Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, J.
Suja L, W/o Bhuvanendran – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondent
WP(C) No. 43328 of 2024
Decided on : 09-12-2024
(A) Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 - Section 28B - Election to the Managing Committee - Rejection of nominations of petitioners on grounds of non-compliance with nomination requirements - Court held that defects were of substantial character, justifying rejection - No interference warranted as rejection was legal and valid. (Paras 11, 14, 18)
(B) Election Law - Validity of nominations - Minor inaccuracies in nomination papers cannot be grounds for rejection if identity is established - Court emphasized the need for substantial compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners contested the rejection of their nominations for the Managing Committee elections, claiming it was arbitrary and illegal, citing minor defects in their nomination papers.
Findings of Court:
The court found the rejection of nominations to be legal and valid, with substantial defects justifying the decision.
Issues: The main issues were whether the grounds for rejection of nominations were substantial and whether the court should intervene in the election process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the rejection of nominations was justified due to substantial defects, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory requirements in election law.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
The legal judgment clearly emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements in election nominations, particularly within the context of cooperative society elections. The court upheld the rejection of nominations due to substantial defects, asserting that such defects justify rejection and cannot be overlooked, even if they are minor or technical in nature (!) (!) .
Specifically, the court found that failure to produce the requisite security deposit (challan) with the nomination papers constituted a substantial defect, as the deposit is a mandatory requirement for validity (!) . Similarly, the absence of the candidate’s address in the nomination paper was deemed a significant defect, necessary for proper identification of the candidate (!) . The requirement for proof of age in cases where age is a qualification was also considered a substantial defect, and its absence justified rejection (!) .
Regarding the declaration requirements, the court held that the specific declaration to be signed by the candidate must be in the prescribed form, expressing willingness to contest and confirming no disqualifications. A nomination lacking this declaration, or containing a different declaration, was considered invalid because it failed to meet the statutory form and requirements (!) (!) .
The court also noted that the rules do not provide for rejection based on minor inaccuracies or technical errors, but defects of substantial character—those that go to the core of the nomination’s validity—are valid grounds for rejection. The rejection based on the absence of the required documents and proper declarations was therefore justified and within the legal framework (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the rejection of the nominations was legal and valid, and that the election process was not liable to interference on the grounds of procedural defects that are deemed substantial under the applicable election laws (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :
The petitioners are Class A members of the 6th respondent, Nellimoodu Vanitha Co-operative Society Ltd. No. T-1334 (for short 'the Society'). Class A members of the Society are eligible to vote and contest election to the Managing Committee of the Society. The State Co-operative Election Commission, issued Ext.P4 notification for election to the Managing Committee of the Society in terms of Section 28B of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) read with Rule 35A of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'). The number of vacancies (seats) to be filled up by election is notified as 7', comprising four seats under the general category, one seat for SC/ST category and two seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years. As per the election programme, the date for making nominations was 28.11.2024 and the scrutiny of nominations was slated on 29.11.2024. The date for withdrawal of nominations was fixed as 30.11.2024 and the notified date for poll is 15.12.2024.
2. The petitioners submitted their nomination papers on 28.11.2024; the 1st petitioner to contest in the general category, the 2nd petitioner in the seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years and the 3rd petitioner in the category reserved for SC/ST. The nominations were filed in the prescribed form, and the petitioners made the required deposit under Rule 35A(6)(b) of the Rules as evidenced by Exts. P5 to P7 receipts. Altogether 13 nominations were received. Ext. P8 is the list of nominations received and published by the Returning Officer, the 5th respondent.
3. The scrutiny of nominations was conducted by the Returning Officer on 29.11.2024. The petitioners state that the scrutiny, which commenced at 11:00 a.m., was completed by 11:30 a.m., and their nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer. The petitioners further state that no reason whatsoever was provided for rejecting their nominations. Ext. P9 is the list of validly nominated candidates. There are 9 valid nominations. Before the expiry of the time fixed for withdrawal of candidatures, two candidates withdrew their nomination. Ext. P11 is the final list of contesting candidates which included only 7 seven candidates for the 7 seats notified for election.
4. As per Rule 35A(6)(h) of the Rules, if the number of validly nominated candidates in a constituency does not exceed the number of seats to be filled, the Returning Officer shall, on the day fixed for the election, declare them as duly elected to the Committee. Against the 4 seats coming under the general category, there are only 4 contesting candidates, and against one seat reserved for SC/ST, there is only one candidate and against the two seats reserved for candidates under the age of 40 years, there are only two candidates. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 35A(6)(h) of the Rules, all the persons listed in Ext. P11 will be declared duly elected to their respective constituencies on 15.12.2024, the day fixed for the election.
5. The petitioners submit that rejection of their nominations is illegal and arbitrary and would undermine the integrity of the election process. It is contended that a candidate's presence during the scrutiny is not mandatory and the rejection of their nominations solely due to their brief absence is arbitrary and unwarranted. It is further stated that the petitioners have been unlawfully excluded from the list of candidates thereby eliminating healthy electoral competition in violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Accordingly, the petitioners have filed this writ petition for direction to the Returning Officer to complete the scrutiny and verification of nominations of the petitioners in a time bound manner before the election slated on 15.12.2024, in accordance with Rule 35A of the Rules, and to include their names in the final list of the contesting candidates and for other allied reliefs.
6. Heard Sr
The rejection of nominations for election was upheld due to substantial defects in compliance with statutory requirements, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to election laws.
A Writ Court can interfere with the rejection of a nomination in an ongoing election if the rejection is patently illegal and can be corrected without obstructing or delaying the election process est....
A High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to correct the illegal rejection of an election nomination if the rejection is based on grounds not supported by the governing statute, p....
A nomination paper cannot be rejected on grounds not specifically prescribed in the statute or rules, and a candidate is not disqualified from proposing another candidate in the same constituency in ....
A Writ Court may intervene in an ongoing election process to set aside the rejection of a nomination when such rejection is patently illegal, lacks statutory backing, and can be rectified without int....
The rejection of a nomination paper on grounds not specified in the statutory rules is patently illegal, and this Court may, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, interfere with such rejection during....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
