Judgment :- 1. In the general elections held on 19 31977 for electing members to the Legislative Assembly of the Kerala State, four duly nominated candidates contested from the Alwaye constituency. After counting of votes, on the next day, the returning officer concerned declared one Sri. T. H. Musthafa as elected to the Assembly. Thereupon one of the defeated candidates has filed this election petition challenging the election. Avoiding the unnecessary details it can be broadly stated that the election in question is challenged essentially on two grounds, namely, (a) corrupt practices; and (b) irregularity in the counting of votes. The court ordered notice to the respondents, and on acceptance of summons the 1st respondent entered appearance Instead of filing a regular written statement, the first respondent filed a written objection on 20 61977 to the effect that the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide this petition. Since a similar contention has been raised in certain other election petitions pending trial, on the agreement of parties, the preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent was heard preliminarily. I may refer to the parties as they are arrayed is the election petition. 2. Since corrupt practice also is alleged as a ground for invalidating the election, the short contention put forward by the first respondent is that in view of Art.192 of the Constitution as it now stands the High Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue regarding corrupt practice and for declaring the election as void on that ground. Art.192, as it originally stood, was one of the provisions amended by S.33 of the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 (for brevity the Constitution Act). In its present form Art.192 of the Constitution is in the following terms: "(1) If any question arises (a) as to whether a member of a House of the Legislature of a State has become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Art.191, or (b) as to whether a person, found guilty of a corrupt practice at an election to a House of the Legislature of a State under any law made by Parliament, shall be disqualified for being chosen as. and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of a House of the Legislature of a State, or as to the period for which he shall be so disqualified, or as to the removal of, or the reduction of the period of, such disqualification, the question shall be referred for the decision of the President and his decision shall be final. (2) Before giving any decision on any such question, the President shall consult the Election Commission and the Election Commission may, for this purpose, make such inquiry as it thinks fit." In assailing the jurisdiction of the court reliance is placed on the provisions contained in clause (1) (b) of Art.192 No doubt, the constitutional provision provides for a reference to the President certain questions relating to disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice and the decision of the President on the questions referred is final. Emphasising the expression "for being chosen as" found in Art.192 (1) (b) the 1st respondent contended that the validity of the disputed election cannot be challenged on the ground of corrupt practice, and the court has no jurisdiction to go in to that question. 3. For a correct understanding of the true import of Art.192 as it now stands, it may be necessary to consider the law as it existed prior to the Constitution Act, relating to corrupt practice and disqualification in elections. Art.191 of the Constitution deals with the disqualifications for membership of either House of the legislature of State. Sub-clauses (a) to (d) of Clause (1) of that Article mention four categories of disqualifications. Sub-clause (e) enables the Parliament to make law to add other grounds of disqualification. The corresponding provision relating to either House of the Parliament is Art.102. Art.329 (b) directs that no election to either House of Parliament or to the House of the Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate legislature. For the purpose of implementing the various constitutional provisions regarding elections to legislatures and offices, the Parliament enacted certain laws including the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the Act), with which alone we are concerned in this case. For the purpose of implementing the various constitutional provisions regarding elections to legislatures and offices, the Parliament enacted certain laws including the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (briefly the Act), with which alone we are concerned in this case. Certain provisions of that Act were subsequently amended by amending statutes, and for the purpose of this case we are concerned with the provisions of the Act as obtained after the commencement of Act 40 of 1975. S.79 to 116 of the Act deal with disputes regarding elections. S.80 enjoins that no election shall be called in question except by an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of Part VI of the Act. In S.80A(1) it is provided that the court having jurisdiction to try an election petition shall be the High Court. The grounds for declaring an election to be void are contained in S.100. Corrupt practice is one of the grounds, as could be seen from S.100(1) (b) and (d) (ii) subject to the provisions of sub section (2). The kind of order that the High Court may pass on an election petition is contained in S.98. If corrupt practice is relied on by the High Court for declaring an election as void the High Court while making its order under S.98 shall make a further order under S.99 of the Act. A careful reading of S.79 to 116 of the Act would show that the High Court is the exclusive authority under law to decide election petitions and that the proof of the commission of any corrupt practice disputed in a particular petition is a ground only for declaring the election void In other words, the order the High Court may pass in that case has nothing to do with disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice. This conclusion is amply supported by S.8A of the Act, which before the commencement of Act 40 of 1975, read as follows: "A person found guilty of corrupt practice, by an order under S.99, shall