174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19'73] 1 S.C.R. 1 S.C.R. S.C.R. Jtbar Singh & Ors., [1960] 1 S.C.R. 168; R. C. Jacob v. Union of lndic, A [1963] 3 S.C.R. 800; State of Madhya Pradesh v. M/s. Azqd Bhar.:zt Finance Co. & Anr. A.l.R. 1967 S.C. 276; Hira Devi "'· Diatrict Board, Shabiahanpur, A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 362 & 365, fe~~ to. From the language as well as the legislative history of Arts. 171 and 173 of the Constitution and s. 6 of the Representation of tbe People Act, 1951, it cq_uld be presumed that the omissiott ~ of tbe qualificaon that the representative of graduate should also be a graduate was delibe~ B ra~. By presumin~ such an intention of the law makors, no absurdity results. By adding 'deemed to be airy' or 'implied' qualification of a rupresentative of the graduates, which the Constitution mak.rs or Parliament could easily have imposed, t,lle Court would be invading the legislative spre. [18F1 CIVIL APPEI..,LATE JURISDICTION: C.A. No. 189 of 1971. c · Appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 from the judgment a!lld order dated January 8, 1971 of the Madras aigh Court in Election Petition No. 1 of 1970. . . V. P. Raman and Vineet Kumar, for the appellant. I agdish Swurup, Socilitor -General of India, B. D. Sharma and · n S. P. Nayar, for the Election Commission of India. J!. Sen and Sobhag Mal lain, for the Supreme Court Bar Association. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Beg, J. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the RepreE. sentation of People Act, 1951. The appellant's election, held on 11-4-1970, to the· Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates' Constituency was set aside by a learned Judg of the Madras High Co.!lrt who decided aU the issues except one in favour of the appellant. The only issue decided against the appellant, which is now before us, was framed as follows : F . "Whether the first Respondent was not qualified to stand for election_ to the Graduates Constituency on all or any of the grounds set out by the petitioner in paragraph 7 to. 9 of the election Petition" ? Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the election petition against ~ apwJlant are lengthy, prolix, and argumentative. The case and the conG tentions of the Respondent G. Panneerselvam, the petitioner before the High Court, .which were accepted by the High Court, may be summarised as follows : Firstly, the whole purpose of Artfcle 171 of the Constitution was to confer a right of "functional representation" upon persons possessing certain educational or otbr qualifications so that the H Appellant Narayanaswami, who had only passed the High School Leaving Examination and wa not a Graduate, could not be elected
