1953 Supreme(Mad) 221

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Mr. P.V. Rajamannar, Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Venkatarama Ayyar,JJ.
P.N. Balasubrahmanyan
Versus
The Election Tribunal of North Arcot at Vellore
W.P. No. 862 of 1952 & C.R.P. No. 2207 of 1952.
Decided On : 24 July 1953

A person who is not qualified to be chosen as a member of the House of the People on the date of nomination cannot be validly nominated, even if he becomes qualified subsequently.

Headnote:

ELECTION LAW - NOMINATION - REJECTION - QUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATE - ELECTORAL ROLL - INCLUSION OF NAME AFTER NOMINATION - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - TECHNICAL DEFECT - SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT - REJECTION OF NOMINATION PAPER - VALIDITY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a candidate for election to the House of the People, filed his nomination paper on 21st November, 1951, without specifying the constituency in the electoral roll of which his name was included and his serial number in that electoral roll. On the date of the nomination, his name was not included in the roll of any Parliamentary Constituency. On 27th November, 1951, his name was included in the Parliamentary Roll of the Salem Constituency. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper on the ground that the petitioner was not qualified to be nominated as he was not an elector on the date of the nomination. The Election Tribunal upheld the rejection of the nomination. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his nomination by way of a writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioner was not qualified to stand for election as he was not an elector on the date of the nomination. The Court further held that the omission to give the particulars as to the electoral roll and the serial numbers therein was a substantial defect which the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to overlook. The Court also held that the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the roll on 27th November, 1951, could not be deemed to relate back to a date earlier than the date of presentation of the nomination paper.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was qualified to stand for election as he was not an elector on the date of the nomination? 2. Whether the omission to give the particulars as to the electoral roll and the serial numbers therein was a substantial defect which the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to overlook? 3. Whether the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the roll on 27th November, 1951, could be deemed to relate back to a date earlier than the date of presentation of the nomination paper?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioner was not qualified to stand for election as he was not an elector on the date of the nomination. The Court relied on the definition of "elector" in section 2(1)(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which states that an elector is a person whose name is for the time being entered in the electoral roll of a constituency. 2. The Court held that the omission to give the particulars as to the electoral roll and the serial numbers therein was a substantial defect which the Returning Officer had no jurisdiction to overlook. The Court relied on section 36(2)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides that the Returning Officer may reject a nomination paper on the ground that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of section 33 or section 34. 3. The Court held that the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the roll on 27th November, 1951, could not be deemed to relate back to a date earlier than the date of presentation of the nomination paper. The Court held that there is no provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides for retrospective operation of the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the rejection of the petitioner's nomination.