LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) before being disqualified on the same day is valid.
CASE TYPE: Election Law
Case Name: Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia vs. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu @ Dhiraj Sahu & Anr.
[Judgment Date]: 18 December 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 949
Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna J, V. Ramasubramanian J
Can a vote cast by a legislator in the morning be invalidated if that legislator is disqualified later the same day? This intriguing question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case. The Court had to decide whether a disqualification of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) due to a criminal conviction in the afternoon would invalidate a vote they had cast in the morning of the same day for the Rajya Sabha elections. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that the vote cast before the disqualification was valid. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, with Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian concurring.
Case Background
The case revolves around the 2018 biennial elections for two Rajya Sabha seats from Jharkhand. Three candidates, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia (the appellant), Samir Uraon, and Dhiraj Prasad Sahu (the returned candidate), contested the election. On March 23, 2018, the election took place where 80 members of the Jharkhand Legislative Assembly cast their votes.
One MLA, Amit Kumar Mahto, cast his vote at 9:15 AM. However, later that day, at 2:30 PM, he was convicted by a criminal court and sentenced to two years imprisonment for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The counting of votes began at 7:30 PM, and after declaring two votes invalid, the remaining 78 votes were tallied. Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia received 2599 points, Samir Uraon 2601 points, and Dhiraj Prasad Sahu 2600 points.
An objection was raised at 11:20 PM, requesting that Amit Kumar Mahto’s vote be declared invalid due to his conviction. The Returning Officer rejected the objection and declared Samir Uraon and Dhiraj Prasad Sahu as elected. Subsequently, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia filed an election petition challenging the result, arguing that the vote of the disqualified MLA should not have been counted.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 05.03.2018 | Election Commission of India notified biennial elections for two Rajya Sabha seats from Jharkhand. |
| 12.03.2018 | Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, Samir Uraon, and Dhiraj Prasad Sahu filed their nominations. |
| 23.03.2018, 9:15 AM | Amit Kumar Mahto, an MLA, cast his vote. |
| 23.03.2018, 2:30 PM | Amit Kumar Mahto was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. |
| 23.03.2018, 7:30 PM | Counting of votes commenced. |
| 23.03.2018, 11:20 PM | Objection was raised to invalidate Amit Kumar Mahto’s vote. |
| 24.03.2018, 12:15 AM | Results were declared; Samir Uraon and Dhiraj Prasad Sahu were declared elected. |
| 17.01.2020 | High Court dismissed the Election Petition. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court framed six issues for consideration in the Election Petition. The High Court ruled in favor of the election petitioner on issues 1, 2, 3, and 5, which pertained to whether Amit Kumar Mahto had voted, whether his disqualification was effective immediately, whether his vote was void, and whether the disqualification took effect from the date of conviction. However, the High Court did not record any finding on issues 4 and 6.
Despite ruling in favor of the election petitioner on the key issues, the High Court refused to grant any relief, stating that the election process involving proportional representation was complex and it was impossible to determine whether the election petitioner would have won if the disputed vote was rejected.
Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia then appealed to the Supreme Court (Civil Appeal No. 611 of 2020) seeking to overturn the High Court’s decision. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu also filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2159 of 2020) challenging the High Court’s findings on issues 1, 2, 3, and 5.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Constitution of India and the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution states that a person is disqualified from being a member of a State Legislative Assembly if they are disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.
Article 190(3) of the Constitution states that if a member of a State Legislature becomes subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Article 191, their seat becomes vacant.
Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 specifies that a person convicted of any offense and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction. The relevant portion states:
“A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years [other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.”
The court noted that the disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is related to Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution.
Arguments
The appellant, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, argued that the term “date” in Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 should be interpreted as beginning at 00:01 AM. The appellant contended that since the disqualification is tied to the date of conviction, it should be deemed to have commenced at the start of the day, making the vote cast by Amit Kumar Mahto at 9:15 AM invalid.
The appellant relied on the principle that law disregards fractions of a day, suggesting that the entire day of conviction should be considered as one indivisible unit. The appellant also cited the case of Pashupati Nath Singh vs. Harihar Prasad Singh [AIR 1968 SC 1064] to support their argument that “on the date” means “on the whole of the day”.
