http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: AMOLAK CHAND

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAGHUVEER SINGH

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/1968

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1203            1968 SCR  (3) 246  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1970 SC2097  (233)  F          1974 SC2343  (7)

ACT: Representation  of  the  People Act, 1955,  ss.  33,  36-One elector  whether  may  propose two candidates  in  a  single member  constituency-Candidate unnecessarily  filling  caste column  in nomination paper-Nomination paper whether  liable to be rejected.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant and the respondent were rival candidates  for election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in,  the 1967  general election.  Besides them two  other  candidates had  filed nomination papers but these were rejected on  the ground  that  they  had  both been  proposed,  by  the  same elector.  The appellant won the election.  The respondent in his  election petition before the High Court urged that  the election  had to be set aside because the nomination  papers of  the aforesaid two candidates had been wrongly  rejected. The High Court held the election to be void.  Under s.   116-A  of  the Representation of People Act,  1951  the appellant came to   this Court, HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. (i) After the amendment made by Act 27 of 1956, there is  no longer any express ban or prohibition under ss. 33 and 36 of the  Representation  of the People Act  against  an  elector proposing   more  than  one  candidate  in  a  single   seat constituency,  nor is there such a necessary implication  in any other provision of the Act.  On the other hand the  said amendment indicates that it was the intention of  Parliament that  there should be no ban on the number of candidates  to be  proposed by an elector for a single  seat  constituency. [248 D-249 B] (ii) The   two  candidates  whose  nomination  papers   were rejected,  unnecessarily filled the column indicating  their caste.  Such a requirement is there only for reserved seats. But there is nothing in s. 33(2) or in the rules  forbidding the candidate from mentioning his caste, and the mention  of caste  therefore did not invalidate the  nomination  papers. [249 H]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

JUDGMENT: CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal  No.  1352  of 1967. Appeal  under S. 116-A of the Representation of People  Act, 1951  from the judgment and order dated August 25,  1967  of the  Madhya  Pradesh High Court, Indore  Bench  in  Election Petition No. 2 of 1967. S.   V.  Gupte, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for  the appellant. D. D. Varma and Ganpat Rai for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami,  J. This appeal is brought under s. 116-A of  the Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred  to as the 247 ’Act’, from the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated  August  25, 1967 in Election Petition No. 2  of  1967 whereby  the  High  Court  held that  the  election  of  the appellant  front Barwaha Vidhan Sabha Constituency  held  on February 20, 1967 Was void. The  appellant  was  a  candidate at  the  election  of  the Legislative  Assembly  of the State of Madhya  Pradesh  from Barwaha  Constituency  held  on  February  20,  1967.    The respondent  was  a  candidate for  election  from  the  same Constituency.   Besides  the appellant and  the-  respondent there  were two other candidates, namely, Nathu son of  Rupa and  Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram.  There were  two  nomination papers filed for Nathu son of Rupa, one nomination paper (R- 3) was filed on January 19, 1967 at 2.12 p.m. and the second nomination  paper  (R-1) was filed on January  20,  1967  at 12.47  p.m.  The nomination paper of Sita Ram son  of  Sadhu Rain  (R-1) was also filed on January 1O, 1967 at 2.32  p.m. In  all  the  three  nomination  papers,  the  name  of  the candidate  was  proposed by one Sharawan son of  Gheesa,  an elector  from that Constituency.  On January 21,  1967,  the Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the  two candidates, Nathu son of Rupa and Sita-Ram son of Sadhu  Ram on  the ground that the same elector could not  propose  two different  candidates  for  the same  Consituency.   At  the polling which took place on February 20, 1967 the  appellant was  declared  elected to the Assembly  from  the  aforesaid Constituency on February 22, 1967 by the Returning  Officer. On March 29, 1967, the respondent filed an Election Petition tinder  s.  80  of the Act in the  High  Court  against  the appellant.   The  respondent sought a declaration  that  the election  of the appellant was voice under s. 100(c) of  the Act on the ground that the nomination papers of Nathu son of Rupa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram were improperly rejected. By  its  judgment  dated August 25,  1967,  the  High  Court accepted  the contention of the respondent and declared  the election  of the appellant from Barwaha Constituency  to  be void. On  behalf of the appellant Mr. Gupte put forward the  argu- ment that under the scheme and policy of the Act an  elector can   propose  only  one,  candidate  for  a   single   seat Constituency  and  not more than one candidate and  if  more than one nomination is made for a single seat  Constituency, all the nominations should be taken to be null and void.  We are  unable to accept this argument as correct.  Section  33 (2)  of  the  Act, as it was  originally  enacted  in  1951, contained an express ban against the same elector  proposing more than one candidate for a single seat  Constituency-Sec-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

