NARAYAN BHASKAR KHARE vs. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Case Analysis

NARAYAN BHASKAR KHARE vs. THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

May 3, 2025

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court judgment in Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. The Election Commission of India ([1957] SCR 1081) decisively settled the scope and timing of judicial intervention in Presidential elections under Article 71(1) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners raised concerns over the legitimacy of holding the Presidential election of 1957 before the completion of general elections in all Indian territories. They invoked Article 71(1) seeking the Court’s intervention to halt the presidential poll scheduled for May 6, 1957. The Court held that such intervention was premature as the constitutional framework mandated that disputes and doubts related to Presidential elections could only be adjudicated post-election, through an election petition as per Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952. This judgment interpreted “election” broadly to include the entire process culminating in the declaration of results. The Court reaffirmed the constitutional mandate in Article 62, which requires the timely completion of Presidential elections, and ruled that individual grievances could not justify delays to the detriment of national governance. This ruling emphasized the inviolability of constitutional timelines, the limitation of judicial review prior to the election’s conclusion, and the supremacy of procedural sanctity over personal inconveniences or anticipatory doubts.

Keywords: Presidential Election, Article 71, Election Commission, Electoral Disputes, Supreme Court Jurisdiction

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Narayan Bhaskar Khare v. The Election Commission of India

ii) Case Number: Petitions Nos. 63 and 64 of 1957

iii) Judgement Date: 3 May 1957

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: S.R. Das C.J., Bhagwati, Jafer Imam, S.K. Das, J.L. Kapur, Gajendragadkar, A.K. Sarkar JJ.

vi) Author: Chief Justice S.R. Das

vii) Citation: [1957] SCR 1081

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

Article 71(1), Article 62, Article 56, Article 324, Article 327, Article 329, Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Section 14 & Section 18 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952
Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Election Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case arose during the 1957 Presidential elections when the petitioners expressed serious concerns regarding the propriety of conducting Presidential polls before the completion of general elections in all territories, particularly in Himachal Pradesh and two Punjab constituencies. The apprehension stemmed from the possible disenfranchisement of voters and incomplete constitution of the electoral college envisaged under Article 54. The first petitioner, Dr. Narayan Bhaskar Khare, claimed he was denied adequate time to file his nomination for the Presidential election. The second petitioner, a candidate for the Lok Sabha from Punjab, argued that he was unjustly excluded from participating in the Presidential election process due to the postponement of polling in his constituency. The petitions, filed under Article 71(1), sought judicial intervention to postpone the Presidential election scheduled for May 6, 1957. However, the Supreme Court rejected the petitions as premature, stating that such disputes could only be entertained after the election concluded and only by way of a petition under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The Presidential election was scheduled to occur on May 6, 1957, to elect a successor before the term of the incumbent President ended on May 12, 1957, as mandated under Article 62(1). The Election Commission issued the election notification per Section 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952. Due to administrative and logistical constraints, general elections had not concluded in certain areas—most notably, Himachal Pradesh and two Punjab constituencies. The petitioners contended this incomplete electoral college violated the democratic character of the election envisaged by Article 54, as not all elected representatives would be present to vote.

Petitioner Dr. Khare alleged he received his nomination papers too late (April 10, 1957) and thus could not file his nomination by the prescribed deadline (April 16, 1957). The second petitioner, a Lok Sabha candidate in the Kangra constituency, argued he would be deprived of the right to vote for the President, alleging discrimination under Article 14. The petitions also invoked Article 71(1), which empowers the Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes and doubts relating to Presidential elections.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Supreme Court could intervene under Article 71(1) before the election concludes.

ii) Whether the Presidential election, without full representation of elected members from all territories, violated Article 54 and Article 14.

iii) Whether the Election Commission’s timeline denied candidates the right to a fair nomination and election process.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for the Petitioners submitted that:

The election violated the scheme under Article 54 as it proceeded without elected representatives from Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. The absence of these voters rendered the electoral college constitutionally incomplete, leading to a non-democratic election. They emphasized the significance of including all elected members in the electoral college to reflect federal representation as intended by the Constitution.

The petitioner Dr. Khare asserted that the late delivery of nomination papers prevented him from filing within the prescribed deadline, effectively denying his right to contest. He cited the unreasonableness and impracticability of filing within five days after receiving nomination forms at Nagpur. This, he argued, violated principles of natural justice and due process under the rule of law.

The second petitioner argued that by scheduling the election before his constituency’s polling, the Election Commission denied him his voting right for the President, which, he claimed, amounted to arbitrary discrimination under Article 14. He argued that this disparity infringed his equal rights as a citizen and as a prospective Member of Parliament.

The petitioners urged the Court to postpone the election and interpret Article 71(1) to allow pre-election judicial scrutiny into “grave doubts” affecting the integrity of the electoral process.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondents submitted that:

The Attorney General of India, representing the Election Commission, argued that Article 71(1) is applicable only post-election, upon filing a valid election petition. He cited Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, which mandates that Presidential elections can only be challenged after the results are declared.

He emphasized the principle laid down in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency ([1952] SCR 218), where the Court held that judicial review of electoral matters is permissible only after completion of the election process. He argued that the term “election” under Article 71 includes the entire electoral process culminating in the declaration of results, and premature challenges undermine constitutional procedure and public interest.

The Election Commission also argued that postponing the election would breach Article 62(1), which mandates timely election before the term ends. Any delay would cause a constitutional vacuum at the highest office. Therefore, individual grievances could not override constitutional timelines designed for democratic continuity.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

Article 71(1) – Grants the Supreme Court jurisdiction over doubts and disputes concerning Presidential and Vice-Presidential elections.
Article 62(1) – Mandates that the election to the office of the President must be completed before the expiry of the term.
Article 54 – Defines the electoral college for the Presidential election.
Article 14 – Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws.
Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 – Provides that Presidential elections can be challenged only via a petition filed in the Supreme Court after the declaration.
Section 18 of the same Act – Details grounds for voiding a Presidential election.
Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Limits election disputes to election petitions.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court ruled that Article 71(1) jurisdiction applies only after the completion of the election. The term “election” in this Article refers to the full process, not intermediate stages. The Court observed that Section 14 of the 1952 Act prescribes the procedure for such disputes, aligning with the principle in N.P. Ponnuswami (1952 SCR 218), where it was held that elections should not be disrupted by premature challenges.

The Court clarified that personal grievances or inconveniences—such as insufficient time for nomination or delayed polling in some areas—cannot justify judicial intervention before the election concludes. It reiterated that Article 62 is mandatory, ensuring the nation remains governed without interruption.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court observed that allowing premature challenges to election processes would cause uncertainty and potential abuse. It warned against enabling any political party to disrupt elections by intentionally delaying elections in select regions. Such practices would defeat the democratic intent of the Constitution and subvert electoral integrity.

c. GUIDELINES

i) The Court laid down implicit guidelines:

All election-related disputes under Article 71 must be raised only after the declaration of results.
Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952, governs the procedure.
Challenges must show material impact as required by Section 18 of the Act.
Constitutional timelines in Article 62 are non-negotiable.
Elections must not be halted for individual grievances unless there is clear, post-election statutory justification.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This decision is a foundational precedent on the constitutional interpretation of election law. The Supreme Court decisively guarded the sanctity and integrity of the electoral timeline against speculative or anticipatory litigation. It ensured continuity of governance and maintained a strict separation between election administration and judicial interference, except under statutorily defined post-election procedures. The Court’s insistence on exhausting the entire electoral process before seeking redress fosters political stability, discourages frivolous petitions, and upholds democratic institutions.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred: