BALRAM SINGH YADAV@ BALRAM YADAV versus ABHAY KUMAR SINGH

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 532 · Decided: 13-05-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 7 S.C.R. 532 
A 
BALRAM SINGH YADAV@ BALRAM YADAV 
B 
v. 
ABl-IAY KUMAR SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No. 888 of 2009) 
MAY 13, 2014. 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951 - Section 33(5) -
Compliance of - Rejection of nomination paper - For non-
e filing of current electoral roll which was required since the 
candidate belonged to another constituency - Held: Is not a 
case of improper rejection - Current electoral roll is to filed 
along with the nomination paper, otherwise it would 
tantamount to non-compliance of s. 33(5) of the Act - Once 
D the court comes to the· conclusion that the nomination paper 
had been improperly rejected, it is obliged in law to declare 
the election void - Thus, on facts, High Court not justified in 
holding that the nomination paper could not have been 
rejected by the returning officer and thereafter, invalidating the 
E election of the elected member since the candidate did not 
file the latest electoral and also remained absent at the time 
of scrutiny - Order passed by the High Court set aside -
Election of the returned candidate valid. 
The respondent filed ~is nomination paper along 
F with other to contest as the member of the Legislative 
Council. The Returning Officer accepted the nomination 
papers of all the candidates but rejected of the 
respondent since he did not file the relevant electoral roll 
which was required to be done, for he belonged to 
G another constituency. The respondent filed an election 
petition seeking a declaration that rejection of his 
• 
nomination paper was incorrect and inappropriate since 
he had filed the requisite voters' list, thus, the election of 
t~e elected candidate was void. The High Court allowed 
H 
532 
BALRAM SINGH YADAV@ BALRAM YADAV v. 
533 
ABHAY KUMAR SINGH 
the election petition and set aside the election of the 
A 
appellant. Hence, the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Unless the current electoral roll is filed 
along with the nomination paper, that would tantamount 
8 
to non-compliance of section 33(5) of the Representation 
of People Act, 1951. Once the court comes to the 
conclusion that the nomination . paper had been 
improperly rejected, it is obliged in law to declare the 
election void. [Para 12 and 15] [541-D; 542-C-D] 
C 
1.2. The submission that there was no pleading and 
no evidence was adduced to establish that the election 
of the elected candidate was materially affected, is sans 
substance. In the instant case, on a perusal of evidence o 
of PW-1, the respondent, and the Returning Officer, it is 
perceptible that the respondent l}ad not filed the electoral 
roll. of 1~98 which was the latest electoral roll as on 
1.1.2002. On the date of scrutiny, the respondent was 
absent. The High Court referred to the order of rejection 
E 
of nomination paper by the Returning Officer and opined 
that none had filed the electoral roll of 1.1.2002 and, 
therefore, the nomination paper could not have been 
rejected. The said view is the resultant of erroneous 
perception of fact. The ground that was indicated by the 
Returning Officer was that the valid electoral roll as on 
1.1.2002 had not been filed. It has come in the evidence 
that no electoral roll was prepared on that date and the 
latest electoral roll was that of 1998. The respondent had 
F 
not filed the same. In fact, he had filed the·electoral roll 
of 1995. It is also clear from the evidence that at the time 
G 
of scrutiny, he was not present. [Para 12 and 15] [541-D; 
542-D-G] 
1.3. The High Court erred by setting aside the election 
of the appellant and, ~hus, the judgment of the HJgh Court 
H 
534 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
/ 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A is set aside. The election of the appellant is treated as 
valid. The appellant would get the entire remuneration for 
the period for which he was elected as a member of the 
legislative Council. [Para 16) (542-G; 543-A-B] 
8 
Kirpal Singh, ML.A. v. Uttam Singh and another (1985) 
4 SCC 621:1985 (3) Suppl. SCR 622 - followed. 
B. Dandapani Patra v. Returning Officer-cum-Sub-
Divisional Officer, Be~rhampur and others (1990) 1 SCC 
505:1989 (2) Suppl. SCR 100; Ranjit Singh v. Pritam Singh 
C (1996) 3 SCR 543 -
r1~lied on. 
Surendra Nath Khosla and another v. S. Dalip Singh and 
others-AIR 1957 SC 242; Mahadeo v. Babu Udai Partap 
Singh and others AIR 1966 SC 824: 1966 SCR 564 -
0 referred to. 
C21se Law Reference : 
AIR 1957 SC 242 
Referred to 
Para 10 
E 
AIR 1

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