http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: KUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT28/07/1977

BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KRISHNAIYER, V.R.

CITATION:  1977 AIR 1992            1978 SCR  (1) 208  1977 SCC  (4) 153

ACT: Representation   of   the  People  Act,   1951-Election   to Legislative  Council from local  authorities’  constituency- Electoral roll not corrected and brought upto-date-If  would vitiate an election held on that basis.

HEADNOTE: Article  171(3)  of the Constitution provides  that  of  the total  number  of’ members of the Legislative Council  of  a State  one third shall be elected by electorates  consisting of members, among others, of local authorities in the  State as   Parliament  may  by  law  specify.   Part  IV  of   the Representation  of  the People Act, 1950  which  deals  with electoral, rolls for Council constituencies, provides in  s. 21(2)  that  if  the electoral roll is not  revised  in  the manner  stated therein, the validity or continued  operation of  the said electoral roll shall not thereby  be  affected. Section  27(2)  of this part prescribes  the  procedure  for maintaining the electoral roll corrected uptodate. In  the election to the State Legislative Council  from  the local authorities’ constituency, the appellant was  declared elected  by  a  majority  of 18  votes.   In  this  election petition,  the respondent, who was the  defeated  candidate, alleged  that although long before the notification  of  the election  new  office bearers in place of 13  Presidents  of cooperative  societies  and  4 coopted  members  of  Kshetra Samities   were  elected,  the  electoral  rolls  were   not corrected and brought uptodate as a result of which  persons who were not entitled to vote in the election,  participated and that this had materially affected the result.  Upholding the contention, the High Court held that the electoral  roll could  not be deemed’ to be an electoral roll for  the  time being  in force within the meaning of s. 2(1) (e) read  with s. 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951  because it was not brought uptodate in accordance with the mandatory provisions  of  s. 27 of the 1950 Act and that  an  election held  on the basis of an invalid and ultra  vires  electoral roll was void. Allowing the appeal, HELD  : The High Court is clearly wrong in holding that  the electoral roll was illegal or ultra vires with reference  to the  particular entries of voters and’ that on that  account

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

the election was liable to be set aside. [216G] 1.   Although under s. 27 the electoral registration officer has  to maintain in his office the electoral roll  corrected uptodate  and  this  had not been done in  this  case,  mere remissness  of  the  officers in performing  their  duty  in preparation  of the electoral rolls is not relevant for  the purposes of determining the question in the entire scheme of the  Act  and  the  object and  purpose  of  preparation  of electoral rolls under the 1950 Act. [213G] 2.(a) In a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken the  view that the finality of the electoral roll cannot  be challenged   in  an  election  petition  even   if   certain irregularities  had  taken place in the preparation  of  the electoral  roll or if subsequent disqualification had  taken place  and  the electoral roll had on that  score  not  been corrected  before  the  last hour  of  making  nominations. After  that dead line the electoral roll of  a  constituency cannot  be  interfered  with and no one can  go  behind  the entries  except for the purpose of  considering  disqualifi- cation under s. 16 of the 1950 Act. [216D] Baidydnath  Panjiar  v. Sitaram Mahto & Ors., [1970]  1  SCR 839,  Kabul  Singhv. Kundan Singh & Ors. [1970] 1  SCR  845, Pampakavi Ravappa Balagali v. B. D. Jatti & Others. [1971] 2 SCR  611  and Hariprasad Mulshankar Trivedi v.  V.  BRaju  & Others. [1974] 1 SCR 548 followed. 209 2(b) There is a clear distinction between a challenge to the right  of a voter to be registered in an electoral roll  and the jurisdiction of an authority appointed under the Act  to enter a name in the electoral roll. [215F] Ramji  Prasad Singh v. Rain Bilas Jha & four Ors.  [1977]  1 SCR  741  and  B. M. Ramaswamy v. B.  M.  Krishnamurthy  and Others [1963] 3 SCR 479 applied. 3.   The  voters  whose participation in  the  election  was questioned,  were electors within the meaning of s.  2(1)(e) of  the 1951 Act, entitled to vote under s. 62 of  that  Act and  were  not  disqualified under s. 16 of  the  1950  Act. Therefore,  it  would  have been wrong on the  part  of  the presiding   officer   not  to  allow   those   voters   from participating  in the voting even though their names  could, at  the  appropriate time, have been  legitimately  excluded from the electoral roll. [215B-C] 4.   The  respondent’s  contention  that by  reason  of  the deliberate omission or s.     21  in,  s.  27  (2)  (e),  no finality is intended in the case of an electoral roll for  a council  constituency is without force.  The proviso  to  s. 21(2) relates to revision of in electoral roll and sets  at rest any possible controversy in case there was no  revision of  electoral  roll for one reason or other.   The  proviso, therefore,  has been advisedly inserted in s. 21(2)  with  a specific  purpose  of forestalling a  situation.   The  same caution  is  not  necessary in the case  of  preparation  of electoral rolls tinder s. 27(2), the alterations whereof are concomitant with statutory    transformations  of the  local authorities under provisions of the local     Acts.  If  any modicum of caution is yet necessary, even that is  preserved by s. 23(3)    which is made applicable, in terms, under  s. 27(2)(e). [216A-C]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1975. From  the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd May 1975  of  the Allahabad  High Court (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow  in  Election

