from it. The order appealed against is clearly right
and this appeal is dismissed.
_Petition dismissed._
MESSRS. CROWN ALUMINIUM WORKS
_'V._
THEIR WORKMEN.
(BHAGWATI, S. K. DAS and GAJENDRAGADKAR, JJ.~
_1957_
_Dr. N. B. Khare_
v.
_Election_
_Commission_
_of India_
_Venkatarama_
_Aiyar,_ _J._
_1957_
_October,_ _15._
_Industrial Dispute-Adjudication-Constitution_ _of wage_ _struc-_
#### _ture-Revision of such structure, if can be made to the prejudice of_
_workmen-Convention-Governing principle._
Although there can be no rigid and inexorable convention
that a wage structure once fixed can never be changed to the
prejudice ·of the workmen, there are well-recognised principles on
which such revision must be founded, one important principle,
to which there can be no exceptions, is that the wages of workmen
cannot be allowed to fall below the bare subsistence level. Itfollows, therefore, that no industry can have the right to exist if
it cannot be maintained except by bringing the wages below that
level.
The Constitution of J ndia seeks to create a democratic
welfare state and secure social and economic justice to the citizens.
Growth of industries and the advent of collective bargaining
between organized labour and capital with consequent industrial
legislation have made absolute freedom of contract and thedoctrine of laissez faire things of the past and they have now to
yield place to principles of social welfare and common good.
Industrial adjudication has, thus, to keep in view the ideal of a
democratic welfare state and its immediate objectiye in constituting a wage structure must be to secure the genuine and wholehearted co-operation between labour and capital in the task of
production by a just adjustment of their conflicting interests by