tion 33(2) states L6Sup.C.I./68-3 248               "Any  person whose name is registered  in  the               electoral roll of the constituency and who  is               not subject to any disqualification  mentioned               in  section  16 of the Representation  of  the               People Act, 1950 may subscribe as proposer  or               seconder  as many nomination papers  as  there               are vacancies to be filled but no more."               Section 36(7)(b) reads as follows :               "(7) For the purposes of this section               (b)where  a person has subscribed, whether  as               Proposer  or  seconder,  a  larger  number  of               nomination papers than there are vacancies  to               be  filled, those of the papers so  subscribed               which  have  been first received,  up  to  the               number  of  vacancies to be filled,  shall  be               deemed to be valid." But by the Amending Act 27 of 1956, ss. 33 and 36 have  been recast and do not contain any ban as that contemplated by s. 33;  (2) of the unamended Act.  Section 33(1) &  (12)  after the amendment reads thus :               "33.   Presentation  of nomination  paper  and               requirements for a valid nomination.-(1) On or               before the date appointed under clause (a)  of               section  30  each candidate shall,  either  in               person or by his proposer between the hours of               eleven  o’clock  in  the  forenoon  an   three               o’clock  in  the  afternoon  deliver  to   the               returning  officer at the place  specified  in               this behalf in the notice issued under section               31   a  nomination  paper  completed  in   the               prescribed  form and signed by  the  candidate               and  by  an  elector of  the  constituency  as               proposer.               Provided  that  no nomination paper  shall  be               delivered  to the returning officer on  a  day               which is a public holiday.               (2)   In  a  constituency where  any  seat  is               reserved,  a candidate shall not be deemed  to               be  qualified to be chosen to fill  that  seat               unless   his  nomination  paper   contains   a               declaration  by him specifying the  particular               caste or tribe of which he is a member and the               area in relation to which that caste or  tribe               is a Scheduled Caste or, as the case may be, a               Scheduled Tribe of the State." It  is true that s. 33(6) as it stands at present enables  a proposer  to file more than one nomination paper in  respect of  the same candidate, but this sub-section has no  bearing on the question presented  for determination in  the present appeal.  It  is manifest 249 that  there is no express ban or prohibition under s. 33  or s. 3 6 of the present Act against an elector proposing  more than  one  candidate for a single  seat  Constituency.   Mr. Gupte has not been able to point out anything in the context or language of other sections of the Act for leading to  the necessary  implication that an elector cannot  propose  more than  one candidate for a single seat Constituency.  On  the other  hand,  the  amendment  to s. 33 of  the  Act  by  the Amending Act 27 of 1956 indicates that it was the  intention of  Parliament that there should be no ban on the number  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

nomination papers or the number of candidates to be proposed by an elector for a single seat Constituency.  On behalf  of the appellant reference was made to page 133 of  Schofield’s ’Parliamentary  Elections’,  Second Edition in which  it  is said  that  "no person is permitted to sign  more  than  one nomination  paper at the same election and if he  does  then his  signature  is operative only in the case of  the  paper which  is first delivered".  But this statement is based  on r. 8(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Rules of the  British Parliament.  There is no such statutory provision made under the Act for parliamentary elections in India and the analogy is  not applicable.  We are accordingly of the opinion  that Counsel  for the appellant has been unable to make good  his submission on this aspect of the case. It  was contended, in the next place, that Natliu  and  Sita Ram  had mentioned in the nomination papers that  they  were Balais  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Caste  and  this  was contrary  to the direction that the column indicating  caste or tribe should be struck off except in the case of reserved seat.  It was therefore argued that the nomination papers of Nathu  and Sita Ram were rightly rejected by  the  returning officer.   In  our opinion, there is no  substance  in  this argument.   The printed form 2-A is meant both  for  General and  Reserved Constituencies but while it is obligatory  for candidates   in   the  reserved  constituency  to   make   a declaration  in the proper column that he is a member  of  a particular caste or tribe, there is no such rule with regard to a General Constituency.  Section 33(2) of the Act imposes an obligation on the candidate in the reserved  constituency to make a declaration in the proper column, but there is  no such  direction  in  the  statute   regard  to  the  General Constituency.   In our opinion, the mention of the caste  of the candidate in the nomination form was a clear superfluity because  it was not necessary for the candidate to  fill  in the column when he was contesting in a General Constituency; but  there is nothing either in the section or in the  rules forbidding the candidate from mentioning his caste.  In  our opinion, there is no violation of the provisions of s. 33 of the Act or the breach of general directions 2 50 contained in Rule 4 and the nomination papers cannot be held to be invalid on this account. For  these reasons we hold that the judgment of  the  Madhya Pradesh High Court dated August 25, 1967 is correct and this appeal must be dismissed with costs. G.C.                                                  Appeal dismissed 251