Case Summary: Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy (1978)
**Case Stats:**
Name of the Court: Supreme Court of India
Case No: Election Petition No. 1 of 1977
Date of Decision: 15-02-1978
Bench: M. Hameedullah Beg, C.J; Y. V. Chandrachud, J; V. R. Krishna Iyer, J; V. D. Tulzapurkar, J; P. N. Bhagwati, J; Jaswant Singh, J; D. A. Desai, J
Type of Bench: Full Bench
Final Decision: Dismissed
Citations: AIR 1978 SC 499; (1978) 2 SCC 500; (1978) 3 SCR 1; (1978) 10 UJ 134
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=271929
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, Charan Lal Sahu, filed an election petition under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, challenging the election of Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as President of India (election held on 19 July 1977). The petitioner admitted he was not a duly nominated candidate under Sections 5B and 5C of the Act, as he lacked the required ten proposers, ten seconders, and did not deposit the mandatory Rs. 2,500. His nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer. He challenged the validity of Sections 5B and 5C and the constitutional amendment introducing Article 71(3).
Law Points Raised
1. Whether the petitioner had locus standi without being a duly nominated candidate.
2. Whether Sections 5B and 5C of the 1952 Act were unconstitutional as conflicting with Article 58.
3. Whether Article 71(3) (introduced by the 1974 amendment) was unconstitutional as violating the basic structure.
4. Whether the petition was barred under Sections 14, 14A of the Act and Supreme Court Rules.
Acts / Provisions / Articles Referred
• Constitution of India — Articles 14, 58, 71(1), 71(3)
• Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 — Sections 5B, 5C, 14, 14A
• Supreme Court Rules — Order XXXIX, Rules 2, 5; Order XXIII, Rule 6
Judgements Referred
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (1974) — similar petition dismissed.
• Shrimati Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1976) — separation of powers doctrine.
• Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor (1936) — prescribed procedure exclusion principle.
Obiter Dicta
The Court emphasized that eligibility under Article 58 is distinct from nomination requirements under Sections 5B and 5C. Presidential election rules may reasonably require a candidate to have substantial support to avoid frivolous nominations. Article 71(3) merely bars challenges to the validity of laws made under Article 71(1) and does not infringe judicial powers.
Ratio Decidendi
A person not duly nominated under Sections 5B and 5C lacks locus standi to file a presidential election petition. Sections 5B and 5C are reasonable, apply uniformly, and do not conflict with Articles 14 or 58. Article 71(3) is constitutionally valid.
Final Ruling
The petition was dismissed as not maintainable due to lack of locus standi. The Court upheld the validity of Sections 5B and 5C of the Act and Article 71(3) of the Constitution.
Summary
This case reaffirmed that only duly nominated candidates can challenge a presidential election. Nomination requirements under Sections 5B and 5C of the 1952 Act are constitutionally valid and reasonable. Article 71(3) does not violate the basic structure doctrine and merely limits challenges to laws made under Article 71(1). The petition was dismissed for lack of locus standi.
[Judgment Source]
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=271929