be disqualified for a period of six years from the date on which that order takes effect." From these provisions it could be seen that if the commission or corrupt practice in an election is proved, the concerned person has to face two consequences; in the first place, the election itself is liable to be declared as void when the election is challenged by an election petition; and secondly, in consequence of the order passed by the High Court under S.99 of the Act, the person found guilty of corrupt practice automatically becomes disqualified for a period of six years by virtue of S.8A of the Act Chapter III of the Act which takes in S.8A enumerates other grounds of corrupt practice as well. S.11 stipulates that the Election Commission may for reasons to be recorded remove any disqualification under Chapter III or reduce the period of any such disqualification. Thus the incurring of the disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice as well as the relief thereto are provided by S.8 A and 11 of the Act. Those two provisions apparently have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Court in deciding an election petition on the basis of corrupt practice. 4. In 1975 many provisions of the Act were amended by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act 1975, Act 40 of 1975. The original S.8A was substituted by a new section and after amendment the provision reads as follows: "8A (1). The case of every person found guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under S.99 shall be submitted, as soon as may be, after such order takes effect, by such authority as the Central Government may specify in this behalf, to the President for determination of the question as to whether such person shall be disqualified and if so, for what period: Provided that the period for which any person may be disqualified under this subsection shall in no case exceed six years from the date on which the order made in relation to him under S.99 takes effect. As is clear from the wording of the new provision the amendment made drastic changes in the original S.8A of the Act By virtue of the amendment the incurring of automatic disqualification as enjoined by old S.8A disappeared. By the new provision when an order is passed by the High Court under S.99 the question whether the concerned person shall be disqualified, and if so, for what period, etc, are to be decided by the President; and the procedure is that an authority specified by the Central government on that behalf shall make the necessary submission to the President. In view of the amendment to the old S.8A a corresponding amendment was necessary in old S.11. Sections of Act 40 of 1975 amended the old S.11 in the following manner: "The Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under this Chapter (except under S.8A) or reduce the period of any such disqualification." The expression "except under S.8A" occurring in the new S.11 was the amendment effected in consequence of the amendment to old S.8A. The provisions relating to trial of election petitions were not materially affected by Act 40 of 1975. A reading of S.8A and 11 of the Act after their amendment by Act 40 of 1975 does not indicate that the power of the High Court to decide questions relating to corrupt practice and also for rendering the appropriate decision in an election petition on the basis of that finding was in any way affected. 4. The provisions in the Act relating to trial of election petitions would show that the High Court does not come into the picture if a member already elected later on incurs any disqualification enumerated either by the Constitution or by the relevant provisions of the Act. It is to meet such contingencies that adequate provisions have been made by the Constitution in Art.192 regarding the State legislature and Art.103 with regard to the Parliament. If a sitting member of the legislature of a State or of either House of the Parliament incurs a disqualification the decision on that question has to be rendered by the Governor or the President, as the case may be. In otherwords, Art.192 and 103 of the Constitution dealt with questions of disqualification in the case of a sitting member after the election. In otherwords, Art.192 and 103 of the Constitution dealt with questions of disqualification in the case of a sitting member after the election. The above in brief was the position at law prior to the Constitution Act. 5. The Constitution Act amended various articles of the Constitution, and in this case we are concerned only with the amendments made to Art.103 and 192, which are in pari materia. Though Art.102 and 191 were also amended those amendments have no direct bearing on the matter in issue. It may also be noted that by the notification issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of S.1 of the Constitution Act, S.19 and 32, amending respectively Art.102 and 191, have not been brought into force. From the wording of Art.192 as it now stands, it could be found that its contents are similar to the provisions contained in S.8A of the Act after its amendment by Act 40 of 1975. Thus if one is to go by the legislative history of the relevant provisions it could be found that the amendment of Art.192 was more or less a consequence of the amendments to S.8A and 11 of the Act by the amending Act 40 of 1975. 6. The language used in Art.192 (1) (b) may now be adverted to. The article, no doubt, provides for a reference to the President for his decision certain aspects of corrupt practice. The two relevant questions in this context are; (a) at what stage the reference is to be made; and (b) for what purpose the reference has to be made. The first question is answered by the expression Mound guilty of a corrupt practice" occurring in Art.192(1)(b). That expression shows that there must be a finding that a particular person is guilty or a corrupt practice. A finding necessarily presupposes the existence of an authority competent to enter the finding and also the proceedings where such a finding could be entered. In view of Art.329 of the Constitution and S.79 to 116 of the Act there cannot be any doubt that the authority contemplated is the High Court and the proceedings is the trial of an election petition. In view of Art.329 of the Constitution and S.79 to 