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Petition No. II of 1974. P.   R. Mridul and E. C. Agrawala, for the Appellant. P.   H. Parekh, (A.  C.), for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Goswami, J. This appeal under section 116A of the  Represen- tation  of  the People Act, 1951, is  directed  against  the judgment  of the Allahabad High Court in the, matter  of  an election  to the U.P. Legislative Council held on April  28, 1974,  from the Local Authorities’  Constituency,  Faizabad. We  are concerned here with Kshettra Samitis which  are  the local authorities (see Fourth Schedule of the Representation of  the  People  Act, 1950,  Uttar  Pradesh).   Besides  the appellant, ten candidates (respondents 1 to 10) filed  their nomination  papers.  Six of them (respondents 5 to  10)  had withdrawn their candidature.  Out of the five left there was no  contest worth the name from respondents 2, 3 and 4.  The principal contest, therefore, was between the appellant  and respondent  No.  1  (hereinafter to  be  described  only  as respondent).   The  last date for submission  of  nomination papers  was  April  2, 1974.  At  the,  poll  the  appellant secured  927  votes and the respondent 909,  the  difference being  only  of  18 votes.  The  appellant  was,  therefore, declared elected on April 29, 1974. The  respondent filed an election petition (being No. 11  of 1974) before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High  Court. As  many as 13 issues were raised before the High Court  and we are principally 210 concerned with only one question which is the subject matter of issue Nos. 1, 4 and 13.  The issues read as follows :-               1. (a)     Whether  the  votes  cast  by   the               persons  mentioned in clause (a) of para 4  of               the election petition were void ?               (b)   Were  those persons not electors  within               the  meaning  of  section  2(1)  (a)  of   the               Representation  of  the People  Act,  1951  on               28-4-1974 when the election was held ?               4. (a)     Whether  the five persons named  in               para 8 of the election petition had ceased  to               be  coopted members of Kshettra Samitis  after               the  expiry  of the term  of  Kshettra  Samiti               Bhiaon in the year 1973 ?               (b)   Can  this question be enquired  into  by               this Tribunal ?               (c)   If so were the said persons not electors               on  the  date  of election  and  as  such  not               entitled to vote ?               (d)   Whether  the votes of the  said  persons               are void ?               (e)   Whether the reception of the void  votes               of  the said persons materially  affected  the               result of the election ?               13.   (a)  Whether the electoral roll  on  the               basis of which               election was held is ultra vires as alleged in               para 17 of the election petition ?               (b)   Whether  this  question  can  be   taken               notice  of  by the Tribunal in  this  election               petition ?               (c)   Whether  the election held on the  basis               of        the said electoral roll is void ? These  issues cover the case of 17 persons whose names  were recorded as electors in the electoral rolls grounded on  the requisite qualifications that 13 of them were Presidents  of their  respective Cooperative Societies and the remaining  4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