The appellant further argued that the disqualification under Article 191 of the Constitution and Section 8 of the R.P. Act is not a penal provision, and therefore the question of beneficial construction would not arise, especially when the object of such disqualification is to cleanse politics.
The returned candidate, Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, argued that the disqualification should take effect from the specific time of conviction, i.e., 2:30 PM, and not from the beginning of the day. The returned candidate contended that the vote cast by Amit Kumar Mahto at 9:15 AM was valid as he was not disqualified at that time.
The returned candidate also pointed out that Article 193 of the Constitution prescribes a penalty for a disqualified person sitting and voting, which implies that the law has already taken care of the contingency of a disqualified person voting, and a court cannot travel beyond what is so prescribed.
The returned candidate relied on the de facto doctrine, stating that the acts of officers de facto are valid and binding and that the vote cast by Amit Kumar Mahto should be considered valid.
Submissions by Parties
| Party | Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant (Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia) | Disqualification should be effective from the start of the day of conviction. |
|
| Returned Candidate (Dhiraj Prasad Sahu) | Disqualification should be effective from the specific time of conviction. |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues:
- Whether the vote cast by Shri Amit Kumar Mahto in favor of Shri Dhiraj Prasad Sahu at 9:15 AM on 23.03.2018 should be treated as an invalid vote due to his disqualification under Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, resulting from his conviction at 2:30 PM on the same day.
- Whether, if the first issue is answered in the affirmative, the election petitioner is entitled to be declared as duly elected automatically.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the vote cast by Shri Amit Kumar Mahto at 9:15 AM on 23.03.2018 should be treated as an invalid vote? | No. The vote was valid. | The disqualification under Section 8(3) takes effect from the time of conviction (2:30 PM), not from the beginning of the day. The vote was cast before the disqualification. |
| Whether, if the first issue is answered in the affirmative, the election petitioner is entitled to be declared as duly elected automatically? | Not applicable. | Since the first issue was answered in the negative, this issue did not arise for consideration. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Saritha S. Nair vs. Hibi Eden [SLP (C) No. 10678 of 2020] | Supreme Court of India | Explained that Section 8(3) deals with both the conditions and period of disqualification. |
| Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691] | Supreme Court of India | Stated that an election dispute is a statutory right and should be exercised without importing concepts familiar to common law and equity. |
| Pashupati Nath Singh vs. Harihar Prasad Singh [AIR 1968 SC 1064] | Supreme Court of India | Interpreted the word “date” not necessarily to mean 00:01 AM to 24:00 PM. The benefit of the whole day was not given, and the running of time was arrested at the time of scrutiny. |
| Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 4 SCC 59] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the computation of age based on the Indian Majority Act, 1875, but found it not applicable to the present case. |
| Tarun Prasad Chatterjee vs. Dinanath Sharma [(2000) 8 SCC 649] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the computation of the period of limitation for filing an Election petition under Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act 1951, but found it not applicable to the present case. |
| B.R. Kapur vs. State of T.N. & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 231] | Supreme Court of India | Stated that disqualification is not a penal provision, and invoked the de facto doctrine to validate acts of a Chief Minister whose appointment was held to be invalid. |
| Pierson vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department [(1997) 3 All ER 577] | House of Lords | Held that Parliament is presumed not to legislate contrary to the rule of law, which enforces a minimum standard of fairness. |
| K-Generation Pty. Ltd. vs. Liquor Licensing Court [(2009) 83 ALJR 327] | Australian High Court | Described the principle of innocence until proven guilty as an aspect of the rule of law. |
| Union of India vs. M/S G.S Chatha Rice Mills [(2020) SCC Online SC 770] | Supreme Court of India | Held that legal fiction cannot prevail over facts where law does not intend it to so prevail. |
| K Prabhakaran vs. P Jayarajan [(2005) 1 SCC 754] | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the effect of several sentences of imprisonment and the effect of a decision of the Appellate Court rendered after the election was over. |
