1988 (8) TMI 440 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court ruling on nomination paper rejections under Section 33(5)

Birad Mal Singhvi Versus Anand Purohit

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the rejection of Smt. Umrao Ben's nomination paper due to non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Act. However, ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the rejection of the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao Ben.2. Validity of the rejection of the nomination papers of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi.3. Impact of the rejection of the nomination papers on the election result.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the rejection of the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao Ben:The appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of People Act 1951 challenges the High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's election. The High Court held that the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao Ben was validly rejected as she failed to comply with Section 33(5) of the Act. Smt. Umrao Ben, an elector from Sardarpura Assembly Constituency, did not produce a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll of Sardarpura constituency at the time of scrutiny. The respondent argued that the returning officer, who was also the returning officer for Sardarpura, should have verified the entries from the electoral roll in his custody. However, the court found no merit in these submissions, stating that Section 33(5) is mandatory and the returning officer acted in accordance with the law by rejecting her nomination paper due to non-compliance.2. Validity of the rejection of the nomination papers of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi:The High Court found that the nomination papers of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi were improperly rejected by the returning officer. Both candidates had attained the age of 25 years on the relevant date, contrary to the entries in the electoral roll, which indicated they were below 25 years. The returning officer rejected their nomination papers based on these entries, as neither candidate nor their representatives were present at the time of scrutiny to provide evidence of their actual age. The court held that it was open to the High Court to take a final decision on the matter based on additional material presented during the election petition proceedings, which proved that both candidates were qualified to contest the election.3. Impact of the rejection of the nomination papers on the election result:The High Court's decision to set aside the appellant's election was based on the improper rejection of the nomination papers of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi, which materially affected the election result. The court found that the respondent had successfully proved that both candidates had attained the age of 25 years on the relevant date through oral and documentary evidence. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court committed a serious error in appreciating the evidentiary value of the documents produced by the respondent. The documents (Exs. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) lacked probative value as there was no evidence to show on whose information the entries regarding the dates of birth were made. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings were not sustainable.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the rejection of Smt. Umrao Ben's nomination paper was valid due to non-compliance with Section 33(5) of the Act. However, the rejection of Hukmichand and Suraj Prakash Joshi's nomination papers was found to be improper, but the High Court's decision to set aside the election based on this rejection was flawed due to the lack of probative evidence regarding their ages. The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof was on the respondent to provide cogent and reliable evidence to prove the ages of the candidates, which was not adequately done in this case.