The judgment established the principle that certain clerical errors in the nomination paper, which do not affect the prescribed qualifications or disqualifications, may not constitute defects of substantial character warranting rejection.

1. By this application under Ss. 80, 80-A and 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the petitioner has called in question the election of Sri Kapil Sibal respondent No. 1 as a member of Council of States in the election held on 18th day of June, 1998. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are remaining elected members of the Rajya Sabha. Election of respondent No. 1 has been assailed on the ground that the Returning Officer improperly accepted the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 as his nomination paper was not filled in accordance with S. 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. In a nutshell, case of the election-petitioner is that the respondent No. 1 had not filled at the columns of the nomination paper properly as he did not give his postal address in his nomination paper in the relevant column which requires imperatively to furnish complete and full postal address so that a letter may reach the candidates house easily and without any difficulty. However, respondent No. 1 instead of giving his complete and full postal address has given merely Shastri Nagar, Patna. He has not given his house number, name of the post office, number of Pin Code and the name of the district. So it was no more than an apology of an address hence it was equal to not giving any address at all.

2. The petitioner has sought a declaration that he should be declared as duly elected member of Council of the State after setting aside the election of respondent No. 1. There were eight contestants including the election-petitioner for election of seven members of the Council for the State in the State of Bihar. The election-petitioner was an independent candidate but he was supported by Samta Party. Respondent No. 1 represented Indian National Congress. The other respondents likewise were candidates of different parties. Polling of the said election was held on 18-6-1998 and the counting of the ballot papers were completed on the same day. After counting the value of first preference vote in the first count was determined. After completing first round of counting, quota was determined at 3926. Thereafter process of distribution of surplus votes and method of elimination were followed. In the end the petitioner was eliminated and respondents Nos. 1 to 7 were declared elected to Council of States from the State of Bihar.

3. It is contended that in case nomination paper of respondent No. 1 was rejected by the Returning Officer, the number of contesting candidate would have been reduced from eight to seven which was equal to the number of seats required to be filled up. In this situation, the petitioner would have been declared elected uncontested as provided under S. 53(2) of the Act. It is contended that the nomination paper filed by respondent No. 1 ought to have been rejected outright at the time of scrutiny because respondent No. 1 in his nomination paper had not furnished complete and full address and such defect was defect of substantial character. The Returning Officer had no alternative but to reject the nomination paper of respondent No. 1 under S. 36(2)(b) on account of non-compliance of mandatory provisions of S. 33 of the Act.

4. The nomination paper filed by respondent No. 1 is Ext. 1. Name of respondent No. 1 appears at serial No. 1829, Part 18 Assembly Constituency No. 206, Patna. The respondent No. 1 has given his address as Shastri Nagar, Patna. Respondent No. 1 has prayed for dismissing the election petition on the ground that the election petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. It does not disclose any cause of action nor does the petitioner has any cause of action. Respondent No.1 denied that nomination paper of respondent No. 1 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer and the petitioner is entitled to be declared uncontested. Respondent No. 1 was present before the Returning Officer. He found his nomination paper valid and in order. It is stated in the written statement that neither the petitioner