AMOLAK CHAND versus RAGHUVEER SINGH

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 246 · Decided: 22-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

AMOLAK CHAND 
v. 
RAGHUVEER SINGH 
February 22, 1968 
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Repre:«nt«tion of the People Act, 1955, ss. 33, 36-0ne el.ctor whetlier 
niay propose· two candidates in a single me,nber constituency-Candidale 
unn~enarily filling caste colu111n in nomlnation paper-Nomination paper 
whether liable to he rejecud. 
The appellant and the respondent were rival candidates for election to 
the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the 1967 general election. 
Besides t~ two other candidates had filed nomination papers but these 
were rejected on the ground that they had both been proposec\ by the same 
elector. 
The appellant won the election. 
The respondent in his election 
petition before 1hc High Coun urged that the election had to be set aside 
because the nomination papers of the aforesaid two candidates had been 
wrongly rejected. The High Court held the election to be void. 
Under 
s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 the appellant came 
to this Court, 
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed. 
(i) After the amendment made by Act 27 of 1956, there is no longer 
any express ban or prohibition under ss. 33 and 36 of the Representation 
of the People Act against an «?leotor proposing more than one candidate in 
a single seat constituency, nor' is there such a necessary implication in any 
other provision of the Act. On the other hand the said amendment indi· 
cotes that it was the intention of Parliament that there should be no ban 
on the. number of candidates to be proposei by an elector for a single 
seat constituency. [248 D-249 BJ 
• · 
(ii) The two candidates whose nomination papers were rejected, un~ 
necessarily filled the column indicating their caste. Such a requirement is 
there only for resei:ved seats. But there is nothing in s. 33 (2) or in the 
rules forbidding the candidate from mentioning his caste, and the mention 
of ca~te therefore did not invalidate the nomination papers. [249 HJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1352 of 
1967. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 
1951 from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1967 of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election Peti-
tion No. 2 of 1967. 
S. V. Gupte, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for ·the 
appellant. 
D. D. Varma and Ganpat Rai for the respondent. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought unde; s. 116-A of the 
Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the 
• 
AMOLAK CHAND v. RAGHUVEER (Ramaswami, I.) 
247 
A 
·Act', from the judgment of ·the High Court of Madhya Pradesh 
dated August 25, 1967 in Election Petition No. 2 of 1967 where-
by the High Court held that ~he election of the appellant from 
Barwaha Vidhan Sabha Constituency held on February 20, 1967 
was void. 
B 
c 
D 
The appellant was a candidate at the election of the Legisla· 
live Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from Barwaha 
Constituency held on February 20, 1967. The respondent was a 
candidate for election from the same Constituency. Besides the 
appellant and the responden.t, there were two other candidates, 
namely,· Nathu son of Rupa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram. 
There were two nomination papers filed for Nathu son of Rupa, 
one nomination paper (R-3) was filed on January 19, 1967 at 
2.12 p.m. and the second nomination paper (R-1) was filed on 
January 20, 1967 at 12.47 p.m. The nomination paper of Sita 
Ram son of Sadhu Ram (R·l) was also filed on January 20, 
1967 at 2.32 p.m. In all the three nomination papers, the name 
of the candidate was proposed by one Sharawan son of Gheesa, 
an elector from that Constituency. On January 21, 1967, the 
Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the two can-
didates, Nathu son of R,upa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram on 
the ground that the same elector could not propose two different 
candidates for the same Consituency. At the polling which took 
E 
place on February 20, 1967 the appellant was declared elected to 
the Assembly from the aforesaid Constituency on February 22, 
1967 by the Returning Officer. 
On March 29, 1967, the res-
pondent filed an Election Petition under s. 80 of the Act in the 
High Court against 1he appellant. The respondent sought a decla· 
ration that the election of the appellant was void under s. lOO(c) 
F 
G 
H 
of the Act on the ground that the nomination papers of Nathu son 
of Rupa and Sita Ram son

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.