BRLJENDRALAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER versus JWALAPRASAD AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1960] 3 S.C.R. 650 · Decided: 22-04-1960 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

1960 
State of Bombay 
v. 
Suj;reme Gener(!l 
lillms Exchange 
Lid. 
S.K. Da.J. 
1960 
Af,,-il 22. 
650 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1960] 
substantive right and an enactment which does so is 
not 
retrospective unless it says 
so expressly 
or by 
necessary intendment. 
\Ve are, therefore, of the view that the High Court 
was right in the view it took, and the orders of refund 
of excess court 
fees which it passed were correct in 
law. 
Accordingly, the appeals fail and are dismissed with 
costs. 
There will be one set of costs, as the appeals 
have been consolidated and heard together. 
Appeals dismissed. 
BRlJENDRALAL GUPTA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
j\\'ALAPRASAD AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO and 
K. C. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) 
Election-Nomination, rejection of-Non-mention of age in 
nomination paper-If defect of substantial 
nature-Omission, if 
amounts to defect-Scrutiny-When enquiry necessary-Electoral 
Roll-Entry regarding age-How far conclusive-Representation of 
the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), ss. 33 and 36-Representation of 
the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950), ss. 16 and 19. 
Thirteen candicates filed their nomination papers for election 
to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh. 
The nomina-
tion of U was rejected on the 
ground 
that he failed to give a 
declaration as to his age as required in the nomination paper. 
After the poll the appellants were declared duly elected. 
There-
upon one of the unsuccessful candidates J filed an elecion peti-
tion challenging the election of the appellants, inter alia, on the 
ground that the nomination of U had been improperly rejected. 
The Election Tribunal dismissed 
the petition holding 
that 
U 
made no attempt before the 
returning officer to remedy the 
defect in the nomination paper, 
that the defect could not in law 
have been remedied at the stage of the scrutiny, that the defect 
was of a 
substantial character 
and that 
the rejection 
of the 
nomination was proper. On appeal the High 
Court held that at 
the time of the scrutiny U had offered to 
supply the omission 
but the returning officer had refused to allow him to do so, that 
the ret_urning officer was 
bound to make 
a summary enquiry 
before rejection,_ the nomination, 
that the non-mention of age in 
the nomination paper was not a defect of a substantial character 
and that the rejection of the nomination was improper and con-
sequently allowed the appeal and set aside the election of the 
appellants: 
-
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
651 
__.._! 
Held, that the omission to give the declaration as to age in 
the nomination paper was a defect of substantial character within 
the meaning of s. 36( 4), Representation of the People Act, 1951, 
and the rejection of the nomination for such an omission was 
proper. 
- ' 
Rattan Anmol Singh v. Atma Ram, [1955] 1 S.C.R. 481, Pran-
lal Thakorlal Munshi v. Indubhai Bhailabhai Amin, (1952) 1 E.L.R. 
182, Rup Lal v. 'fugaraj Singh, (1958) 15 E.L.R. 484, Brii Sunder 
Sharma v. Election Tribunal, Jaipur, (1956) 12 E.L.R. 216, Bala-
subrahmanyan v. Election Tribunal, Vellore, (1953) 7 E.L.R. 496 
and Ramayan Shukla v. Rajendra Prasad Singh (1958) 16 E.L.R. 
491, referred to. 
Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, [1955] 
1 S.C.R. 267, 
Pratap Singh v. Sri Krishna Gupta, 
A.I.R. 1956 
S.C. 140 and K.arnail Singh v. Election Tribunal Hissar, 
[1954] 
10 E.L.R. 189, distinguished. 
Pt. Charanjit Lal Ram Sarup v. Lohri Singh Ram Narain, 
A.LR. 1958 Punj. 433, disapproved. 
The word "defect" in s. 36( 4) included an omission to specify 
the details prescribed in the oomination. The distinction drawn 
in English cases between an 
"omission" and "inaccurate des-
cription" depended upon the specific provisions of the English 
statutes and did not obtain under the Indian Law. 
The Queen v. Tugwell, (1868) 3 Q.B. 704 and Baldwin v. Ellis, 
(1929) 1 K.B. 273, distinguished. 
Cases falling under s. 36(2)(b) 
must be distinguished 
from 
those falling 
under s. 36(2)(a). 
Where the 
nomination paper 
did not comply with the provisions of s. 33 of the Act the case 
fell under s. 36(2)(b) and the 
defective nomination 
had to be 
4· accepted or rejected according as the defect was of an unsubstan-
tial or of a substantial character. In such a 
case it was not 
necessary for the returning officer to hold any enquiry. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: 
Civil Appeal No. 
151 of 1960. 
Appeal by special 
leave from 
the judgment and 
order dated November 23, 1959,
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.