Who can contest from a Graduates Constituency?

A candidate for the Legislative Council need not be a graduate. Section 6 RPA, 1951 requires ordinary residence in the State; Article 173 applies, but no degree is mandated.

What interpretation method did the Court prefer?

The Court applied a literal reading since the text was clear and not absurd. Other methods are used only when language is conflicting or truly ambiguous.

Does ‘electorate’ mean representatives must be from the same group?

No. ‘Electorate’ refers to the body of voters. It does not restrict the pool of candidates to members of that electorate.

What was the final outcome?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s decision, and dismissed the election petition. The non-graduate candidacy was valid.

Why is this case important?

It clarifies that special electorates (like graduates) do not automatically impose identical qualifications on candidates and reaffirms disciplined statutory interpretation.

s-narayanaswami-v-g-pannerselvam-ors-1972-scc-3-713

Supreme Court of India illustration for Narayanaswami v. Pannerselvam

```

Quick Summary

The dispute was simple: can a non-graduate contest from a Graduates Constituency for a State Legislative Council seat? The Supreme Court said yes. The Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 do not add a degree requirement for candidates to the Legislative Council. The word electorate means voters as a group; it does not force candidates to be from that group. Because the text was clear, the Court used the literal rule and restored the election.

CASE_TITLE: S. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam & Ors. (1972) 3 SCC 713 • PUBLISH_DATE: 2025-10-31

Issues

Was a non-graduate qualified to stand from the Graduates Constituency?
Does representative democracy demand that the representative must share the electors’ qualification?
Should Courts use a broad, purposive reading here, or stick to the literal rule?
When text is clear, can Courts add an unstated qualification for candidates?

Rules

Literal rule first: Other methods are used only if the language is contradictory, ambiguous, or truly absurd.
External aids: Legislative history may be consulted only when the text is unclear.
No judicial add-ons: Courts cannot invent qualifications that the Constitution or statute does not contain.

Articles 171 & 173 (Constitution) and Sections 5–6 (RPA, 1951) set out separate rules for electors and candidates.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline of events for Narayanaswami v. Pannerselvam case

11 Apr 1970: Appellant elected to Madras Legislative Council from Madras District Graduates’ Constituency.

Challenge: A non-graduate cannot represent graduates; Article 171 allegedly implies “from among themselves”.

High Court: Set aside the election on this ground.

Appeal: Filed under Section 116A, Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Arguments

Appellant

Text of Article 171(3) and Section 6 RPA does not require a degree for candidates.
Electorate means voters; it does not limit who can be chosen.
Courts cannot add an extra qualification that the law-makers did not write.

Respondent

Functional representation implies graduates should be represented by a graduate.
Reading should reflect representative principles and constitutional intent.

Judgment

Held: Appeal allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision and upheld the election.

Reason: The Constitution and the RPA, 1951 do not require the candidate to be a member of the graduates’ electorate or to possess a degree. The word electorate describes voters only.

Ratio

Where text is clear, apply the literal rule. Special electorates do not, by themselves, confine the field of choice to persons with the same qualification as voters. Candidate qualifications for a Legislative Council seat are found in Article 173 and Section 6, RPA 1951 (ordinary residence), not in the description of the electorate in Article 171.

Why It Matters

Prevents courts from adding unexpressed candidate qualifications.
Preserves the design of Legislative Councils as heterogeneous, broad-based bodies.
Teaches disciplined use of interpretation tools: purposive only when text is unclear.

Key Takeaways

“Electorate” ≠ “Candidates must come from electors”.
For Legislative Council candidates: ordinary residence in the State (s.6 RPA) + Art. 173 basics.
Literal rule applies when the language is clear and non-absurd.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Voters ≠ Vetters” — voters choose; they don’t vet candidates by their own qualification.

Read Article 171: names the electorate groups.
Check Article 173 + Section 6 RPA for candidate rules.
Conclude: no graduate-only requirement for candidates.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can a non-graduate lawfully contest from a Graduates Constituency?

Rule

Apply the literal rule unless the text is unclear; candidate qualifications are expressly provided in the Constitution and RPA.

Application

No text links candidate eligibility to being a graduate or part of the graduates’ electorate.

Conclusion

Candidate need not be a graduate; election restored.

Glossary

Electorate: The group of voters entitled to vote in a constituency.
Literal Rule: Interpret words in their plain, ordinary meaning when the text is clear.
Legislative Council: Upper House in some Indian States; partly elected, partly nominated.