Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from an election petition filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 challenging the result of the 285 Nirsa Assembly Constituency in the State of Bihar, held in February 1990. The appellant, Kripa Shankar Chatterjee, was a candidate for the said constituency and lost to the returned candidate, respondent no.1 Gurudas Chatterjee, by a margin of 1450 votes. There were 22 other candidates contesting the election. During the pendency of the election petition before the Patna High Court (Ranchi Bench), the election petitioner moved an application for inspection of ballot papers, which was dismissed. His special leave petition against that order was also dismissed by the Supreme Court with an observation that the dismissal would not preclude the High Court from inspecting ballot papers if it deemed necessary. The High Court later declined a further prayer for inspection. The election result was challenged on four main grounds: first, improper rejection of the nomination paper of one Chunmun Singh on the ground that he was below 25 years of age, although he was allegedly above 25; second, improper acceptance of nomination papers of two candidates, Sanjib Baxi and Shival Mahajni, who were allegedly not voters in the Nirsa Assembly Constituency; third, that the returned candidate and two other candidates were employees of Eastern Coal Fields Limited, a Government of India undertaking, and thus public servants under Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code, and therefore disqualified to contest; and fourth, irregularities in counting of ballot papers. The respondent denied all contentions. The High Court dismissed the election petition, rejecting all grounds. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the affidavit of Chunmun Singh should have been accepted because he failed to appear despite summons, but the Court held that an ex parte affidavit without cross-examination is insufficient proof of age, and the petitioner could have taken steps to ensure his appearance. On improper acceptance of nominations, the Court noted the absence of documentary evidence from the petitioner, the presumption of regularity in the Returning Officer's actions, and the failure to prove material effect on the election result as required by Section 100(d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. On the question of office of profit, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's finding that the returned candidate had resigned and the resignation was accepted, and thus left open the question whether employment in Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. constituted an office of profit. The Court reiterated the principle of limited interference with findings of fact in election appeals, citing N.I. Singh v. L.O. Singh and Mohd. Yunus v. Shiv Kumar. Finally, the Court observed that the appeal had become infructuous because the general election to the Bihar State Assembly in 1995 had already been held. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Proof of Age for Nomination - Ex parte affidavit without cross-examination is insufficient to prove candidate's age - Representation of People Act, 1951 - The election petitioner challenged rejection of nomination paper of Chunmun Singh on the ground he was above 25 years of age. The High Court rejected the affidavit filed by Chunmun Singh as there was no oral evidence and no opportunity for the respondent to cross-examine him. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, holding that the petitioner could have moved the court to ensure the witness's appearance and that an untested affidavit cannot be sufficient proof of age. Held that no interference was warranted on this ground. B) Election Law - Improper Acceptance of Nomination - Material effect on election result required - Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 100(d) - The petitioner alleged that nomination papers of two candidates were improperly accepted as they were not voters in the constituency. The High Court found no documentary evidence that certified copies of voters list were not filed, and witness testimony indicated the candidates produced voters list to the Returning Officer. The Supreme Court held that even if improper acceptance was assumed, the petitioner failed to prove material effect on the election result under Section 100(d). Held that the finding of no material effect was correct. C) Election Law - Disqualification for Office of Profit - Resignation from public sector undertaking - Representation of People Act, 1951; Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 21 - The petitioner alleged the returned candidate was disqualified as an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd., a Government of India undertaking, and thus a public servant. The High Court found satisfactory evidence that the returned candidate had resigned and resignation was accepted. The Supreme Court held that the question of whether an employee of Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. holds an office of profit need not be decided in view of the finding of resignation and acceptance. Held that the finding did not warrant interference. D) Election Law - Appellate Court Interference with Findings of Fact - Scope of appeal under Representation of People Act, 1951 - The Supreme Court reiterated that although an appeal lies from a High Court decision in an election petition, the Court is disinclined to interfere with findings of fact unless clear, convincing and unimpeachable evidence shows error, citing N.I. Singh v. L.O. Singh and Mohd. Yunus v. Shiv Kumar. Held that the High Court's findings were not shown to be unjustified or against the weight of evidence. E) Election Law - Infructuous Appeal - Subsequent general election - The Supreme Court noted that the hearing of the appeal concluded shortly before the 1995 Bihar State Assembly general election and that the general election had already been held, making the appeal practically infructuous. Held that the appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the election petition challenging the election of 285 Nirsa Assembly Constituency, Bihar; Whether the nomination of Chunmun Singh was improperly rejected on the ground of age; Whether the nominations of Sanjib Baxi and Shival Mahajni were improperly accepted; Whether the returned candidate was disqualified as a public servant holding an office of profit; Whether counting irregularities vitiated the election; Whether the appeal had become infructuous due to subsequent general election.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs. The Court upheld the High Court's findings on all grounds: the affidavit of Chunmun Singh was insufficient proof of age; the petitioner failed to prove improper acceptance of nomination or material effect on election result under Section 100(d) of the Representation of People Act, 1951; the returned candidate's resignation was accepted, so the office of profit question was not decided; and the appeal had become infructuous due to the subsequent Bihar Assembly general election.
Law Points
- Election result cannot be set aside for improper acceptance of nomination unless material effect on result is proved under Section 100(d) of Representation of People Act
- 1951
- Ex parte affidavit without cross-examination is insufficient proof of age
- Presumption of regularity of official acts applies to Returning Officer
- Appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact unless cogent
- convincing and unimpeachable evidence shows error
- Question of office of profit need not be decided if returned candidate has resigned and resignation accepted
- Appeal becomes infructuous after fresh general election.
