Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia Versus Dhiraj Prasad Sahu

Case Covered:

Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia

Versus

Dhiraj Prasad Sahu

Facts of the Case:

An interesting but important question of far-reaching consequence arises for consideration in these appeals. It is this. “Whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, in the forenoon on the date of the election, would become invalid, consequent upon his disqualification, arising out of a conviction and sentence imposed by a Criminal Court, in the afternoon on the very same day?”

Before proceeding further, it must be recorded that there is no dispute either before us or before the High court, about the fact that Shri Amit Kumar Mahto cast his vote at 9.15 A.M. on 23.03.2018 and that the judgment of the criminal court was rendered at 2.30 p.m. on the very same day.

Observations:

The fallacy of the argument of the appellant that wherever the word “date” is used in a Statute, it should be understood to relate back to 00:01 a.m. can be best understood if we apply the same to a reverse situation. If in a hypothetical situation, the conviction and sentence had taken place in the forenoon and Shri Amit Kumar Mahto had cast his vote in the afternoon, the defeated candidate would not have argued that the voting should be deemed to have taken place at 00:01 a.m.

The Decision of the Court:

Therefore, on the first issue, we hold that the vote cast by Shri Amit Kumar Mahto at 9:15 a.m. on 23.03.2018 was rightly treated as a valid vote. To hold otherwise would result either in an expectation that the Returning Officer should have had the foresight at 9:15 a.m. about the outcome of the criminal case in the afternoon or investing with the Election Commission, a power to do any act that will create endless confusion and needless chaos.

In view of our above answer to the first issue, the second issue does not arise for consideration. Therefore, the Civil Appeal No.611 of 2020 is dismissed. Civil Appeal No.2159 of 2020 is allowed, setting aside the findings of the High Court on issue Nos. 2, 3, and 5 framed by the High Court. There will be no order as to costs.

Read & Download the full Decision in pdf: