Back
1966 Supreme(SC) 54
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B.Gajendragadkar, C.J.I., J C Shah, K N Wanchoo, S M Sikri, V R Ramaswami, JJ.
RANJIT SINGH
VERSUS
PRITAM SINGH & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 459 of 1965
decided on February 8, 1966.
Production of an incomplete copy of the relevant part of the electoral roll, specifically omitting amendment lists, is a defect of a substantial character under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, as it prevents the returning officer from verifying the candidate's qualification, justifying the rejection of nomination papers.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Sections 33(5) and 36(4) - Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - Filing of nomination papers - Production of electoral roll - Requirement of a complete copy of the relevant part of the roll - Failure to produce a complete copy, including all amendments, constitutes a defect of a substantial character - Nomination papers liable to be rejected.
(B) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Section 33(5) - Multiple nomination papers - It is not necessary to file a copy of the electoral roll with every nomination paper; one copy produced at the time of scrutiny or filed with one of the papers is sufficient to satisfy the returning officer regarding the candidate's qualification.
(C) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Section 13D - Parliamentary vs. Assembly electoral rolls - Since the electoral roll for a parliamentary constituency consists of the electoral rolls of the assembly constituencies comprised within it, a copy of the assembly constituency roll is sufficient to prove qualification for a parliamentary election.
Facts of the case:
A candidate filed three nomination papers for a parliamentary election. A copy of a part of the electoral roll was attached to only one of the papers. The returning officer rejected the first paper on certain grounds and the subsequent two papers because no copy of the electoral roll was attached to them, refusing to refer to the copy attached to the first rejected paper. The High Court had set aside the election, holding the rejection improper.
Findings of Court:
The returning officer was wrong in not considering the copy filed with the first nomination paper for the scrutiny of others. However, the copy produced was not a complete copy of the relevant part of the roll as it omitted several pages, including the final list of amendments.
Issues: Whether a copy of the electoral roll must be filed with each nomination paper; whether an assembly constituency roll suffices for a parliamentary election; and whether the production of an incomplete copy of the relevant part of the roll is a defect of a substantial character.
Ratio Decidendi: The object of Section 33(5) is to enable the returning officer to verify the candidate's qualification. Since names can be deleted via amendments, a "relevant part" of the roll must be produced in its entirety, including all amendments. An incomplete copy makes it impossible to determine if a candidate's name was deleted, thus constituting a defect of a substantial character under Section 36(4), justifying the rejection of the nomination regardless of the reasons initially given by the returning officer.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
election law
-
nomination process
-
scrutiny of nomination papers
- electoral roll requirements
-
scrutiny of nomination papers
- election petitions
-
nomination process
JUDGMENT
Wanchoo, J. - This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment of the Punjab High Court. In the general election held in 1962 for Parliament (House of the People), the appellant was elected from the Sangrur parliamentary constituency. Pritam Singh respondent was also one of the contesting candidates but lost in the election. Thereupon he filed an election petition against the appellant challenging his election on a number of grounds. In the present appeal we are only concerned with one ground, and that was that the nomination papers of one of the candidates for the election, namely, Wazir Singh, had been rejected improperly by the returning officer. Wazir Singh had filed three nomination papers; with one of them he had attached a copy of a part of the electoral roll. He attached no such copy with the other two nomination papers. When the nomination papers were being scrutinised, an objection was taken to the validity of the nomination papers. The returning officer first took up the nomination paper with which a copy of part of the roll had been filed and rejected it on the ground that the name of the parliamentary constituency and the name of the village and the assembly constituency and the part number of the electoral roll of the candidate was not mentioned and also because the name of the parliamentary constituency (House of the People) of the proposer was not given. After rejecting the nomination paper, the returning officer took up the other two nomination papers and rejected them on the ground that a copy of the electoral roll of the constituency concerned or of the relevant part thereof of a certified copy of the relevant entries had not been filed along with these nomination papers. It may be added that the returning officer refused to look into the copy of the part of the roll which Wazir Singh had filed along with his nomination paper which the returning officer had already rejected before he took up the other nomination papers.
The main contention of respondent Pritam Singh in the election petition was that the returning officer was wrong in not looking into the copy of the part of the roll which had been filed with the first nomination paper of Wazir Singh and that merely because that nomination paper had been rejected, the returning officer was not precluded from looking into the copy of the part of the roll which had been produced with that nomination paper for the purpose of scrutiny of the other two nomination papers. The appellant on the other hand contended that the nomination papers had been rightly rejected, and this contention was based on three points raised on his behalf, namely - (i) that a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or a relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries of such roll should have been produced with each nomination paper separately; (ii) in any case the copy produced should have been of the parliamentary constituency and not of the assembly constituency; and (iii) that the copy produced of the part of the roll was not a complete copy of the part and therefore was not a compliance with the requirements of Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, No. 43 of 1950, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
The Election Tribunal seems to have taken the view that the copy filed along with the first nomination paper could not be looked into when the returning officer came to scrutinise the other nomination papers, even if it might be assumed to be a copy of the parliamentary electoral roll. It further held that even if the copy could be looked into, it was not a complete copy and therefore there was no compliance with Section 33(5) of the Act and in consequence the Tribunal held that the returning officer was justified in rejecting the nomination papers notwithstanding the provisions of section 36(4) of the Act.
Pritam Singh then went in appeal to the High Court. The High Court held that the returning officer was wrong in not looking int
