Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing an election petition filed by Tej Bahadur against Narendra Modi, the elected candidate from Varanasi Parliamentary Constituency in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. The appellant, a former Border Security Force employee dismissed from service in 2017, filed two nomination papers for the Varanasi seat. Both nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground that they were not accompanied by a certificate from the Election Commission as required under Section 33(3) read with Section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, certifying that his dismissal was not for corruption or disloyalty to the State. The appellant challenged the rejection in an election petition, which the High Court dismissed for lack of locus standi, holding that the appellant was neither an elector of Varanasi nor a candidate. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal. The Court examined the definition of 'candidate' under Section 79(b) and held that the appellant could not claim to be a candidate because Section 33(3) deems a person without the requisite certificate as not duly nominated. The appellant did not possess the certificate at the time of filing nomination, during scrutiny, or even later. The Court also rejected the argument that the Returning Officer failed to grant sufficient time under the proviso to Section 36(5), noting that the appellant did not demand time and could not have produced the certificate as he never had it. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Locus Standi - Candidate - Section 79(b) and Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The appellant, whose nomination was rejected for not being accompanied by a certificate under Section 33(3), cannot claim to be a 'candidate' as he was not duly nominated and did not possess the certificate at any relevant time - Held that the High Court rightly dismissed the election petition for lack of locus (Paras 16-20). B) Election Law - Nomination - Certificate under Section 33(3) - Section 33(3) read with Section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - A dismissed government servant must produce a certificate from the Election Commission that he was not dismissed for corruption or disloyalty; without it, he is deemed not duly nominated - Held that the absence of such certificate renders the nomination invalid (Paras 7-10, 19). C) Election Law - Scrutiny of Nomination - Time to Rebut Objection - Proviso to Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The returning officer may allow time to rebut an objection, but the candidate must demand such time; the appellant did not demand time and did not possess the certificate - Held that no right to time was denied (Paras 12-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, whose nomination was rejected for non-compliance with Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, can claim to be a 'candidate' under Section 79(b) and maintain an election petition under Section 81 of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant was not a candidate and had no locus to file the election petition. The High Court's order dismissing the election petition was upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Election petition
- locus standi
- candidate
- duly nominated
- certificate under Section 33(3)
- rejection of nomination
- time to produce certificate
- discretion of returning officer
