Election results cannot be invalidated due to procedural irregularities unless they materially affect the outcome, with candidates required to disclose essential information per statutory provisions.

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 07.01-2025

I have already heard Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Ansul, learned senior counsel, assisted by learned counsel Mr. Madhav Raj for the sole respondent.

2. The petitioner has filed this election petition for setting aside the election of the sole respondent, who has been declared elected as a member of Bihar Legislative Assembly from 170, Barbigha Assembly Constituency. The election was held on 28.10.2020 and the result was declared on 10.11.2020. The ground for setting aside the election, as claimed by the petitioner, is improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the sole respondent by the Returning Officer.

3. As per the averments in the petition, altogether 11 contestants were there in the electoral fray/arena, including the petitioner and the sole respondent. On the date of scrutiny i.e. 09.10.2020, the nomination paper of Shri Ajay Kumar, an independent candidate, was found incomplete and it was rejected by the Returning Officer, but at the same time, the Returning Officer had accepted the nomination paper of the sole respondent which too was incomplete. The correct and material information were not given in the proforma of the affidavit filed by the sole respondent before the Returning Officer in Form-26. He had not filled up Part-3A of his nomination paper and on this score, his nomination paper ought to have been rejected but it was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. On the date of election, 1,19,144 electors had exercised their electoral rights in 223 polling stations, whereas 1113 postal ballet papers were received by the Returning Officer. The sole respondent was declared elected since he had received 39878 votes including postal ballots, whereas the petitioner was declared to have received 39765 votes inclusive of postal ballots.

4. It has further been averred in the petition that the sole respondent had filed his nomination paper before the Returning Officer in two sets (Ext.1 and 1(ii)). Along with nomination paper, he had also filed an affidavit in Form-26 in two sets, duly signed by him before the Notary Public. These two sets of the affidavit have been marked as Ext. 2 and Ext. 2 A. He also uploaded his nomination paper on the official website of Election Commission of India. The petitioner obtained the certified copy of his nomination paper and the affidavit in Form- 26. All the two sets of nomination papers and the affidavits in Form-26 were suffering from several infirmities. It has been mentioned further that the sole respondent had filled up both the parts of nomination paper i.e. Part-1 and Part- 2, whereas he had to fill up only Part 1, as clear from Part-3. The sole respondent was the candidate of Janata Dal (United) political party and a candidate of a recognized political party had to fill only Part-1 and not the Part- 2. The Part-2 must have been crossed as per instruction given in paragraph-3 of the nomination papers. The second infirmity pointed out by the election petitioner, in the nomination paper of the sole respondent is that he had not made relevant description in Part- 3A of the nomination form, in which a candidate is mandatorily required to declare as to whether he has been convicted for any offences under Section 8 (1)) and (2) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1951’), or for any other offences for more than two years. Para-1 of the said Part-3A is blank and on this sole omission, the nomination paper of the sole respondent ought to have been rejected.

5. It has further been averred in the petition th