Special Reference No. 1 of 2002

Special Reference No. 1 of 2002

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=265957

Law Points Raised:

• Scope and interpretation of Article 174(1) in context of dissolved legislative assemblies.

• Constitutional mandate on the Election Commission under Article 324 regarding timely elections.

• Whether Article 174(1) can override scheduling power of Election Commission.

• Permissibility of Presidential Reference under Article 143 in this context.

• Limits of judicial advisory opinion under Article 143.

Ratio Decidendi:

• Article 174(1) mandates that not more than six months shall intervene between two sessions even for a dissolved assembly.

• Election Commission must act within the constitutional framework and cannot defer elections arbitrarily.

• Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction extends to clarifying constitutional ambiguity without examining facts.

• Doctrine of separation of powers preserved – advisory opinion did not infringe upon Election Commission’s domain.

• Court's role is limited to answering legal questions without interfering in election schedules.

Final Ruling:

The Supreme Court opined that Article 174(1) is applicable even to a dissolved assembly. It upheld the Election Commission’s autonomy in framing election schedules under Article 324 but emphasized that it must act in a manner consistent with constitutional mandates. The Court clarified its advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 to examine questions of law only.

Key Paragraph References:

• 1–3 – Background of Gujarat Assembly dissolution and reference questions.

• 4–5 – Presidential powers and scope of advisory jurisdiction under Article 143.

• 7–11 – Analysis of Article 174 and Election Commission’s powers under Article 324.

• 14–16 – Supreme Court's advisory scope and legal conclusions.

[Judgment Source]

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/AdvancedV2?docid=265957