LexGANU RAM versus RIKHI RAM KAUNDAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
=- • 63 GANURAM ,, RlKHI RAM KAUNDAL AND ORS. July 17, 1984 [P.N. BHAGWATI AND V. BALAKRISHAN ERADI, JJ.] Representation Of the People Act, 1951-s, J3(2)-Requiren1e11ts of valid nomination paper-Candidate filing nomination paper y, itho,,t n1akb;g ·declaration prescribed bys. 33(2) on the non1ination forn1 but a11uexb1g rhereto a certificate to the effect that he belonged to scheduled caste-Whe her req11ire- n1ents of s. 3 J( 2) satisfied-Whether nomination paper valid. Representation oj'the People Act, 195]-:.'. 33(2:-Mu.,f be given liberal and benevolent interpretation. S. 33(2) of the Representation of the People Act requires that when a nomination paper is filed in respect of a reserved seat in any constituency there must be a clear sprcification by the candidate of the parficular caste or tribe to which he belonged and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe was a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe of the State. The appel- lant, in order to contest State assembly election filed his nomination paper without making the declaration in the nomin:ttion p.:iper 1 itself but filed as anncxure thereto a certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate certifying that the appellant belonged to a scheduled caste namely 'Lohar'. The nomination paper was accepted by the Rctur· niog Officer ?.:nd the appellant successfully contested the election. The respondent, who lost in the election, challenged the election of the appellant on the ground inter alia that in the absence of the requisitt" declaration .prescribed bys. 33(2), the nomination paper of the appellant was invalid and was wrongly accepted. The High Court took the view that since s. 33 of the Act required that the nomination paper must be in the prescribed form the filing of any enclosure or certifi_ciite along with form A B c D E F was not contemplated. Hence this appeal. G Allowing the appeal, HELD : When the non1ina ti on paper has been made in the prescribed form, there ls no legal prohibition again!it the other requisite particulars H being furnished in a separate paper appc11ded. to the form instead of A B c 64 ' SUPREME COURT REP OR TS [l985j l S.C.R. writing them out in the form itself. The anoexure appended the form should be treated as part of the nomination paper. [67 B-C] While dealing with nomination papers pertaining to candidates belong· ing to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, who. for well known historical reasons, are unfortunately, extremely backward socially, economically and edu_cationally in comparis.:;n with othCr' sections of our people, tb::: Court has to place a liberal and benevolent interpretation on the provisions contained ins. 33(2) of the Act rather than adopt a narrow, rigid, tochnical and purely literal construction. [67 E·F] S. Sivaswami v. V. Malaika11nan and 01her, [1984] I SCC 296, referred to. In the instant case the requirement of s. 33(2) is fully satisfied. The certificate which was produced by the appellant as an anoe:t!:ure to the nomination paper has to be treated as forming part of the nomination paper D and the declaration contained thoreio that the appellant belongs to the 'Lohar' caste which is admittedly a scheduled caste in the entirety of the a1ea concerned, must be understood and treated as a declaration by the appellant in the nomination form within the meaning of sub·s. (2) of s. 33. Therefore the High Court was in error in holding that the nomination paper filed by the appellant. was not valid _and its acceptance by the Return· E ing Officer was improper. [68D-E; G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 515 (NCE) - of 1983. ~ G H Erom the Judgment and Order dated the 7th January, 1983 of of the IHimachal Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1982. V. K. Chitre and B. R. Agarwala for the Appellant. Dr. N. M. Ghatate for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. This being an election appeal filed under section I l 6A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter called 'the Act') calling for urgent determination, as soon as the hearing of arguments in the appeal was completed we announced our decision by passing the following order : - -- - • - - I· GANU RAM 1'. RISH! RAM (B. Eradi J .) "We are of the view that for reasons which we shall state later the nomination paper of the appellant was validly acce;ted b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.