SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1955 Supreme(SC) 112

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2nd December 1955
S.R. DAS, ACTG. C.J.I., BOSE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHA DAS AND SINHA, JJ.
Pratap Singh, Appellant
Versus
Shri Krishna Gupta and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 294 of 1955,
Advocates appeared
Mr. B.B. Tawakley, Senior Advocate (Mr. K. P. Gupta, Advocate with him), for Appellant; Mr. : R. S. Dabir and Mr. R. A. Govind, Advocates, for Respondent No. 1.

Advocates:
B.B.TAVAKLEY, K.P.GUPTA, R.A.GOVIND, R.S.DABIR

Headnote:Statutes-Mandatory and directory provisions. See under "Municipalities" post.-C.P. Berar Municipalities Act (II of 1912), Sections 15, 18, 23, 175(1) and Rules under Section 18-Rule 9-Whether man to directory Interpretation.

       Foreign Decisions as precedents-Their value.

       The appellant was a candidate for the office of President of the Municipal Committee of Damoh. The respondents were also candidates. The nominations were made on forms supplied by the Municipal Committee but it turned out that the forms were old ones that had not been brought up to date. Under the old rules candidates were required to give their caste, but on 23-7-1949 this was changed and instead of caste their occupation had to be entered. The -only person who kept himself abreast of law was the first respondent. He struck out the word "caste" in the printed form and wrote in "occupation" instead and then gave his occupation, as the new rule required and not his caste. All the other candidates, including the appellant filled in their forms as they stood and entered their caste and not their occupation. Objection of the first respondent to the validity of the other nominations was overruled by the Supervising Officer, and the election proceeded. The appellant secured the highest number of votes and was declared to be elected. The first respondent thereupon filed the election petition. He failed in the trial court, it being held that the defect was not substantial and was curable. The High Court reversed it on revision holding that any failure to comply with any of the provisions set out in the various rules is fatal and in such cases the nomination paper must be rejected.

       Held (allowing the appeal): (1) Tendency towards technicality must be deprecated. It is substance that counts and must take precedence over mere form. Some rules are vital and go to the root of the matter; they cannot be broken; others are only directory, and a breach of them can be overlooked provided there is substantial compliance with the rules read as whole and provided no prejudice ensures; and when the legislature does not itself state which is which judges must determine the matter and, exercising a nice discrimination, sort out one class from the other along broad based commonsense lines.1

       (2) The rules cannot travel beyond the Act and must be read subject to its provisions. Reading Rule 9(1) (iii) (c) in the light of section 232, all that is to be seen is whether an omission to set out a candidates occupation can be said to affect "the merits of the case." It does not. This part of the form is only directory and is part of the description of the candidate; it does not go to the root of the matter so long as there is enough material in the paper to enable him to be identified beyond doubt. Disclosure of a candidates occupation would not necessarily, reveal that he holds any office of profit under the committee.3

       1.Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amritsar v. Income-tax Officer, Lahore, A.I.R. 1940 P.C. 230, 233 referred to.

       2.Section 23 of the Act reads: "Anything done or proceeping taken under thi5 Act shall not be questioned on account of any defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case."

       3. Rattan Anmol Singh v. Alma Ram, (1955) IS.C.R. 481: A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 510 distinguished.

       (3) The court can derive no assistance from decisions that deal with other laws made in other countries to deal with situations that do not necessarily arise in India. - Precedents-Foreign Decisions.

       Held: The Court can derive no assistance from decisions that deal with other law made in other countries to deal with situations that do not necessarily arise in India.

Judgement

BOSE, J. : The appellant was a candidate for the office of President of the Municipal Committee of Damoh. The respondents (seven of them) were also candidates. The nominations were made on forms supplied by the Municipal committee but it turned out that the forms were old ones that had not been brought up to date. Under the old rules candidates were required to give their caste, but on 23-7-1949 this was changed and instead of caste their occupation had to be entered. The only person who kept himself abreast of the law was the first respondent. He struck out the word "caste" in the printed form and wrote in "occupation" instead and then gave his occupation as the new rule required, and not his caste. All the other candidates, including the appellant, filed in their forms as they stood and entered their caste and not their occupation. The first respondent raised an objection before the Supervising Officer and contended that all the other nominations were invalid and claimed that he should be elected as his was the only valid nomination paper. The objection was overruled and the election proceeded.

2. The appellant secured the highest number of votes and was declared to be elected. The first respondent thereupon filed the election petition out of which this appeal arises. He failed in the trial Court. The learned Judge held that the defect was not substantial and so held that it was curable. This was revered by the High Court on revision. The learned High Court Judges referred to a decision of this Court in - Rattan Anmol Singh v. Atma Ram , AIR 1954 SC 510 (A) and held that any failure to comply with any of the provisions set out in the various rules is fatal and that in such cases the nomination paper must be rejected.

3. We do not think that is right and we deprecate this tendency towards technicality; it is the substance that counts and must take precedence over mere form. Some rules are vital and go to the root of the matter : they cannot be broken; others are only directory and a breach of them can be overlooked provided there is substantial compliance with the rules read as whole and provided no prejudice ensures; and when the legislature does not itself state which is which judges must determine the matter and, exercising a nice discrimination, sort out one class from the other along broad based, commonsense lines. This principle was enunciated by Viscount Maugham in - Punjab Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amritsar v. Income-tax Officer, Lahore , AIR 1940 PC 230 at p. 233 (B) and was quoted by the learned High Court Judges :

"It is well settled general rule that an absolute enactment must be obeyed or fulfilled exactly, but it is sufficient if a directory enactment be obeyed or fulfilled substantially."

4. But part from that, this is to be found in the Act itself.

5. The learned High Court Judges were of opinion that the directions here about the occupation were mandatory. That, we think, is wrong.

6. The present matter is governed by section 18 of the Central Provinces and Berar Municipalities Act (11) of 1922. Among other things, the section empowers the State Government to

"make rules under this Act regulating the mode .... of election of presidents ....." and section 175(1) directs that

"all rules for which provision is made in this Act shall be made by the State Government and shall be consistent with this Act."

7. Now one of the provisions of the Act, the one that directly concerns us, is set out in section 23 :

"Anything done or any proceedings taken under this Act shall not be questioned .... on account of any defect or irregularity not affecting the merits of the case." The rules have, therefore, to be construed in the light of that provision.

8. Rules 9(1) (i) states that -

"..... each candidate shall ...... deliver to the Supervising Officer a nomination paper completed in the form appended and subscribed by the candidate himself as assenting to the nomination and by two duly qualified electors as propose and second
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top