Back
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.C. Jain
Bhom Raj - Appellant
Versus
Devi Singh Bhati - Respondent
S.B. Election Petition No. 5 of 1985
Decided On : 07/11/1988
ELECTION PETITION - NOMINATION PAPER REJECTION - AGE OMISSION - CERTIFIED COPY OF ELECTORAL ROLL - CORRUPT PRACTICE - PUBLICATION OF DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS - ADDITIONAL POLLING STATIONS - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 33(5), 36(4), 123(4).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the election of the returned candidate, Shri Devisingh Bhati, on the grounds of improper rejection of a nomination paper, illegal establishment of additional polling stations, and publication of false and defamatory statements affecting the personal character and conduct of a formidable candidate, Smt. Kanta Khaturia, during the election.
Finding of the Court:
1. The nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was properly rejected as he failed to fill in the age column and did not make any declaration regarding his age. The Returning Officer acted in accordance with the law and provided ample time for Shri Mohammed Ali to rectify the omission, but he failed to do so. 2. The establishment of additional polling stations was not illegal as it was done with the consent of the Election Commission and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Chief Election Commission. The petitioners failed to prove that a large number of voters were prevented from exercising their right to franchise due to the establishment of these additional polling stations. 3. The publication of defamatory statements in the form of a pamphlet and a weekly paper was not proved to have been done with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. The petitioners failed to establish that the statements were false and were believed to be false by the respondent or his agents, and that they were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of Smt. Kanta Khaturia's election.
Issues: 1. Whether the nomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was improperly rejected by the Returning Officer? 2. Whether the statements contained in the pamphlet and newspaper were false and published with the consent of the respondent, affecting the election prospects of Smt. Kanta Khaturia? 3. Whether the establishment of additional polling stations was illegal and affected the election result? 4. Whether the respondent committed corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Returning Officer is required to reject a nomination paper if the candidate fails to fill in the age column or make a declaration regarding their age. The omission of age in the nomination paper is a substantial defect that cannot be overlooked. The certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll cannot be considered a declaration of age by the candidate. 2. The establishment of additional polling stations is not illegal if it is done with the consent of the Election Commission and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Chief Election Commission. The petitioners must prove that a large number of voters were prevented from exercising their right to franchise due to the establishment of these additional polling stations. 3. To establish corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petitioners must prove that the statements were false and were believed to be false by the respondent or his agents, and that they were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the other candidate's election.
Final Decision: The election petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to prove the grounds of challenge against the respondent's election.
M.C. Jain, J.-Bhomraj and Purnaram, registered electors of Kolayat Assembly constituency No. 14 of Rajasthan, have filed this election petition against the returned candidate Shri Devisingh Bhati. The election was held on 5-3-85 in pursuance of the notification issued on 1-2-85 under Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’). As per the programme issued by the Election con-ission of India under Section 30 of the Act, the following dates were appointed:-
(a) 8-2-85 (Friday) as the last date for making nomination; (b) 9-2-85 (Saturday) as the date for the scrutiny of nominations; (c) 11-2-85 (Monday) as the last date for withdrawal of the candidature; (d) 5-3-85 (Tuesday) as the date for the poll; (e) 9-3-85 (Saturday) as the date before which the election shall be completed. After rejection of two nomination papers, the following candidates remained in the field:-
(1) Shri Devisingh Bhati (respondent), (2) Smt. Kanta Khaturia, (3) Shri Asharam Gehlot, (4) Shri Ganeshram,
(5) Shri Deen Dayal.
After counting, the respondent Devisingh was declared elected. The petitioners have challenged the election
of the respondent on the following grounds:-
(1) Thenomination paper of Shri Mohammed Ali was improperly rejected. He had delivered his nomination paper on 8-2-85 along with the certified copy of the electoral roll of Bikaner Assembly constituency, in which, his age was mentioned as 30 years. copy of the electoral roll was the part of the nomination paper. The rejection of his nomination paper is alleged to be improper because his name was once shown in the list of validly nominated candidates. The date fixed for the scrutiny of the nomination papers was 9-2-85 and the date for withdrawal of the same was 11-2-85, therefore, the returning officer was not competent to reject the nomination paper on 11-2-85. His nomination paper also could not be rejected when he had submitted the certified copy of the entry of the electoral roll showing his age as 30 years, and that certified copy was a part of the nomination paper.
(2) The District Election Officer, Bikaner established additional polling stations for the electors of seven villages namely: (1) Chila Kashniir, (2) Gulam-Wala, (3) Kandharli, (4) Nokha urf Daiya, (5) Lakhasar, (6) Bichwal and (7) Panwarwala by his order dt. 19-2-85 purported to have been issued with the consent of the Election Commission. The establishment of these additional polling stations was illegal, being in violation of Rule 49 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. No notification as envisaged by rules was published 15 days before the date of poll. The non-compliance of the rule has materially afflected the result of the election.
(3) Smt. Kama Khaturia was a formidable candidate of Congress-I. In order to jeopardise the chances of her victory, false and highly defamatory statements affecting her personal character and conduct were published in the form of a pamphlet as well as in the weekly paper ‘Kranti Bigul’, on the night, intervening 4/5-3-85. The author of the said pamphlet is Shri Onkarsingh Rajput r/o Bikaner Mohalla Chotina Kua. He is an active member of Janta Party’ for the last several years and had actively campaigned for the respondent. Shri Mohan Sharma. the Editor of ‘Kranti Bigul’ actively supported and campaigned for the respondent. Copies of the pamphlet and of the paper ‘Kranti Bigul’ were widely distributed and published in the entire constituency on the night intervening 4/5-3-85 as well as while the polling was in progress and particularly near the polling stations to the voters. Their p ublication was done by the respondent himself , his election agent Shri Davendrasingh as well as by his agents/ workers with the consent of the respondent or his election agent. The petitioners submitted a schedule annexed to the petition giving the instances of the publication and full particulars relating to the time, date, place and persons respons
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
