ISSUE:
Whether the first Respondent (a non-graduate) was qualified to stand for election to the Graduates Constituency on all or any of the grounds set out by the petitioner or not?
Whether it is inconsistent or undermines representative principles if the elected candidate lacks the essential qualifications possessed by the electors?
Whether the Constitution, being an organic instrument, requires broad interpretation to uphold the intent of functional representation?
Whether Courts should rely on literal interpretation in the absence of ambiguity and avoid assuming unexpressed qualification?
RULE:
Methods other than literal construction of extracting the meaning can be resorted to only if the language used is contradictory, ambiguous, or leads really to absurd results.
It may be possible to look for legislative intention in materials outside the four-corners of a statute where its language is really ambiguous or conflicting.
Where no such difficulty arises, the mere fact that the intentions of the law makers, sought to be demonstrated by what was said by some of them or by those advising them when the Constitution was on the anvil, were really different from the result which clearly follows from language used in the Legislative provisions under consideration, could not authorize the use of such an exceptional mode of construction.