1. Nomination paper rejected for failure to state sub-division in the nomination form — Identification of candidate possible via electoral roll. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1954 Supreme(SC) 183
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mehr Chand Mahajan, CJI., Mukherjea, S.R. Das, Vivian Bose and Ghulam Hasan, JJ.
Karnail Singh - Appellant
Versus
Election Tribunal, Hissar and others - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 254 of 1953
Decided On : 22-09-1954
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : N. C. Chataterjee.
For the Appellant : N. C. Chataterjee.
A technical defect in a nomination paper, such as the omission of a sub-division name, does not justify rejection if the candidate remains easily identifiable, as such a defect is not of a substantial character.
Headnote:(A) Election Law - Nomination Paper - Rejection of nomination due to incomplete filling of form - Omission of sub-division name in the nomination form - Where candidate is easily identifiable and entry in electoral roll is pointed out to the Returning Officer, such defect is technical and not of a substantial character - Nomination paper should not have been rejected - Wrong rejection affecting the result of the election. (Para 1)
Facts of the case:
A nomination paper was rejected on the ground that a specific column regarding the sub-division was not filled. However, evidence showed there was no difficulty in identifying the candidate, and the candidate had pointed out the entry of their name in the electoral roll to the Returning Officer.
Findings of Court:
The omission of the sub-division name was a technical defect and not of a substantial character. The rejection of the nomination paper was wrong and affected the result of the election.
Issues: Whether the failure to state the name of the sub-division in the nomination form constitutes a substantial defect warranting the rejection of the nomination paper.
Ratio Decidendi: A technical defect in a nomination paper that does not impede the identification of the candidate is not substantial and does not justify the rejection of the nomination.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
election law
-
election petitions
-
nomination process
- rejection of nomination papers (Para 1)
-
nomination process
-
election petitions
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to the Tribunal's finding that the rejection of the nomination paper was wrong and affected the election result. (Para 2 )
3. Failure to state the sub-division is a technical defect if the candidate is easily identifiable and listed in the electoral roll. (Para 1 )
4. A technical defect in a nomination paper that does not impede the identification of the candidate is not of a substantial character. (Para 1 )
5. Appeal dismissed with costs. (Para 3 )
6. Does the omission of a sub-division name in a nomination form justify the rejection of the nomination paper?
No, if the defect is technical and there is no difficulty in identifying the candidate, particularly when the candidate is listed in the electoral roll, the defect is not of a substantial character to warrant rejection. (Para 1 )
JUDGMENT :
Mehr Chand Mahajan, C.J.I.
1. The Tribunal in this case held that the nomination paper of Sher Singh was wrongly rejected on the ground that column 8 in the nomination form was not duly filled up. The only defect pointed out was that the name of the sub-division was not stated therein, but on the evidence it was quite clear that there was no difficulty in identifying the candidate and the candidate himself pointed out to the Returning Officer the entry of his name in the electoral roll. The defect, in these circumstances, was a technical one and the Tribunal was perfectly right in holding that the was not of a substantial character and that the nomination paper should not have been rejected. The majority of the Tribunal, in these circumstances, were justified in their conclusion that the result of the election was affected by this wrong rejection of the nomination paper.
2. Mr Chatterjee for the appellant has not been able to persuade us to take a contrary view.
3. The result, therefore, is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