116 of the Act there cannot be any doubt that the authority contemplated is the High Court and the proceedings is the trial of an election petition. Neither Art.192(1) (b) nor S.8A of the Act confers on the President any authority to decide the question whether the alleged corrupt practice has been proved or not The above expression, therefore, far from ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court, only confirms it. 7. Regarding the second question, by the plain meaning of the words used in Art.192(1) (b) the reference is confined to the question whether the person found guilty of corrupt practice by the competent authority shall be disqualified for being chosen as or for being a member of the legislature of a State or either House of the Parliament. The contention urged by the first respondent is essentially grounded on the expression "shall be disqualified for being chosen as and for being a member" occurring in Art.192(1)(b) of the Constitution as it now stands. The words are certainly capable of the construction that the disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice is a bar both for the acquisition and the retention of the membership of the legislature. The question is whether the bar regarding the initial choice can operate with respect to the election in which the corrupt practice was indulged in When corrupt practice is alleged in an election petition and the allegation is proved according to law the High Court is bound to declare the election as void, an 1 the relevant orders are to be passed under S.98 and 99 of the Act. In such a case the High Court invalidates the election not because the corrupt practice proved in the case operates as a disqualification but because corrupt practice is one of the grounds mentioned in S.100 of the Act. Disqualifications for membership of the concerned legislature are enumerated in Art.102 and 191 of the Constitution and S.8 to 10A of the Act. The only provision regarding disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice is that contained in S.8A of the Act, which is already extracted According to S.8A it is for the President to decide in accordance with the provisions of that section whether the person found guilty of corrupt practice is to be disqualified, and if so for what period. The only provision regarding disqualification on the ground of corrupt practice is that contained in S.8A of the Act, which is already extracted According to S.8A it is for the President to decide in accordance with the provisions of that section whether the person found guilty of corrupt practice is to be disqualified, and if so for what period. The ground as well as the occasion for the submission of that question for determination by the President is the order passed by the High Court under S.99 of the Act. The order under S 99 of the Act is a further order the High Court has to pronounce when it renders its decision under S.98 of the Act. Thus it is only after the High Court finally disposes of the election petition involving an issue of corrupt practice that the question whether the same corrupt practice could operate as a disqualification can ever arise. It may be noted in this context that Art.192 (1) (b) does not indicate the procedure to be followed in making a reference to the President for the obvious reason that the procedure is laid down in S.8A of the Act. It would appear that in enacting Art.192 (1) (b) the intention of the legislature was to include the other essential contents of S.8A of the Act in a constitutional provision. It is, therefore, clear that the expression "tor being chosen as" found in Art.192 (1) (b) of Constitution cannot and does not apply to the trial of the election petition involving an issue regarding corrupt practice. 8. One may then be tempted to ask why the expression "for being chosen as" finds a place in Art.192 (1) (b) at all It could be seen from the proviso to S.8 A of the Act that if the President on motion by the appropriate authority decides to disqualify the person guilty of corrupt practice, the period of disqualification can extend to six years, and the starting point of the period is the date on which the order passed by the High Court under S 99 of the Act takes effect. If before the expiration of the period of disqualification determined by the President in accordance with S.8A of the Act. If before the expiration of the period of disqualification determined by the President in accordance with S.8A of the Act. a fresh election is necessitated by the dissolution of a legislature, by the expiration of the normal period of the House as prescribed by law or by a seat falling vacant for some other reason, the person disqualified by the decision of the President cannot and shall not be permitted to contest that fresh election. It is to place that prohibition beyond any doubt that the expression "for being chosen as" has been included in Art.192(1)(b) of the Constitution The authority conferred and the function assigned to the High Court under the relevant provisions of the Act on the one part, and the power conferred on the President by S 8A of the Act and Art.192(1)(b) of the Constitution on the other, are intended to deal with two different consequences following from the commission of any corrupt practice in an election. The inter-connection between the two authorise is that the power of the President starts only after the High Court has discharged its functions in relation to the election petition filed under the Act. By amending the old Art.192(1) what the legislature has done is to include the original provision as clause (1)(a) and add the contents of S.8A (excluding the procedural part) of the Act as amended by Act 40 of 1975 as clause (b). I am thus unable to road into Art.192(1)(b) any intention either express or implied to oust the jurisdiction of the court to try in an election petition an issue relating to corrupt practice and render appropriate decision on the basis of the finding on that issue. The preliminary objection has, only to be repelled; and I do so. In the result, overruling the preliminary objection, I hold, that this court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the relevant election petition. The first respondent may, if so advised, file his written statement on or before 4th July 1977.