G.S. IQBAL versus K.M. KHADAR & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 4 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 19-03-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 4 S.C.R. 655 
• -< 
G.S. IQBAL 
A 
v 
K.M. KHADAR & ORS. 
Civil Appeal No. 1198 of 2007 
MARCH 19, 2009 
B 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951- ss. 100(1)(d)(i) 
and (iv), 33 and 34 - Election to Lok Sabha - Election of 
returned candidate void uls. 100(1)(d)(i) and (iv) - Declaration 
sought for- Ground for disqualification that returned candidate c 
member of two political parties at the time of filing nomination 
' 
- Dismissal of, by election judge - Held: Justified- Nomination 
papers of the returned candidate complete on the date of 
scrutiny - No false declaration by candidate nor violation of 
._ + 
provisions of Symbols Orders - No evidence that returned D 
candidate member of two registered political parties on date 
of nomination - Entire electioneering done by two major pre-
poll formations, hence, no confusion in the mind of electorates 
that to which alignment, a particular party and movement 
belonged - Also no plea raised as regard non-compliance of E 
ss. 33 and 34 or that the returned candidate incurred 
disqualification - Election Symbols (Reservation and 
Allotment) Order, 1968- s. 13 - Constitution oflndia, 1950-
Article 84. 
In this appeal, the appellant-unsuccessful candidate F 
challenges the order of High Court whereby the election 
petition praying that the election of the returned candidate 
be declared void under s. 100(1 )(d)(i) and (iv) of the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 was dismissed. 
... _.,, 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
-
HELD: 1.1 In the election petition, the petitioner 
sought declaration of the election of returned candidate 
655 
H 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009) 4 S.C.R. 
A to be void under section 100(1}(d}(i} and (iv) of the 
>- · 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. The returned 
candidate contested the election in the 14th Parliamentary 
Elections for Vellore Parliamentary Constituency as a DMK 
candidate on its symbol is not in dispute. DMK is a party 
B registered with the Election Commission as a political 
party under section 29A of the Act, 1951 is also not 
disputed. The returned candidate produced his 
membership card of DMK party with the returning officer 
before the scrutiny of nomination papers is satisfactorily 
C established on record. From the oral evidence as well as 
the documentary evidence produced by the returning 
officer, it is seen that Forms A and B were in order and 
met the requirement of Election Symbols (Reservation 
and Allotment) Order, 1968. After careful sifting the 
0 
evidence of the returning officer and the documentary 
t ,.,. 
evidence the designated Election Judge reached the 
conclusion that the nomination papers of the returned 
candidate were complete on the date of scrutiny and that 
there was no false declaration by him. The designated 
Election Judge also concluded that the returned 
E candidate has not violated any of the provisions of the 
Symbols Order and there was absolutely no illegality, 
infirmity or impropriety in the acceptance of the 
~ 
nomination papers of the returned candidate. Thus, there 
is no justifiable reason to take a view different from that 
F of desighated Election Judge. [Para 14) [664-B-F) 
1.2 Tamil Nadu Indian Union Muslim League 
(TNIUML) was not registered political party in Tamil Nadu 
in so far as the 14th Lok Sabha Election is concerned 
G within the meaning of the Act, 1951. Since it was not a 
.,.- .. 
registered political party within the meaning of the Act, 
1951, admittedly no symbol was allotted to that party in 
that election. The petitioner relied upon Ex. P-18 which 
only pertained to Panchayat Election and rightly held to 
H have no application to Assembly and Parliamentary 
GS. IQBAL V K.M. KHADAR & ORS. 
657 
elections. As a matter of fact the entire edifice built by the A 
petitioner that returned candidate was a member of two 
political parties has no factual or legal foundation. From 
the material placed on record, the designated Election 
Judge found that there was nothing to infer that the 
returned candidate was a member of two registered B 
political parties on the date of nomination. There is no 
error in the finding recorded by him. [Para 15] [664-G-H; 
665-A-C] 
1.3 The submission that the returned candidate 
claimed that he became a member of the DMK party on C 
April 1, 2004 but he did not resign from the primary 
membership of TNIUML before he joined the DMK and 
thus, there was a clear legal bar for t

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