Mandatory Nature of Notice for Nomination Paper Corrections - The law emphasizes that when defects are identified in a nomination paper, the Returning Officer must issue a notice to the candidate, providing an opportunity to rectify such defects before scrutiny. Failure to do so can lead to rejection of the nomination. For instance, a notice was issued to the election petitioner on 30.10.2023 at 05:15 PM and the same was received by the election petitioner. It appears that the petitioner failed to rectify the defects in the nomination paper prior to the beginning of scrutiny ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10649"]; similarly, a notice was issued to the petitioner pointing out certain defects in the nomination paper on 30.10.2023 at 05:15 PM ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10649"]. This indicates that issuing a notice is a mandatory step to ensure the candidate has a chance to cure defects, aligning with legal principles that defect correction is an essential procedural safeguard.
Substantial vs. Non-Substantial Defects - The courts distinguish between defects of substantial character, which warrant rejection, and minor or technical errors that can be rectified. The scrutiny Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the ground of any defect which is not of substantial in nature or mandatory compliance ["2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2505"]. For example, non-affixing the stamp for notarization in Form No.26 affidavit was only a mistake, and such mistake was not a defect of substantial character ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1936"]. This underscores that procedural defects not affecting the core validity of the nomination may be corrected, and rejection solely based on minor errors is not mandatory.
Legal Requirement for Completeness and Genuineness - Nomination papers must be complete in all mandatory fields and free from irregularities such as forged signatures or incomplete disclosures. It is mandatory to fill up all columns of Form No. 26 of the affidavit ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10649"], and the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the nomination paper is not genuine or is obtained by fraud ["
PERERA v. KANNANGARA
"]. Failure to comply with these requirements can lead to rejection, but courts have also emphasized the importance of allowing candidates to rectify rectifiable errors unless they fundamentally compromise the nomination’s validity.Timing and Filing of Nomination Papers - Proper timing is crucial; nomination papers must be submitted within the prescribed window, and late submissions are invalid. The nomination period commenced on 18th December 2017 and ended on 21st December 2017 ["
ARIYARATNE AND OTHERS VS. KODIKARA AND OTHERS
"], and the nomination paper of the petitioner was tried to be produced after 03:45 pm on 10.01.2025 ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1702"], which is beyond the deadline, leading to rejection.Role of the Returning Officer and Finality of Decisions - While the Returning Officer's decision to accept or reject a nomination is generally final (Section 19(2) specifically states that the decision of the returning officer to reject such nomination paper shall be final ["2023 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 20713"]), courts retain jurisdiction to examine whether rejection was based on proper grounds, especially regarding procedural compliance and defect rectification.
Analysis and Conclusion:The legal framework establishes that issuing a notice to rectify defects in nomination papers is mandatory before rejection, and candidates must be given an opportunity to cure rectifiable errors. Rejection based solely on non-substantial defects without notice or opportunity to correct is generally not upheld. However, fundamental deficiencies, such as late submission, incomplete disclosures of mandatory information, or forged signatures, justify rejection. Courts recognize the importance of procedural compliance but also emphasize fairness by allowing candidates to rectify minor, non-substantial defects before final rejection. Therefore, Notice of Mistake in Nomination Paper is mandatory as part of the procedural safeguards, especially for rectifiable defects, to ensure fair election processes ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10649"], ["2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2505"].
References:- ["
PERERA v. KANNANGARA
"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 737"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10649"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 2505"]- ["2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 1936"]- ["ARIYARATNE AND OTHERS VS. KODIKARA AND OTHERS
"]- ["2025 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 1702"]- ["2023 Supreme(SRI)(SC) 20713"]