were  coopted members of Kshettra Samitis.  But  since  they had  ceased to be the Presidents or coopted members  on  the new  office  bearers  being subsequently  elected  in  their places  long before the notification of the  election,  they were wrongly continued in their electoral rolls and as  such were  not entitled to vote, notwithstanding the presence  of their names in the electoral rolls.  Their participation  in the  election has materially affected the result.   This  is the case of the respondent. The  High  Court accepted the contention and set  aside  the election observing as follows :-               "On  these facts it is more than evident  that               the   concerned  officers  failed   in   their               mandatory  duty and they did not  correct  the               electoral  roll  upto  date  as  required   by               section  27.   This incorrect  electoral  roll               could  not  therefore  be  deemed  to  be  the               electoral  roll  for the time being  in  force               within the               211               meaning  of section 2(1)(e) read with  section               62  of  1951 Act.  The election  held  on  the               basis   of  this  invalid  and   ultra   vires               electoral roll is also void". The  High Court, however, observed that "it is not known  in whose  favour  they exercised their votes so as  to  exclude them". We  may here observe that if the High Court is right on  the first  point  a  further question  will  arise  whether  the election  of the appellant has been materially  affected  by the  reception  of  void votes in  his  favour.   As  stated earlier,  the  High Court has not addressed itself  to  this aspect. The principal question that arises for consideration in this appeal  is whether the High Court is right in  holding  that the  electoral  roll  was invalid and  the  voters  recorded therein were, as such, disqualified from voting on the  date of election. Article 171 of the Constitution provides for composition  of the Legislative Councils.  Under sub-article (3) thereof "Of the total number of members of the Legislative Council of  a State-               (a)   as nearly as may be, one third shall  be               elected  by electorates consisting of  members               of  municipalities, district boards  and  such               other  local  authorities  in  the  State   as               Parliament may by law specify". Part  IV  of  the  Representation of  the  People  Act  1950 (briefly  the  1950  Act) deals  with  electoral  rolls  for Council  Constituencies.  Section 27 in that  Part  provides for   preparation   of   electoral   rolls   for    ,Council Constituencies.   Sub-section (2) of that section  reads  as follows               "(2)  For  the  purpose of  elections  of  the               Legislative Council               of   a   State  in  any   local   authorities’               constituency-               (a)   the electorate shall consist of  members               of    such   local   authorities    exercising               jurisdiction  in any place or area within  the               limits  of that constituency as are  specified               in  relation  to  that  State  in  the  Fourth               Schedule;               (b)   every   member   of  each   such   local               authority   within   a   local    authorities’

