1988 (1) TMI 361 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds election despite improper nomination acceptance. Burden of proof on petitioner.

Shiv Charan Singh Versus Chandra Bhan Singh.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's election to the Legislative Assembly due to the improper acceptance of ... - Issues Involved:1. Improper acceptance of nomination paper.2. Material effect on the election result due to improper acceptance.Summary:Improper Acceptance of Nomination Paper:The High Court of Rajasthan set aside the appellant's election to the Legislative Assembly on the grounds that Kanhaiya Lal, a contesting candidate, was not qualified to contest the election u/s Article 173(b) of the Constitution as he was below 25 years of age. The High Court held that Kanhaiya Lal's nomination paper was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer.Material Effect on Election Result:The High Court concluded that the improper acceptance of Kanhaiya Lal's nomination paper materially affected the result of the election, as the difference between the votes polled by the appellant and the next unsuccessful candidate Roshan Lal was only 4497 votes. The High Court speculated that the votes polled by Kanhaiya Lal could have gone in favor of Roshan Lal and other candidates, potentially altering the election outcome.Burden of Proof:The Supreme Court emphasized that u/s 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the burden of proving that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of a nomination paper lies on the election petitioner. This burden is difficult and often impossible to discharge, but it remains the law as established in previous cases like Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra and Paokai Haokip v. Rishang.Evidence and Conjectures:The election petitioners failed to produce any positive evidence to prove that the improper acceptance of Kanhaiya Lal's nomination paper materially affected the election result. The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for relying on conjectures and surmises rather than concrete evidence. The Court reiterated that the election of a returned candidate cannot be declared void based on speculations about how votes might have been distributed among the remaining candidates.Conclusion:The Supreme Court held that the election petitioners did not discharge the burden of proving that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper acceptance of Kanhaiya Lal's nomination paper. Therefore, the appellant's election could not be declared void. The appeals were allowed, the judgment and order of the High Court were set aside, and the appellant's election was upheld.