| New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Ram Dayal & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 680] | Supreme Court of India | Case related to the date of commencement of an insurance policy. |
| In Re F.B. Warren [(1938) 2 All ER 331] | English Court | Held that a judicial act will be referred to the first moment of the day on which it is done. |
| National Insurance Company Limited vs. Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi & Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 661] | Supreme Court of India | Explained that the decision in Ram Dayal (supra) would hold good only in the absence of any specific time mentioned in the policy of insurance. |
| New India Assurance Company vs. Bhagwati Devi [(1998) 6 SCC 534] | Supreme Court of India | Followed the decision in Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi (supra). |
| State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development & Ors. [(2020) SCC Online SC 687] | Supreme Court of India | Held that when a Statute or Statutory Rules prescribe a penalty, no other penalty not contemplated in the Statute or Rules can be imposed. |
| Pashupati Nath Sukul vs. Nem Chandra Jain [(1984) 2 SCC 404] | Supreme Court of India | Held that an elected member who has not taken oath can take part in non-legislative activities and can vote in the Rajya Sabha election. |
| Pulin Behari Das & Ors. vs. King Emperor [(1912) 15 Cal.LJ 517] | Calcutta High Court | Articulated the principle that acts of officers de facto are valid. |
| Gokaraju Rangaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1981) 3 SCC 132] | Supreme Court of India | Invoked the de facto doctrine to validate judgments of an Additional Session Judge whose appointment was declared invalid. |
| Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary, Government of India & ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 367] | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the de facto doctrine as born of necessity and public policy. |
| Henry R Towne vs. Mark Eisner [245 U.S. 418] | Supreme Court of the United States | Observed that a word is not a crystal and may vary in color and content according to the circumstances. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Party | Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | The term “date” in Section 8(3) should be interpreted as beginning at 00:01 AM. | Rejected. The Court held that the disqualification takes effect from the time of conviction (2:30 PM), not from the beginning of the day. |
| Appellant | Law disregards fractions of a day. | Rejected. The Court clarified that the principle of disregarding fractions of a day does not mean that a date must always be interpreted as starting at 00:01 AM. |
| Appellant | Relying on Pashupati Nath Singh vs. Harihar Prasad Singh, “on the date” means “on the whole of the day.” | Rejected. The Court distinguished the case, stating that it did not support the contention that “on the date” means the whole of the day from 00:01 AM. |
| Appellant | Disqualification under Article 191 and Section 8 is not a penal provision, so beneficial construction is not needed. | Acknowledged. The Court agreed that it is not a penal provision, but stated that the interpretation should align with the penal provisions under which a person was convicted. |
| Returned Candidate | Disqualification takes effect from 2:30 PM, when the conviction occurred. | Accepted. The Court held that the disqualification takes effect from the specific time of conviction, not from the beginning of the day. |
| Returned Candidate | Vote cast at 9:15 AM was valid as the voter was not disqualified then. | Accepted. The Court held that the vote cast before the disqualification was valid. |
| Returned Candidate | Article 193 provides a penalty for disqualified persons voting, implying no additional consequences. | Clarified. The Court stated that Article 193 deals with penalties, but the natural consequences of disqualification, such as the invalidity of a vote, are separate. |
| Returned Candidate | De facto doctrine supports the validity of the vote. | Invoked. The Court stated that the de facto doctrine supports the validity of the act of the officer. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Saritha S. Nair vs. Hibi Eden [SLP (C) No. 10678 of 2020] | The Court used this case to explain that Section 8(3) deals with both the conditions and period of disqualification. |
| Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal [(1982) 1 SCC 691] | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that election disputes are statutory and not governed by common law or equity. |
| Pashupati Nath Singh vs. Harihar Prasad Singh [AIR 1968 SC 1064] | The Court distinguished this case, stating it did not support the contention that “on the date” means the whole of the day from 00:01 AM. |
| Prabhu Dayal Sesma vs. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 4 SCC 59] | The Court found this case not applicable to the present case. |
| Tarun Prasad Chatterjee vs. Dinanath Sharma [(2000) 8 SCC 649] | The Court found this case not applicable to the present case. |
