http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 18

PETITIONER:

BIRAD MAL SINGHVI

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

ANAND PUROHIT

DATE OF JUDGMENT02/08/1988

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

BENCH:

SINGH, K.N. (J)

VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:

1988 AIR 1796 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 1

1988 SCC Supl. 604 JT 1988 (3) 389

1988 SCALE (2)328

ACT:

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 33(5),

36(2) (b), 80, 83, 87, 93 and116.

Nomination-Scrutiny of-Returning Officer to be satisfied

candidate eligible to contest section-Enquiry-Summary in

nature-No scope for elaborate enquiry-Candidate to Satisfy

Returning Officer about eligibility-Election petition-Not

an appeal against order of Returning Officer rejecting

nomination-Fresh material can be adduced by candidate before

High Court to support eligibility.

Candidate an elector of different constituency-Proof of

name in concerned electoral roll-Onus on candidate to

prove-No duty of Returning Officer to refer relevant

electoral roll and verify eligibility.

Nomination paper-Rejection on ground candidate has not

completed 25 years of age-Election petition-Documents

showing