Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court adjudicated an election appeal arising from the 1962 general election to the House of the People from the Sangrur parliamentary constituency. Ranjit Singh, the appellant, was elected, while Pritam Singh, the first respondent, lost and filed an election petition challenging the election on multiple grounds. The only ground before the Supreme Court concerned the rejection of nomination papers of Wazir Singh, another candidate. Wazir Singh had filed three nomination papers; with one of them he attached a copy of a part of the electoral roll, but with the other two he attached no such copy. During scrutiny, the returning officer first rejected the nomination paper with the attached copy on technical grounds (missing parliamentary constituency name, village, assembly constituency, part number, and proposer's constituency). The returning officer then rejected the other two nomination papers for want of a copy of the electoral roll or certified relevant entries, refusing to look at the copy filed with the already rejected first nomination paper. Pritam Singh contended that this refusal was improper; Ranjit Singh defended the rejection on three grounds: copy required with each nomination paper; copy must be of parliamentary constituency not assembly; and the copy produced was incomplete, not a full part. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding the rejection valid and the incomplete copy not compliant with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The Punjab High Court reversed, holding the returning officer should have considered the copy, assembly constituency roll copy was adequate, and the incomplete copy was not a substantial defect. The Supreme Court analysed Section 33(5) in light of Sections 32, 4(d), and 2(e) of the Act, and Rule 5 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. It held that Section 33(5) does not require a copy with each nomination paper; a candidate may produce the copy at scrutiny, and one copy for multiple nominations suffices. It also held that a parliamentary constituency roll is a combination of assembly constituency rolls, so a copy of the assembly roll in which the candidate is enrolled is sufficient to prove qualification. However, the Court held that under Rule 5, the electoral roll is divided into parts and Section 33(5) requires the relevant part. Filing only a portion of the part, omitting certain pages and amendments, was not a complete copy and constituted a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4), making the nomination paper liable to rejection. Consequently, the Supreme Court concluded that Wazir Singh's nomination papers were rightly rejected and the High Court's order setting aside the election was reversed.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Papers - Section 33(5) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Copy of Electoral Roll Requirement - The returning officer erred in not considering the copy of the electoral roll filed with one nomination paper when scrutinizing another; Section 33(5) does not require a copy with each nomination paper and allows production at scrutiny; one copy is sufficient for multiple nominations - Held that returning officer should have looked at the copy (Paras [547 F-548 D]). B) Election Law - Qualification of Candidate - Sections 4(d), 2(e), 33(5) Representation of the People Act, 1950 - Assembly Constituency Roll as Proof for Parliamentary Election - A parliamentary constituency roll comprises assembly constituency rolls; filing a copy of the assembly constituency roll in which candidate is enrolled is sufficient compliance for election to Parliament - Held that High Court correctly rejected contention that parliamentary roll copy was required (Paras [548 G,H]). C) Election Law - Rejection of Nomination - Sections 33(5), 36(4), Rule 5 Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 - Incomplete Copy of Electoral Roll Part as Substantial Defect - Rule 5 requires roll divided into parts; s.33(5) refers to relevant part; filing only a portion of the part without amendments is not complete copy and is a defect of substantial character, making nomination liable to rejection; s.36(4) does not cure - Held that nomination papers of Wazir Singh were rightly rejected (Paras [549 D; 551 E-F]).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the returning officer improperly rejected Wazir Singh's nomination papers for non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, considering (i) requirement of copy per nomination paper, (ii) suitability of assembly constituency roll copy, and (iii) completeness of the part copy as a substantial defect under Section 36(4).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the returning officer was wrong in not considering the copy of the electoral roll filed with one nomination paper, as Section 33(5) does not require a copy with each nomination paper and one copy suffices. However, the Court held that the copy produced was an incomplete part of the electoral roll, not a complete copy as required under Rule 5 and Section 33(5), and this was a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4). Consequently, the rejection of Wazir Singh's nomination papers was valid, and the High Court's order setting aside the election was reversed.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 33(5) of Representation of the People Act
- 1950 does not require a copy of electoral roll with each nomination paper
- candidate may produce copy at scrutiny
- one copy suffices for multiple nominations
- copy of assembly constituency roll is sufficient for parliamentary election
- incomplete copy of relevant part is substantial defect under Section 36(4)
- returning officer must consider copy filed with any nomination paper when scrutinizing others
