Summary
The Supreme Court held that an election to fill a casual vacancy in the CCIM presidency was for the outgoing President’s unexpired term, rather than a fresh five years. Dr Vanitha R.’s March 2017 election therefore conferred tenure only until 4 July 2017. The Ministry’s earlier contrary interpretation and the election notice’s reference to Section 7(1) could not enlarge that statutory tenure. The Court allowed the Ministry’s appeal, upheld the 23 March 2018 election and directed counting and declaration of its result within ten days, without costs.
Issues
- Whether the casual-vacancy provision covered the presidency and vice-presidency as well as ordinary Council membership.
- Whether the earlier Ministry decision, election notice or vice-presidential rotation regulation conferred a fresh five-year presidential term.
- Whether the March 2018 election and declaration of its result should stand.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3 and 7, Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970Council membership was prerequisite to holding the presidency or vice-presidency. Read harmoniously with the ordinary term provision, section 7(3) confined election to a casual presidential vacancy to the outgoing officeholder’s remaining term. (¶¶ 7–11, 18–19)
- Regulation 5, Central Council of Indian Medicine (General) Regulations, 1976The provision for Vice-Presidents to act in rotation during a vacancy or inability did not override the Act or confer a fresh five-year term on a President elected to a casual vacancy. (¶ 14–19)
Held
- A President or Vice-President must first be a Council member and ceases to hold that office upon ceasing to be a member. Where loss of membership also creates a presidential or vice-presidential vacancy, that vacancy falls within section 7(3). (¶ 8–11)
- Sections 7(1) and 7(3) must be read together. The March 2017 election filled a casual presidential vacancy, so respondent 1’s term ended on 4 July 2017, when her predecessor’s presidential term would have ended had he continued as a member. It did not begin a new five-year term. (¶¶ 9–11, 18–19)
- Tenure derived from the statute rather than the Ministry’s earlier decision. Even assuming absence of a review power, a mistaken governmental interpretation could not extend the term, and writ relief could not perpetuate unauthorised continuation in office. (¶ 12–13)
- Regulation 5 concerned acting arrangements for Vice-Presidents and could not displace the Act’s express casual-vacancy rule. Nor did omission of section 7(3) from the election notice alter the legal character or duration of the election. (¶ 14–19)
- The Division Bench order was set aside and the 23 March 2018 election upheld. Votes were to be counted and the result declared according to law within ten days; any court stay on declaration ceased to operate. The appeal was allowed without costs. (¶ 20–21)
Result
Appeal allowed; Division Bench order set aside and 23 March 2018 election upheld. Counting and declaration directed within ten days, with stays on declaration ceasing to operate. No costs.