Chasemore v Richards (1859)
📚 Case Title:
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs Chief Election Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: AIR 1978 SC 851 | (1978) 1 SCC 405
🧾 Background of the Case:
Petitioner: Mohinder Singh Gill, a candidate in the 1977 Punjab Legislative Assembly elections.
Respondent: Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of India.
The case arose out of the 1977 elections to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. Mohinder Singh Gill was declared elected, but before the election process could conclude, riots and violence broke out, especially in some constituencies.
The Election Commission (EC) cancelled the election in Gill’s constituency by invoking its plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution.
Gill challenged the validity of the EC’s action, arguing that:
The EC had no power to cancel the election once it was underway unless a specific provision under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) allowed it.
The cancellation violated his fundamental rights and was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
⚖️ Legal Issues:
Scope and Powers of the Election Commission under Article 324 of the Constitution.
Whether the Election Commission can act outside statutory provisions (like the RPA) during an ongoing election.
Whether the EC’s action was justiciable in a court of law.
Whether oral or extraneous explanations (affidavits or statements) given by the EC after passing an order can be used to justify the legality of that order.
🏛️ Judgment by the Supreme Court:
The case was decided by a Constitution Bench of 5 judges, led by Justice Krishna Iyer.
🔑 Key Holdings:
1. Plenary Powers of the Election Commission (Article 324):
Article 324 vests the superintendence, direction, and control of elections in the Election Commission.
These powers are plenary in nature and independent of any statutory limitations in areas where the law is silent.
However, if there is a specific provision in the Representation of the People Act, the EC must follow that and cannot override it.
Principle: Where the law is silent, Article 324 empowers the EC to act; where the law exists, the EC must act according to it.
2. Justiciability of EC's Decisions:
The actions and orders of the EC can be reviewed by courts if they are malafide, arbitrary, or in violation of fundamental rights.
Judicial review is available against the EC under Article 226 (High Court) and Article 32 (Supreme Court).
3. Speaking Orders and Post-Hoc Justifications:
The Court ruled that an order must speak for itself.
The validity of an administrative order must be judged based on the reasons stated in the order, not based on subsequent justifications or affidavits filed in court.
The Election Commission cannot justify a bad order through later explanations.
Quote: "Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older."
4. Elections and Constitutional Democracy:
Free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
The EC is a constitutional authority and must protect the purity and fairness of elections but within the framework of the law.
🧠 Key Doctrines and Legal Principles:
Doctrine of Supremacy of the Constitution: EC’s actions must comply with constitutional limits.
Speaking Order Doctrine: Administrative orders must contain their own justification.
Judicial Review of Administrative Actions: Even constitutional authorities are not above judicial scrutiny.
Role of Article 324: It serves as a gap-filler and not a substitute for legislation.
⚖️ Related Case Law:
1. A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai (1984)
Followed the Mohinder Singh Gill principle: EC can act under Article 324 only in areas not covered by law.
2. S. Subramaniam Balaji v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013)
Reaffirmed that free and fair elections are part of the basic structure of the Constitution.
3. T.N. Seshan v. Union of India (1995)
Clarified the powers of the Chief Election Commissioner and Election Commission as a multi-member body.
🧾 Summary:
| Aspect | Held in the Case |
|---|---|
| Powers of Election Commission | Plenary under Article 324 where law is silent. |
| Judicial Review | EC's decisions are subject to judicial review. |
| Justification of Orders | Orders must be self-contained; later explanations not valid for legality check. |
| Importance of EC | EC must preserve free and fair elections, but within the rule of law. |
🏁 Conclusion:
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner (1978) is a foundational judgment in Indian constitutional and administrative law. It clarified the scope of powers of the Election Commission, ensuring that while the EC has wide authority, it is not absolute, and subject to the Constitution and rule of law.
It also laid down the famous principle that “an order must stand or fall on its own reasons.”
RELATED Blog
0 comments