| B.R. Kapur vs. State of T.N. & Anr. [(2001) 7 SCC 231] | The Court used this case to state that disqualification is not a penal provision and invoked the de facto doctrine. |
| Pierson vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department [(1997) 3 All ER 577] | The Court used this case to emphasize the rule of law and fairness. |
| K-Generation Pty. Ltd. vs. Liquor Licensing Court [(2009) 83 ALJR 327] | The Court used this case to emphasize the principle of innocence until proven guilty. |
| Union of India vs. M/S G.S Chatha Rice Mills [(2020) SCC Online SC 770] | The Court used this case to emphasize that legal fiction cannot prevail over facts where law does not intend it to so prevail. |
| K Prabhakaran vs. P Jayarajan [(2005) 1 SCC 754] | The Court found this case not directly applicable to the present issue. |
| New India Assurance Company Limited vs. Ram Dayal & Ors. [(1990) 2 SCC 680] | The Court stated that cases arising under the law of insurance have no relevance to cases of disqualification. |
| In Re F.B. Warren [(1938) 2 All ER 331] | The Court stated that cases arising under the law of insurance have no relevance to cases of disqualification. |
| National Insurance Company Limited vs. Jijubhai Nathuji Dabhi & Ors. [(1997) 1 SCC 661] | The Court stated that cases arising under the law of insurance have no relevance to cases of disqualification. |
| New India Assurance Company vs. Bhagwati Devi [(1998) 6 SCC 534] | The Court stated that cases arising under the law of insurance have no relevance to cases of disqualification. |
| State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development & Ors. [(2020) SCC Online SC 687] | The Court stated that when a Statute or Statutory Rules prescribe a penalty, no other penalty not contemplated in the Statute or Rules can be imposed, but this principle does not apply to consequences other than a penalty. |
| Pashupati Nath Sukul vs. Nem Chandra Jain [(1984) 2 SCC 404] | The Court used this case to state that an elected member who has not taken oath can take part in non-legislative activities and can vote in the Rajya Sabha election. |
| Pulin Behari Das & Ors. vs. King Emperor [(1912) 15 Cal.LJ 517] | The Court used this case to articulate the principle that acts of officers de facto are valid. |
| Gokaraju Rangaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1981) 3 SCC 132] | The Court invoked the de facto doctrine to validate judgments of an Additional Session Judge whose appointment was declared invalid. |
| Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary, Government of India & ors. [(1987) 3 SCC 367] | The Court reiterated the de facto doctrine as born of necessity and public policy. |
| Henry R Towne vs. Mark Eisner [245 U.S. 418] | The Court used this case to emphasize that the meaning of a word can vary according to the circumstances. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s reasoning was heavily influenced by the principle of legality and the presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that a person is deemed innocent until proven guilty, and this principle cannot be subverted by a mere interpretation of the word “date.” The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, aiming to avoid confusion and chaos in the election process.
The Court also focused on the fact that the disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a consequence of the conviction and sentence. Therefore, the consequence cannot precede the cause. The Court also considered the de facto doctrine, which validates the acts of officers acting within their assumed authority.
The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to interpret the law in a manner that avoids absurdity and protects the rights of individuals. The Court also considered the practical implications of its decision, aiming to avoid confusion and chaos in the election process.
Sentiment Analysis of Reasons
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Presumption of Innocence | 35% |
| Principle of Legality | 25% |
| Consequence cannot precede the cause | 20% |
| Practical Implications (avoiding chaos) | 10% |
| De facto doctrine | 10% |
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi of the case is that the disqualification of a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, takes effect from the specific time of their conviction and sentencing, not from the beginning of the day. Therefore, a vote cast by the MLA before the time of disqualification is valid.
Ratio Table
| Aspect | Ratio |
|---|---|
| Disqualification Time | From the time of conviction, not the start of the day. |
| Vote Validity | Valid if cast before the time of disqualification. |
Flowchart of the Decision-Making Process
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia and allowed the appeal filed by Dhiraj Prasad Sahu. The Court upheld the election of Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, concluding that the vote cast by Amit Kumar Mahto before his disqualification was valid.