Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dismissing an election petition filed by an elector from Mahudha constituency challenging the election of the returned candidate to the Gujarat State Legislative Assembly in the 1972 general elections. The appellant contended that the Returning Officer improperly rejected the nomination paper of one Christian Suleman Jivabhai, who was an elector from Shahpur constituency in Ahmedabad city, and whose nomination was rejected during scrutiny on February 9, 1972. Jivabhai had enclosed with his nomination form a certified copy of a corrigendum to the electoral roll, which corrected his name from Christian Soloman Jivabhai to Christian Suleman Jivabhai. The respondent objected, and the Returning Officer rejected the nomination on the ground that the provisions of Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 were not complied with because no certified copy of the relevant entries in the electoral roll was produced. Section 33(5) requires a candidate who is an elector of a different constituency to produce before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny either a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency, a copy of the relevant part thereof, or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll, unless it has already been filed with the nomination paper. The appellant argued that the rejection was improper because Section 36(4) prohibits rejection on the ground of a defect which is not of a substantial character. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, including the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, and held that a certified copy of a corrigendum alone does not satisfy the requirement of Section 33(5). The corrigendum did not furnish all particulars that would be available in a certified copy of the relevant entries in the original electoral roll along with the amendment list. Since the original electoral roll may be corrected and amended, it was absolutely necessary for the satisfaction of the Returning Officer that a certified copy of the original electoral roll containing the relevant entry and a certified copy of the amendment list concerning the candidate were produced at the time of scrutiny, if not already filed. The Court held that non-compliance with Section 33(5) is a defect of a substantial character and is not covered by Section 36(4). Therefore, the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination paper, and the rejection cannot be held to be improper. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the High Court.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Paper Requirements - Compliance with Section 33(5) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - A candidate who is an elector of a different constituency must produce before the Returning Officer at scrutiny either a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency, a copy of the relevant part thereof, or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll - In this case, the candidate enclosed only a certified copy of a corrigendum amending his name; this did not constitute full compliance because the corrigendum did not furnish all particulars that would be available from a certified copy of the original entry and amendment list - The Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination paper (Paras 1-7) B) Election Law - Scrutiny of Nominations - Section 36(4) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Non-compliance with Section 33(5) is a defect of substantial character and not a mere technical defect - Returning Officer shall not reject nomination on ground of non-substantial defect, but here defect was substantial because it concerned eligibility and identity of elector - Held rejection not improper (Paras 1-7) C) Election Law - Evidentiary Value of Electoral Roll Entries - Section 36(7) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Certified copy of entry in electoral roll is conclusive evidence of elector status - Corrigendum alone not conclusive evidence of corrected entry as original roll must be read with amendment list - Returning Officer must be satisfied about candidate's identity and elector status at scrutiny (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Returning Officer improperly rejected the nomination paper of Christian Suleman Jivabhai for non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether such non-compliance is a defect of substantial character covered by Section 36(4).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat. It held that the Returning Officer rightly rejected the nomination paper of Jivabhai for non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The defect was of a substantial character and not covered by Section 36(4).
Law Points
- Section 33(5) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 requires a candidate who is an elector of a different constituency to produce before the Returning Officer at scrutiny either a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency
- a copy of the relevant part thereof
- or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll
- non-compliance is a defect of substantial character not curable under Section 36(4)
- a certified copy of a corrigendum alone does not satisfy the requirement as it may not contain all particulars of the original entry
- Returning Officer must be satisfied about identity and compliance at scrutiny.
