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 date of birth-Evidentiary value in proving age.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 35-Entry relating to

date of birth in school register--Relevant and admissible-

Entry regarding age in school register--Not much evidentiary

value 10 prove age in absence of material on which the age

was recorded.

HEADNOTE:

Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan

for Jodhpur City Constituency, was held in the year I985.

Nomination papers were filed on 8.2.1985 and the date of

scrutiny was Y.2. l9S5. In all 45 candidates filed their

nominations, after scrutiny and withdrawal, 21 candidates

contested the election. After polling and the counting of

votes, the appellant was declared elected having obtained

majority of votes.

The respondent who was an elector in the Jodhpur city

Constituency filed an election petition before the High

Court challenging the appellant’s election on the ground

that the result of election was materially affected on

account of improper rejection of nomination papers of 3

candidates, namely, Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand and Suraj

Prakash Joshi. It was pleaded that Smt. Ben was an elector

in the Sardarpura Assembly Constituency the Returning

Officer wrongly rejected her nomination paper without

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 18

affording an opportunity to her to produce a copy of the

electoral roll, that Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi

both were more than 25 years of age on the date of the

nomination, yet the returning officer rejected their

nomination papers on the ground that they were not qualified

to be a candidate as they were below 25 years of age.

PG NO 1

PG NO 2

The appellant contested the election petition. It was

asserted that Smt. Ben had failed to file a certified copy

of the relevant entry in the electoral roll of Sardarpura

Constituency along with her nomination, that she further

failed to produce a copy of the electoral roll at the time

of scrutiny and the returning officer therefore rightly

rejected her nomination paper. In respect of Hukmi Chand and

Suraj Prakash Joshi, it was pleaded that none of the two

candidates were present before the returning officer at the

time of scrutiny and since the entries contained in the

electoral roll indicated that they were below 25 years of

age the returning officer rightly rejected their nomination

papers. and that the rejection of the 3 nomination papers

was proper and the result of the election was not materially

affected on account of the rejection of the name.

The High Court allowed the election pe