1. Election to Legislative Assembly — Rejection of nomination papers by returning officer for alleged non-compliance with Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1959 Supreme(SC) 167
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
25th September, 1959.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.
Dev Kanta Barooah, Appellant
Versus
Kusharam Nath and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 411 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate, with him), for Appellant; Mr. Sadhan Chandra Gupta, Senior Advocate (Mr. Janardan Sharma, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 1126
Advocates:
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, JANARDAN SHARMA, NAUNIT LAL, Sadhan Ch.Gupta
A.V.VISHWANATHA SASTRI, JANARDAN SHARMA, NAUNIT LAL, Sadhan Ch.Gupta
A nomination paper is not defective if the name of the constituency is mentioned in substance and can be reasonably inferred from the context, even if the exact technical terminology is not used.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 33(4), 36(2)(b), 36(3), 36(4) and 100(1)(c) - Nomination papers - Electoral roll number - Name of constituency - Compliance with statutory requirements - If the nomination paper, when read as a whole, reasonably indicates the name of the constituency, a technical omission of the words "Assembly Constituency" after the name of the place does not render the nomination paper defective. (Paras 7, 8)
(B) Section 36(4) - Rejection of nomination paper - Only defects of a substantial character can lead to rejection. However, if the nomination paper is found not to be defective on a reasonable construction, the question of whether the defect is substantial does not arise. (Paras 6, 10)
Facts of the case:
A candidate filed multiple nomination papers for a general seat in a double-member constituency. The returning officer rejected all nomination papers on the ground that they failed to comply with the requirement of specifying the electoral roll number, specifically the name of the constituency, as required by law. The candidate challenged the election of the successful candidate, and the Election Tribunal and High Court ruled that the nomination papers had been improperly rejected.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the nomination papers mentioned the legislative assembly constituency and the name of the place. Reading the entries as a whole, it was reasonable to conclude that the name of the constituency had been mentioned in substance. The technical objection regarding the exact phrasing was not sustainable.
Issues: Whether the nomination papers were improperly rejected by the returning officer for failing to comply with the requirement of specifying the name of the constituency in the electoral roll number.
Ratio Decidendi: A nomination paper should be construed reasonably. If the entries, when read in the context of the whole document, sufficiently identify the constituency and the electoral roll details, the paper cannot be rejected for a mere technical inaccuracy in the description of the constituency.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the omission of the words Assembly Constituency after the name of the place in the nomination paper constitutes a failure to specify the constituency name. (Para 8 )
3. The use of the place name alongside references to the Legislative Assembly and correct roll numbers reasonably identifies the constituency, rendering the objection merely technical. (Para 8 , 9 )
4. A nomination paper is valid if the constituency is reasonably identifiable from the entries, and technical inaccuracies in the name do not warrant rejection. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 11 )
6. What constitutes the electoral roll number for the purpose of a nomination paper under the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
The electoral roll number consists of the serial number of the entry in the electoral roll, the serial number of the part of the electoral roll in which such entry occurs, and the name of the constituency to which the electoral roll relates. (Para 7 )
7. Does the omission of the specific phrase Assembly Constituency after the name of the place in a nomination paper lead to its rejection?
No, if the entries as a whole reasonably indicate the intended constituency and the serial numbers of the entry and part are correct, the name of the constituency is considered to have been mentioned in substance. (Para 8 , 9 )
8. When is a defect in a nomination paper considered sufficient for rejection under the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
A nomination paper may be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) for failure to comply with Section 33 or 34, provided the defect is of a substantial character as required by Section 36(4). (Para 6 )
Judgment
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. : On September 15, 1959, after this appeal was argued before us, we announced our decision that the appeal had failed and was dismissed with costs, and we stated that our judgment will follow. Accordingly the present judgment is now being delivered in the said appeal.
2. Was the nomination paper of Kusharam Nath, respondent 1, improperly rejected by the returning officer ? - that is the short question which falls to be considered in this appeal by special leave.
3. The said question arises in this way. The Nowgong constituency of the Assam Legislative Assembly which is a double-member constituency was called upon to elect two members to the Assam Legislative Assembly, one from the Scheduled Castes and the other from the general body of the electorate. Dev Kanta Barooah, the appellant, filed his nomination paper for election to the general seat and respondent 1 filed five nomination papers for the said seat. Baliram Das, respondent 4, and Mahendra Nath Hazarika, respondent 5, filed their nomination papers for the reserved seat whereas two other candidates had filed their nomination papers for the reserved seat whereas two other candidates had filed their nomination papers for the general seat. On February 1, 1957, the nomination papers of all the candidates were scrutinised by the returning officer; an objection was raised on behalf of the appellant against the nomination papers filed by respondent 1. This objection was upheld by the returning officer who rejected all the nomination papers of respondent 1 under S. 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). The rejection of the said nomination papers was based on the finding that they did not comply with the provisions of S. 33(4) of the Act.
4. Subsequently on March 2, 1957, election took place for the said constituency and the counting of votes followed on March 3, 1957 and March 5, 1957. In the result the appellant was declared duly elected to the general seat and respondent 5 to fill the reserved seat.
5. Respondent 1 then challenged the election of the appellant by his Election Petition No. 9 of 1957 on the ground that his own nomination papers had been improperly rejected by the returning officer. The appellant and respondent 5 resisted this petition. On December 12, 1957, the Election Tribunal allowed the petition and set aside the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination papers of respondent 1 had been improperly rejected. Against this decision the appellant filed an appeal before the Assam High Court (First Appeal No. 56 of 1957)* under S. 116A of the Act. The learned judges of the High Court agreed with the view taken by the tribunal and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant on April 17, 1958. The appellant then applied for and obtained special leave from this Court to appeal against the said decision of the High Court. That is how this appeal has come before us and the only point which it raises for our decision is whether the High Court was in error in confirming the finding of the tribunal that the nomination papers of respondent 1 had been improperly rejected by the returning officer.
6. It would be relevant at this stage to refer very briefly to the relevant provisions of the Act. The petition filed by respondent 1 asked for a declaration that the election of the appellant is void under S. 100, sub-sec. (1)(c) of the Act. If it is shown that the nomination papers of respondent 1 had been improperly rejected the election of the appellant would have to be declared to be void. This position is not in dispute. The defect in the nomination papers which had been successfully urged by the appellant before the returning officer is alleged to be covered by S. 36, sub-sec. 2(b) of the Act. This clause deals with cases where there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of S. 33 or S. 34 of the Act. Section 36(3) provides that, if a candidate has file
