Case Note & Summary
In an election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 147-Jamtara Assembly Constituency (General), Durga Prasad Singh, Khatir Ali, and Abdul Hamid filed nomination papers. The scrutiny of nominations took place on February 9, 1972. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of Khatir Ali and Abdul Hamid, ignoring objections raised on their behalf. Durga Prasad Singh was declared duly elected. The appellant, an elector of the constituency, filed an election petition challenging the election of Durga Prasad Singh on the ground that the nomination papers of Abdul Hamid and Khatir Ali had been improperly rejected. A learned single Judge of the Patna High Court tried the petition and dismissed it, holding that Abdul Hamid had not properly filled his nomination paper because he failed to delete the words 'Scheduled Caste' and did not fill his specific caste in the declaration column, and that this defect was substantial. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant confined his argument to the rejection of Abdul Hamid's nomination paper. The appellant contended that the defect was not a defect in law and in any event not of a substantial character. The Supreme Court found merit in this contention. It noted that in the printed nomination form, the column meant for declaration by candidates of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe contesting for a reserved seat, Abdul Hamid had not filled his specific caste and had left the words 'Scheduled Caste' unscored, though he had scored out 'Jan-Jati' (Tribe) but left 'Jati' (caste) untouched. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination on the basis that failure to delete 'Scheduled Caste' meant the candidate belonged to Scheduled Caste which was not true, and therefore the nomination paper was not properly filled. The High Court upheld this rejection as substantial. The Supreme Court held that the constituency was a general constituency and the seat was not reserved. Under Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or any other statutory provision, there was no obligation on a candidate contesting for a general seat to specify caste or tribe. The High Court's view was misconceived because it overlooked that Jamtara Constituency was general. Additionally, the Returning Officer, appearing as R.W. 2, admitted that at scrutiny he knew Abdul Hamid was not a member of the Scheduled Caste and had deposited Rs. 250 as security. The Supreme Court further relied on Amolak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh, (1968) 3 S.C.R. 246, where it was held that the printed form is meant both for general and reserved constituencies; while it is obligatory for candidates in reserved constituencies to make a declaration of membership of a particular caste or tribe, no such rule applies to general constituencies. Section 33(2) imposes the obligation only on candidates in reserved constituencies; mention of caste in a general constituency is a clear superfluity. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the omission to strike off the Scheduled Caste/Tribe column did not amount to a defect in law, much less a defect of a substantial character warranting rejection. The nomination paper of Abdul Hamid was improperly rejected. The Court allowed the appeal and the election petition, declared the election of Durga Prasad Singh void, and awarded costs throughout to the appellant.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Paper Rejection - Candidate contesting general constituency need not specify caste or tribe; omission to strike off Scheduled Caste/Tribe words is not a substantial defect - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 33(2) - Returning Officer rejected nomination paper of Abdul Hamid because he left 'Scheduled Caste' unscored and did not fill his caste; High Court upheld rejection as substantial defect. Supreme Court reversed, holding that Section 33(2) imposes no obligation on candidate contesting general seat to declare caste, and the Returning Officer knew Abdul Hamid was not Scheduled Caste; thus rejection was improper and election of respondent declared void. Held that rejection was manifestly erroneous.
Issue of Consideration
Whether rejection of a nomination paper for a general constituency seat on the ground that the candidate failed to fill his caste and left the words 'Scheduled Caste' unscored amounts to a defect of substantial character under Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, reversed the High Court's finding, held that the nomination paper of Abdul Hamid was improperly rejected, declared the election of Durga Prasad Singh void, and awarded costs to the appellant throughout.
Law Points
- For a candidate contesting election to a general (non-reserved) seat
- there is no statutory obligation under Section 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 to specify caste or tribe
- omission to strike off 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe' in the nomination form is not a defect of substantial character justifying rejection
- Returning Officer's knowledge that candidate is not Scheduled Caste supports rejection being erroneous.
