2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Munna Lal Toppo – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh Election Commission – Respondent
Election Petition No.1 of 2024

A candidate is disqualified if they hold a subsisting government contract during the scrutiny of nominations. Admissions made by a candidate in their nomination papers and affidavit regarding such contracts constitute substantive evidence, and the burden lies on the election petitioner to prove they are not disqualified.

Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 9A, 36, 80A, 81, 100(1)(c) and 103 — Disqualification for Government contracts — Improper rejection of nomination paper — Burden of proof in election petition — Nature of enquiry during scrutiny — Election petitioner must prove they were not disqualified. (Paras 1, 11, 14, 19, 25, 26)

(B) Evidence — Admission — Evidentiary value — Admission constitutes substantive evidence — Onus shifts to the party making admission to explain/rebut it — Admissions in nomination papers and affidavits are binding and constitute substantive evidence. (Paras 28, 29, 39, 41)

(C) Interpretation of Statutes — Section 9A — Disqualification must be strictly interpreted — Must satisfy all ingredients: subsisting contract, in course of trade/business, with appropriate government, for supply/execution — Purpose is to avoid conflict between duty and interest of elected representatives. (Paras 23, 24)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to challenge the rejection of their nomination papers for a legislative assembly election, which occurred after an objection was raised alleging a disqualification due to a subsisting contract with the government for public works under a specific mission. The returning officer rejected the nomination after a summary enquiry and report from the engineering department. The petitioner contended that the contract was not with the appropriate government, while the respondent argued that the petitioner had admitted to having a subsisting contract in their nomination papers and supporting affidavit.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that the body with which they had the contract did not fall within the definition of 'appropriate government'. The court observed that the petitioner had explicitly admitted, in their nomination papers and affidavit, to holding valid and subsisting contracts with the appropriate government for the execution of public work. These admissions were substantive evidence that remained unrebutted during the trial.

Issues: Whether the returning officer was justified in rejecting the nomination on the ground of disqualification under Section 9A and whether the petitioner had failed to discharge the burden of proving that their nomination was improperly rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An election petition is an original proceeding where the burden lies on the petitioner to prove their qualification. When a candidate makes an admission in a nomination document regarding a subsisting government contract, such admission operates as substantive evidence. Without evidence to rebut that admission or to show the body is not an 'appropriate government', the rejection of the nomination paper cannot be held improper. The summary nature of the returning officer's scrutiny does not preclude the court from judging the matter based on the evidence provided in the election petition trial.

Result: Election petition dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.