Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether nomination papers signed by illiterate proposers and seconders without attestation of their thumb-marks were validly subscribed under the election law, and whether the omission could be treated as a mere technical defect under the saving provision for unsubstantial defects.
Analysis: The statutory scheme required a nomination paper to be completed in the prescribed form and subscribed by the candidate, proposer, and seconder. The term "subscribe" had to be read with the Act and the prescribed form, which required signatures, and the Act's interpretative provision and the election rules treated a person unable to write his name as signing only if the mark was placed in the prescribed presence and attested by the specified officer. The requirement of attestation was therefore part of the substance of a valid signature in such cases. The omission was not a curable irregularity at scrutiny, because the relevant satisfaction and attestation had to exist at the time of presentation. The defect was not a mere technicality of unsubstantial character.
Conclusion: The nomination papers were invalid for non-compliance with the statutory requirements, and the Returning Officer was bound to reject them; the challenge to that rejection failed and the appeals succeeded.