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

             constituency   shall   be   entitled   to   be               registered  in  the electoral  roll  for  that               constituency.               (c)   the  electoral registration officer  for               every  local authorities’  constituency  shall               maintain  in  his  office  in  the  prescribed               manner  and form the electoral roll  for  that               constituency corrected up-to-date;               (d)   in   order  to  enable   the   electoral               registration officer to maintain the electoral               roll corrected up-to-date, the chief executive               officer. of every local               212               authority   (by  whatever   designation   such               officer may be known) shall immediately inform               the electoral registration officer about every               change   in  the  membership  of  that   local               authority;  and  the  electoral   registration               officer shall, on receipt of the  information,               strike  off from the electoral roll the  names               of persons who have ceased to be, and  include               therein the names of persons who have  become,               members of that local authority; and               (e)   the  provisions of sections 15, 16,  18,               22  and  23 shall apply in relation  to  local               authorities’  constituencies as they apply  in               relation to assembly constituencies". This  sub-section was substituted by the Amendment Act 2  of 1956,  There were also some significant changes in the  1951 Act by Amendment Act 27 of 1956.  For example, the words "or of any other Act or rules relating to election" were deleted from  the original section 108(2)(c) by the  1956  Amendment Act, which goes to show that violation of the provisions  of the 1950 Act were not included as one of the grounds, in the above  clause, liable to materially affect the result of  an election.   In the context of sub-section (2) of section  27 of  the  1950  Act, section 23 provides  for  correction  of entries in electoral rolls either on application made to the electoral registration officer or on his. own motion. Section  23 of the 1950 Act is material for our purpose  and may be, read :               "23. (1) Any person whose name is not included               in  the electoral roll of a  constituency  may               apply  to the electoral  registration  officer               for the inclusion of his name in that roll.               (2)   The   electoral   registration   officer               shall,  if  satisfied that  the  applicant  is               entitled  to  be registered in  the  electoral               roll, direct his name to be included therein :               Provided  that if the applicant is  registered               in   the   electoral   roll   of   any   other               constituency,   the   electoral   registration               officer    shall    inform    the    electoral               registration    officer    of    that    other               constituency   and  that  officer  shall,   on               receipt  of  the information, strike  off  the               applicant’s name from that roll.               (3)   No amendment, transposition or  deletion               of  any entry shall be made under  section  22               and  no direction for the inclusion of a  name               in the electoral roll of a constituency  shall               be  given under this section, after  the  last               date for making nominations for an election in               that  constituency  or  in  the  parliamentary               constituency within which that constituency is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

             comprised  and before the completion  of  that               election".               213               Under  section  24,  there  is  provision  for               appeal from any order passed under section  22               or section 23.               We may also refer to section 30 which has been               relied upon by the appellant.               "30.  No civil court shall have jurisdiction-               (a)   to  entertain  or  adjudicate  upon  any               question  whether  any  person is  or  is  not               entitled to be registered in an electoral roll               for a constituency; or               (b)   to  question the legality of any  action               taken   by  or  under  the  authority  of   an               electoral  registration  officer,  or  of  any               decision  given  by  any  authority  appointed               under  this Act for the revision of  any  such               roll". Section 32 provides for punishment of the officer  concerned for  breach of  official  duty  in  connection  with   the preparation,  revision  or  correction,  etc.  of  electoral rolls. We are not required to write on a clean slate with regard to the  controversy  raised  in this appeal.   The  High  Court appears  to have been impressed by the fact that a  duty  is cast  under  section  27 of the 1950 Act  on  the  electoral registration   officer  to  maintain  the   electoral   roll corrected  up-to-date and that since this had not been  done the  names  of the voters who had admittedly  ceased  to  be Presidents or coopted members some time in 1973 ought not to have  appeared in the electoral rolls and that as such  they were disqualified from voting in the election. It is true that under ’section 27 the electoral registration officer  has  to maintain in his office  an  electoral  roll corrected   up-to-date.   So  far  as  any  change  in   the membership of a local authority is concerned there is also a duty  cast  under section 27(2)(d) on  the  chief  executive officer  of every local authority to immediately inform  the electoral  registration  officer about such a  change.   The electoral registration officer, on receipt of such  informa- tion from the chief executive officer, shall strike off  the old  names  and substitute the new names of members  of  the particular   local   authority.   Even  the   new   members, themselves,  could apply for registration of their names  by deletion  of those of their predecessors in due time.   This was not done. Mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty  in preparation  of the electoral rolls is not relevant for  the purpose of determining the question in the entire scheme  of the  Act  and  the object and  purpose  of  preparation,  of electoral rolls under the 1950 Act. In Baidyanath Panjiar v. Sitaram Mahto & Ors.(1) this  Court ,categorically held as follows (1)  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 839. 214               "A  fair reading of the various clauses in  S.               27(2)  will make it clear that the entries  in               an  electoral roll of a constituency, as  they               stood on the last date for making the  nomina-               tions  for  an election in  that  constituency               should be considered as final for the  purpose               of that election".               In Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh & Ors., (1)  it               was further held as, follows :-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

