2004 (1) TMI 675 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court sets aside election petition, validates Bachan Singh nomination. Adherence to statutory procedures emphasized.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the election petition. The Court concluded that the ... Whether the evidence, which is all subsequent to the last date of filing of the nomination paper, can be looked into in order to ascertain as to who had been set up as a candidate by the Congress Party? Issues Involved:1. Validity of the rejection of Kamal Sharma's nomination paper.2. Determination of the official candidate of the Congress Party.3. Legality of the Election Commission's order for re-scrutiny.4. Impact of extrinsic evidence on the determination of the official candidate.5. Consequences of non-joinder of Bachan Singh as a party to the election petition.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the rejection of Kamal Sharma's nomination paper:The High Court had set aside the election of Ram Phal Kundu on the grounds that Kamal Sharma's nomination paper was wrongly rejected. Kamal Sharma claimed to be the official candidate of the Congress Party, supported by Form A and Form B signed by Bhupinder Singh Hooda. However, Bachan Singh also filed his nomination with Forms A and B, the latter of which rescinded Kamal Sharma's candidature. The Returning Officer accepted Bachan Singh's nomination and rejected Kamal Sharma's, leading to the election petition.2. Determination of the official candidate of the Congress Party:The Supreme Court examined paras 13 and 13A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968, which outlines the criteria for a candidate to be deemed set up by a political party. The Court found that the Form B submitted by Bachan Singh, which rescinded Kamal Sharma's earlier Form B, was valid and signed in ink by Bhupinder Singh Hooda. The Court emphasized that the absence of the party seal on Bachan Singh's Form B was not a defect of substantial character, as the Order required only the signature in ink of the authorized person.3. Legality of the Election Commission's order for re-scrutiny:The Election Commission had directed a re-scrutiny of the nomination papers, which the Supreme Court found to be without jurisdiction. The Court noted that once a nomination paper is rejected, the only remedy is through an election petition after the election, not at an intermediate stage. The order by the Election Commission was passed without hearing Bachan Singh, rendering it illegal and without jurisdiction.4. Impact of extrinsic evidence on the determination of the official candidate:The Supreme Court held that the determination of who is set up by a political party must strictly adhere to paras 13 and 13A of the Symbols Order, and extrinsic evidence cannot be considered unless there is an allegation of fraud or coercion in obtaining the signature. The Court rejected the High Court's reliance on subsequent letters and affidavits from Bhupinder Singh Hooda, as these were received after the last date of filing nominations.5. Consequences of non-joinder of Bachan Singh as a party to the election petition:The Supreme Court noted that the election petition was filed against Ram Phal Kundu alone, with no allegations against him, and Bachan Singh was not made a party. This placed an undue burden on the appellant to provide evidence regarding the internal affairs of the Congress Party. The Court emphasized that the non-joinder of Bachan Singh did not automatically result in the dismissal of the petition but highlighted the difficulties it created in adjudicating the matter.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and dismissing the election petition. The Court concluded that the nomination of Kamal Sharma was rightly rejected and that Bachan Singh was the validly nominated candidate of the Congress Party. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the prescribed statutory procedures and rejected the reliance on extrinsic evidence to determine the official candidate. The appellant was awarded costs for both the Supreme Court and the High Court proceedings.