Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the last General Election to the Madras State Assembly for the Nilakottai constituency, where five candidates filed nomination papers. One candidate, Peyathevar, showed only one symbol in the spaces provided for three symbols—the star, which was reserved for the Swatantra Party—and left the remaining two spaces blank. He was not the accredited candidate of that party. At scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper as containing a defect of substance. The appellant, K.S. Abdul Azeez, was one of the other candidates and was ultimately declared elected by a margin of over 4,000 votes. After the election, two voters filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election on the ground that the rejection of Peyathevar's nomination paper was improper, thereby making the election void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, holding that the nomination paper was rightly rejected. On appeal, the Madras High Court reversed that decision, holding that the rejection was improper and that the election of the appellant was void. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether a nomination paper mentioning only a reserved symbol and leaving blank the alternative symbol spaces constituted a defect of a substantial character under Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act. The appellant argued that a defect in completing the declaration as to symbols meant something like describing a symbol incompletely, such as 'two bullocks' without 'with yoke on', and that blank spaces were not covered by the proviso to Rule 4. The respondents contended that the blank spaces were a failure to complete the declaration and that the inclusion of a reserved symbol was a defect in completing the declaration, both of which fell within the plain meaning of the proviso. The Supreme Court examined Section 36(4) and Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, along with the Election Commission's notification specifying symbols. It reasoned that the phrase 'failure to complete, or defect in completing, the declaration as to symbols' in the proviso to Rule 4 covered the situation where a candidate mentioned a reserved symbol and left the rest blank. It noted that if an independent candidate had named 'star', 'bicycle', and 'flower' as preferences, the only defect would be including a reserved symbol, which would be a defect in completing the declaration; leaving blanks was equally a failure to complete. The Court emphasized that the question of symbols should not play an important part because symbols could be assigned by political parties until the date of withdrawal, and nomination papers should not be cancelled during that interval. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the rejection of the nomination paper was improper, the election of the appellant was void, and the High Court's decision was correct. The appeal was dismissed, but as no one appeared to contest it, no order was made as to costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Nomination Paper - Substantial Defect - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 36(4); Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 4 - A nomination paper showing only a reserved symbol in the first space and leaving blank the rest of the spaces for alternative symbols was covered by the phrase 'failure to complete, or defect in completing, the declaration as to symbols' in the proviso to Rule 4 and therefore was not a defect of a substantial character under Section 36(4). The Returning Officer's rejection of such nomination paper was improper and rendered the election void under Section 100(1)(c). Held that the High Court's decision setting aside the election was correct and the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a nomination paper that mentions only one reserved symbol and leaves blank the spaces for alternative symbols suffers from a defect of a substantial character under Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Madras High Court's decision that the rejection of the nomination paper was improper. Consequently, the election of the appellant was void under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 provides that the returning officer shall not reject a nomination paper on any defect that is not of a substantial character
- the proviso to Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961 states that a failure to complete
- or defect in completing
- the declaration as to symbols in a nomination paper is not a defect of a substantial character
- mention of a reserved symbol in the first space and leaving the rest blank is covered by the composite phrase 'failure to complete or defect in completing the declaration as to symbols'
- the question of symbols should not play an important part because symbols can be assigned by political parties until the date for withdrawal and the nomination paper should not be cancelled during the interval.
