ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus DR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 01-12-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
DR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ORS. 
DECEMBER I, 1999 
B 
[S.P. BHARUCHA, R.C. LAHOTI AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
Election: 
Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950-S. 20 (4),(5) and (7)-
C "Ordinary resident"-Holder of a declared office-Statement regarding his 
"ordinary residence"-Electoral Registration officer not possessing any 
evidence to the contrary -Enquiry questioning correctness of declaration of 
"ordinary residence"-Validity of-Held, cannot be questioned unless there 
is evidence to the contrary -Enquiry regarding "ordinary residence" 
D quashed-Registration of Electors Rules, I 960. 
Respondent No.I was elected to Rajya Sabha from 52-Dispur Legislative 
Assembly constituency in Assam. He filed Form No.I prescribed under Rule 
7 of the Registration of Electors Rules, I960 stating that but for his holding 
the office as union cabinet Minister he would have been 'ordinarily resident' 
E in the said constituency at the address mentioned by him. Doubting his . 
declaration, notices were issued and an enquiry was initiated. Respondent No.I 
challenged the correctness of the enquiry by filing a writ petition which was 
allowed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.1. Enquiry and all notices and orders pertaining to respondent 
No.l's "ordinary residence" stand quashed. [79-CJ 
1.2. Under sub-section (4) of section 20 of Representation of the People 
Act, I 950, a person who holds a declared office is deemed by law to be, on any 
G date, an ordinary resident of a constituency in which he would ordinarily have 
resided but for the fact that he holds such declared office. For this purpose, 
by reason of sub-section (5) of sec. 20, the statement of the holder of the 
declared office, made in the form and varified as required, must be accepted 
as correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary". It is, therefore, clear 
H that the statement of the holder of a declared office is not always to be accepted 
70 
-•
-
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA v. DR. MANMOHAN SINGH 
71 
as correct. It can be questioned, but only if the Electoral Registration officer A 
has "evidence to the contrary". Therefore, to question the correctness of the 
statement as to his ordinary residence made by the holder ofa declared office, 
the Electoral Registration officer must be in possession of evidence to the 
contrary. That is a pre-requisite for the non-acceptance of the statement of 
tne holder of a declared office. If the Electoral Registration officer has such B 
evidence, he must inform the holder of a declared office accordingly, and state 
the substance of such evidence so that the holder of the declared office may 
rebut it in the course of the enquiry on facts that must follow. The enquiry 
has to be "decided" on the facts of the case; its quasi-judicial character is 
clear. [77-F, H; 78-A-B] 
c 
1.3. In the instant case, respondent No.1 was at the relevant time a 
person holding an office to which the provisions of sub-sections ( 4), (5) and 
(7) of Section 20 applied. The enquiry was initiated by the letter of respondent 
No. 3 whereby respondent No.I was asked to furnish evidence in support of 
his "claim of ordinary residence as stated in Form No. I". The claim in Form 
No. I was filed by respondent No. I when he was already a Cabinet Minister D 
and thus the holder of a declared office. His statement therein could, having 
regard to the true interpretation of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 20, 
have been questioned by respondent No. 3, only if he was possessed of evidence 
to the contrary and respondent No. 3 had intimated to respondent No.I that 
fact and the substance of such evidence. There is nothing to indicate that E 
respondent No. 3 had any evidence to the contrary, and he certainly did not so 
state in his letter. In fact, he called upon respondent No. I to adduce evidence. 
Statement of Respondent No.I in Form No.1 could not, therefore, have been 
questioned and the enquiry in this behalf is bad in law. [77-C; 78-C, D, E) 
1.4. In any event, the enquiry cannot be allowed to proceed having F 
regard to the order of the then Chief Election Commissioner. The order 
referred to the findings of investigations that had been carried on, of which 
respondent No.1 had no notice. It drew "inferences" therefrom that were 
very adverse to respondent No.I. It then directed respondent No. 3 to keep 
in view and pay due regard to the facts

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