BIRAD MAL SINGHVI versus ANAND PUROHIT

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

•, 
? 
BIRAD MAL SINGHVI 
A 
v. 
ANAND PUROHIT 
AUGUST 2, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.l 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 33(5), 36(2) (b), 
80, 83, 87, 93 and 116. 
Nomination-Scrutiny of-Returning Officer to be satisfied 
candidate eligible to contest electiolLEnquiry-Summary in nature-No 
scope for elaborate enquiry-Candidate to satisfy Returning Officer C 
about eligibility-Election petition-Not an appeal against order of 
Returning Officer rejecting nomination-Fresh material can be adduced 
by candidate before High Court to support eligibility. 
Candidate an elector of different constituency-Proof of name in D 
concerned electoral roll-Onus on candidate to prove-No duty of 
Returning Officer to refer relevant electoral roll and verify eligibility. 
Nomination paper-Rejection on ground candidate has not comp-
leted 25 years of age-Election petition-Documents showing date of 
birth-Evidentiary value in proving age. 
E 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 35-Entry relating to date of 
birth in school register-Relevant and admissible-Entry regarding age 
in school register-Not much evidentiary value to prove age in absence 
of material on which the age was recotded. 
Election to the State Legislative Assembly of Rajasthan for Jodh-
F 
pur City Constituency, was held in the year 1985. Nomination papers 
were filed on 8.2.1985 and the date of scrutiny was 9.2.1985. In all 45 
candidates filed their nominations, after scrutiny and withdrawal, 21 
candidates contested the election. After polling and the counting of 
votes, the appellant was declared elected having obtained majority of 
G 
votes. 
The respondent who was an elector in the Jodhpur City Consti-
tuency filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the 
appellant's election, on the ground that the result of election was 
materially affected on account of improper rejection of nomination 
H 
1 
r 
' 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A papers of 3 candidates, namely, Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand and . 
Suraj Prakash Joshi. It was pleaded that Smt. Ben was an elector in the 
Sardarpura Assembly Constituency the Returning Officer wrongly re-
jected her nomination paper without affording an opportunity to her to 
produce a copy of the electoral roll, that Hukmi Chand and Suraj 
Prakash Joshi both were more than 25 years of age on the date of the 
B nomination, yet the returning officer rejected their nomination papers 
on the ground that they were not qualified to be a ~andidate as they 
were below 25 years of age. 
... 
t 
The appellant contested the election petition. It was asserted that 
Smt. Ben had failed to file a certified copy of the relevant entry in the 
c electoral roll of Sardarpura Constituency along with her nomination, 
that she further failed to produce a copy of the electoral roll at the time 
of scrutiny and the returning officer therefore rightly rejected her 
nomination paper. In respect of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash 
Joshi, it was pleaded that none of the two candidates were present 
before th1'. returning officer at the time of scrutiny and since the entries 
D contained in the electoral roll indicated that they were below 25 years of 
.... 
age the returning officer rightly rejected their nomination papers, and 
that the rejection of the 3 nomination papers was proper and the result 
of the election was not materially affected on account of the rejection of 
the name. 
IE 
The High Court allowed the election petition and set aside the 
appellant's election. It held that the nomination paper of Smt. Umrao 
Ben was validly rejected as she had failed to comply with section 33(5) 
of the Representation of Peoples Act inasmuch as she failed to produce 
the copy of the electoral roll or a certified copy of the extract relating 
' 
to entry of her name in the electoral roll. It further held that the 
f 
nomination papers of Hukmi Chand and Suraj Prakash Joshi had been 
rejected improperly by the Returning Officer as both t.he candidates 
,, 
had attained the qualifying age of 25 years on the date of nomination. 
• 
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the appellant preferred an 
appeal to this Court under section 116-A of the Representation of 
• 
G People Act, 1951. 
On the questions whether: (1) the returning officer had validly 
rejected the nomination papers of Smt. Umrao Ben, Hukmi Chand and 
'-=
Suraj Prakash Joshi, and (2) the respondent had proved in accordance 
with law tha

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