CHHEDI RAM versus JHILMIT RAM & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 966 · Decided: 05-12-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

.'A 
·D 
E 
G 
H 
., 
'.966 
CHHEDI RAM 
v. 
JHII:.MiT RAM & OTHERS 
• 
December 5, 1983 
[S. MURTAZA.FAZAL ALI, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND 
.. • 
E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 
• Repmentation of the People Act, 195/-S, 100(/)(d)-lmpr~per acceptance 
of nomin~tion--;-When could it be. said to materially affect the result of election?. 
' 
The appellant; the respondent and four· other candidates contested the 
election to a legislative assembly fror:D a 
cons~ituency reserved ·ror Scheduled 
Castes. While the respondent was declared elected, the appellant secured the 
next highest numbcir of votes and the difference in the number of ·votes secured 
by them was only .373. The appellant challenged the election of the respondent 
on the ground that the result of the election had been mat.erially effected by the 
improper acceptance of the nomination of a third candidate who had secured 
6710 votes. The Election Tribunal arrived at the findiOg that the candidate· in 
question was not a·member of the Scheduled Castes· and hepce is nomination 
had been improperly accePted, but nevertheless, refused to set aside the election 
"o.f the respondent on the ground thii.t the resulf of the 
election had not been 
shown to have been ~aterially affected as a result of the improper acceptance 
of the nomination. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: Under s. IOO(l)(d) of the Representation of the Penple Act, 
-1951,. the election of a returned candidate shall be declared to ·be_ void if the· 
High Court is of the opinion that the result of the election, in so far as it 
con~rns the returned 'Candidate, has been materially affected by the improper 
acceptance of any nomination and the. burden of establishing the same is on the 
person impeaching the election: Where the candidate whose nomination was 
imprope~Jy accepted has secured' a larger number of votes than the difference 
between the number of vOtes secured by the successful candidate and the candi-
date securing the next highest number of votes, there is a possibility that a 
sufficient -number of votes actually cast for t~e candidate whose nomination· 
was improperly accepted might have been cast for the candidate who Secured 
the highest number of votes next to the successful candidate so as to upset the 
result of the .election. In such a -situation, the answer to the question whether 
the.result of the election could be said to have been materially affected must 
depend on the facts, circumstances and reasonable probabilities of the .case. 
If the number df votes secured by the candidate whose nomination was. impro-
perly acc::epted is disproportionately 13.rge as compared with tlie diffCrence 
.• 
.. 
~. 
CHHEDl RAM v. llliLMIT RAM (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
961 
between the votes secured by the successful candidate and the candidate tsecur-
ing the n·ext highest number of.votes and if the votes secured by the candidate 
whose nomination was improperly accepted bears a fairly high proportion to 
the votes secured by the successful candidate, the reasonable probability is that 
tho result of the election h8.s been materially affected and one may venture to 
hold the fact as proved. [968 F-G; 969 D-F] . 
A 
Under the Evidence Act, a fact is 'said to be proved when after consi· 
dering the matters before. it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers 
B 
its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under· the circumstances 
of the particular case, to act upon the supposition. that· it exists. If having 
regard to the facts and circu_mstances of a case; the reaSonable probability is 
~an one way, a court must not lay down an impossible standard of proof and 
hold a fact as not proved. (969 G-H] 
.1 
c 
In the instant case, the candidate whose nomination was improperly 
accepted had obtained U710 votes, that is, almost 20-times the· difference 
b~tween the number of votes secured by the sllccessful candidate and the candi-
date securing the nexi highsst number of votes. Further, the number of votes 
secured by the candidate Whose nomination was improperly accepted bore a 
fairly high ·proportion to the number of votes secured by the successful candi-
date-it was a li.ttle over one-thir4. In such a situation the result of the election 
D 
.may safely be said to have been affected. 
(969 H; 970 A-)l] 
.' Vashist Narain Sharma v. Dev 
Chandra, rt955J 
S.C.R. 509; and 
Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandes, [1969} 3- S.C.R. 603; explained and. 
distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE lURISDI

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