1973 (11) TMI 96 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of a judge appointed under Article 224A of the Constitution to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Authority of the Chief Justice to reassign an election petition from one judge to another after the trial has commenced.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of a Judge Appointed under Article 224A
The primary issue was whether a person sitting and acting as a judge of the High Court under Article 224A of the Constitution can exercise the jurisdiction to try an election petition under Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court examined Article 224A, which allows the Chief Justice of a High Court, with the President's consent, to request a retired judge to sit and act as a judge of the High Court. The court emphasized that while sitting and acting, such a person "shall have all the jurisdiction, powers and privileges of, but shall not otherwise be deemed to be, a Judge of that High Court."

The court concluded that the phrase "while so sitting and acting" means that the person requested has the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a judge of the High Court during the period for which they are requested to sit and act. The court rejected the appellant's contention that Surajbhan J., appointed under Article 224A, was not a judge of the High Court for the purposes of Section 80A of the Act. The court held that for the purposes of jurisdiction, powers, and privileges, a person requested under Article 224A is indeed a judge of the High Court.

2. Authority of the Chief Justice to Reassign an Election Petition
The second issue was whether the Chief Justice could reassign an election petition to another judge after the trial had commenced. Initially, the election petition was entrusted to Vyas J. by the then Chief Justice. However, due to administrative reasons and at the request of Vyas J., the Chief Justice reassigned the petition to Surajbhan J.

The court noted that there is nothing in Section 80A of the Act that prevents the Chief Justice from reassigning an election petition. The court found no legal infirmity in the Chief Justice's order to reallocate the petition to Surajbhan J. The court also referenced the case of Zikar v. The State, which stated that a Chief Justice cannot withdraw and transfer a case from one division bench to another without concurrence but found it inapplicable as it did not address the reassignment of cases between individual judges.

Conclusion:
The court held that:
1. A person requested to sit and act as a judge under Article 224A has the jurisdiction, powers, and privileges of a High Court judge for the purposes of Section 80A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. The Chief Justice has the authority to reassign an election petition from one judge to another even after the trial has commenced, especially when requested by the judge initially assigned.

However, considering the special facts and circumstances, the court deemed it appropriate and in the interest of justice to have the election petition tried by a permanent judge of the High Court. The court set aside the order dated August 10, 1973, and directed that the election petition be heard by a permanent judge assigned by the Chief Justice. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.