             "The  mandate of that provision is  plain  and               unambiguous.   It prohibits inclusion  of  any               name   in   the  electoral  roll   after   the               prescribed  date whether the  application  for               inclusion was made before or after that date".               In Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali v. B. D. Jatti &               Others(2),          this. Court again held  as               follows :-               "The entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and  the               amplitude  of  its provisions  show  that  the               entries  made  in  an  Electoral  Roll  of   a               constituency   can  only  be   challenged   in               accordance  with the machinery provided by  it               and  not  in any other manner  or  before  any               other forum unless some question of  violation               of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  is               involved". In  Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V. B. Raju and  Others, (3) Mathew, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench and after referring  to,  several  earlier  decisions  of  this  Court reached the conclusion as follows :               "Section  30 of that Act makes it  clear  that               civil  courts have no power to adjudicate  the               question.   In these circumstances we  do  not               think that it would be incongruous to infer an               implied  ouster  of the  jurisdiction  of  the               court  trying an election petition to go  into               the question.  That inference is  strengthened               by the fact that under S. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the               1951 Act the result of the election must  have               been  materially  affected  by  non-compliance               with the provisions of the Constitution or  of               that  Act or of the rules, orders  made  under               that Act in order that High Court may  declare               an  election to be void.  Non-compliance  with               the provisions of S. 19 of the 1950 Act cannot               furnish  a  ground for declaring  an  election               void under that clause". In the above context we may also refer to section 62 of  the Representation of the People Act 1951 (briefly the 1951 Act) which reads as follows :-               "62.  (1) No person who is not, and except  as               expressly  provided by this Act, every  person               who  is,  for the time being  entered  in  the               electoral  roll of any constituency  shall  be               entitled to vote in that constituency.               (1)   [1970] 1 S.C.R. 845.               (2)   [1971] 2 S.C.R. 611.               (3)   [1974] 1 S.C.R 548               215               (2)   No  person shall vote at an election  in               any  constituency if he is subject to  any  of               the  disqualifications referred to in  section               16  of the Representation of the  People  Act,               1950 (48 of 1950)". It  is  not  disputed  that the  persons  whose  names  were recorded  in  the  electoral roll and  participated  in  the voting  were not disqualified under section 16 of  the  1950 Act.   That being the position it would have been  wrong  on the  part of the Presiding Officer not to allow  the  voters whose  names  were  recorded in the electoral  roll  of  the constituency to participate in the voting, even though their names  could  have  been earlier  at  the  appropriate  time legitimately excluded from the electoral roll.  These voters are electors within the meaning of section 2 (1) (e) of  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

1951  Act and were entitled to vote under section 62 of  the 1951 Act. In  a  democracy  and  for.  that  matter  in  an  election, perennial  vigilance should be the watch-word for all.   If, therefore,  notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  the   law, appropriate  action was not taken at the  appropriate  time, the  provisions  of the election law which have  got  to  be construed  strictly, must work with indifference  to  conse- quences, immediate or mediate.  On the part of the  officers also  it will vitalise and invigorate a  healthy  democratic practice  if, charged with the electoral  duties,  demanding high  probity,  they  neither exhibit  rank  remissness  nor accelerated  alacrity  apt  always  to  breed  suspicion  of partisanship. Mr.  Parekh  appearing,  as amicus  curiae,  has  drawn  our attention to a decision of this Court in Ramji Prasad  Singh v. Ram Bilas Jha & Four Ors. (1) to which I was a party.  It is  not possible to hold that Ramji decision (supra)  is  of any  aid  to  counsel in his submission in  support  of  the impugned judgment.  This Court in that case referred to  the earliest case on the subject, namely, B. M. Ramaswamy v.  B. M.  Krishnamurthy  and Others(2) that it "bad  come  to  the conclusion that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged  in  a proceeding in which the  validity  of  the election  is  questioned".  This Court has  further  clearly observed in Ramji’s case (supra) as follows               "There  is  a  clear  distinction  between   a               challenge  to  the  right of  a  voter  to  be               registered  in  an  electoral  roll  and   the               jurisdiction  of an authority appointed  under               the  Act  to  enter a name  in  the  electoral               roll". Mr. Parekh also invited our attention to section 27 (2)  (e) of  1950 Act wherein section 21 of that Act is omitted.   He submits that under proviso to sub-section (2) of section  21 "if  the  electoral roll is not revised  as  aforesaid,  the validity  or continued operation of the said electoral  roll shall  not thereby be affected".  From this he submits  that deliberate  omission of section 21 in section 27 (2) (e)  is very significant and no finality is intended in the case  of electoral roll for a Council Constituency in Part IV of  the 1950 Act. (1)  [1977] 1 S.C.R. 741. (2)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 479. 216 We  appreciate  the ingenuity of the  submission.   We  are, however, unable to accept the submission notwithstanding the omission of section 21 in section 27(2)(e) of the 1950  Act. The  proviso  to  section 21(2) relates to  revision  of  an electoral roll and sets at rest any possible controversy  in case there happens to be no revision of electoral rolls  for one  reason  or  other.  The proviso,  therefore,  has  been advisedly inserted in section 21(2) with a specific  purpose of  forestalling  a  situation.  The  same  caution  is  not necessary  in  the case of preparation  of  electoral  rolls under section 27(2), the alterations whereof are concomitant with  statutory  transformations of  the  local  authorities under  provisions  of  the local Acts.  If  any  modicum  of caution is yet necessary, even that is preserved by  section 23(3)  which  is made applicable, in  terms,  under  section 27(2)(e).   The  submission of counsel, thus, flies  in  the face of the scheme and object of the above provisions. Thus  in a catena of cases this Court ha consistently  taken the  view that the finality of the electoral roll cannot  be challenged   in  an  election  petition  even   if   certain

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

irregularities  had  taken place in the preparation  of  the electoral  roll or if subsequent disqualification had  taken place  and  the electoral roll had on that  score  not  been corrected before the last hour of making nominations.  After that  dead line the electoral roll of a constituency  cannot be  interfered  with and no one can go  behind  the  entries except for the purpose of considering disqualification under section 16 of the 1950 Act. The  election  could  be  set  aside  only  on  the  grounds mentioned  in  section 100 of the 1951 Act.   In  this  case reliance   was  placed  under  section  100(1)(d)(iii)   for invalidating the election on the ground of reception of void votes.   We  have  already shown  that  the  electoral  roll containing  the  particular names of voters  was  valid  and there  is, therefore, no question of reception of  any  vote which was void.  There is, thus, no substance in that ground for challenging the election. It  is  true,  the result is that with a  small  margin  the appellant  landed  first as the victor in the  election  and even  the  balance  might  have  tilted  in  favour  of  the respondent  if  the  so-called  invalid  votes  were  to  be excluded.  But this uncanny consequence cannot be helped  on the  law laid down by this Court and for very  good  reasons impregnated  in the electoral provisions demanding  constant awareness  on  the  part  of all  and,  above  all,  of  the citizenry. We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court is clearly wrong  in  holding that the electoral roll  was  illegal  or ultra  vires  with reference to the  particular  entries  of votes and that on that account the election was liable to be set aside.  We, therefore, set aside the judgment and  order of the High Court and restore the election of the  appellant to  the  U.P. Legislative Council.   The  election  petition stands  dismissed with costs.  In the view we have taken  it is not necessary to consider the second question with regard to  the  point  whether the result of the  election  of  the appellant was materially affected or not.  In the result the appeal is allowed, but since the respondent has not  entered appearance we will make no order as to costs. 217 We  are  thankful to both Mr. Mridul for  his  well  planned submission  with considerate brevity and to Mr.  Parekh  for his able assistance as amicus curiae on a very short  notice from the Court. We  may say at end that this case discloses in  an  election matter,  the negative attitude of officialdom while  Ramji’s case  (supra)  exposed a lurid instance of  an  over-zealous positive drive. P.B.R.                                                Appeal allowed. 3--786SCI/77 218