HARIKRISHNA LAL versus BABU LAL MARANDI

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 1170 · Decided: 30-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HARIKRISHNA LAL 
v. 
BABU LAL MARANDI 
OCTOBER 30, 2003 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 33 and 36-
Nomination paper-Substantial Defect-Meaning of-Name of candidate 
C incorrectly mentioned in the electoral roll-No objection rC'ised at the time· 
of scrutiny of nominations-Held, the mistake was inadvertent or accidental 
and only technical-No substantial defect-Ele<:tion Law. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 87-Election 
Petition-Challenge to election of a candidate-Burden of Proof-Held, 
D burden lies on the person who challenges the election-No evidence led 
by any party to the election petition-Held, election petition would fail-
Election Law. 
Legal Maxims 
Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum be corrore 
E constat-Me.aning of 
The appellant as well as the respondent filed their nomination 
papers for election to a legislative assembly. In the nomination paper 
of the respondent, his name was mentioned as "Babu Lal Marandi". 
F In the electoral roll of the constituency from where he was contesting, 
his name was present but was mentioned as "Babu Marandi" instead 
of "Babu Lal Marandi" though his father's name and village were 
correctly mentioned. Against the names of his wife and his son, which 
appeared immediately after the name of the respondent, the correct 
name of the respondent, i.e. "Babu Lal Marandi" was mentioned. The 
G respondent filed an application supported with affidavit before the 
returning officer pointing out the said mistake and seeking correction 
thereof. 
At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination paper, the electoral 
H roll of the constituency was seen by the returning officer. No objection 
1170 
' 
> 
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI 
1171 
was raised by any of the candidates or the appellant at that time. The A 
returning officer entered into a suo moto enquiry for his own satisfaction 
and being satisfied accepted the nomination paper of the respondent. 
The respondent was declared elected in the election. The appellant 
filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the election B 
of the respondent on the ground that in the nomination paper, the 
name of the respondent was mentioned as "Babu Lal Marandi" which 
did not appear in any of the electoral roll of any assembly constituency. 
He further alleged that the respondent has not filed certified copy of 
the electoral roll of any constituency reflecting his name therein and 
therefore, the respondent was not competent to contest the election. C 
No evidence was led either by the appellant or by the respondent 
before the High Court. 
The High Court rejected the election petition filed by the appellant. D 
Against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal under Section 
116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The omission of the second name 'Lal' from the E 
voters' list is inadvertent or accidental and in any case merely 
technical. In the voters' list as well as the nomination paper the 
respondent was correctly described. There is no doubt about the 
identity of the respondent. (1183-C, 1181-F-G, 1183-DJ 
1.2. Acceptance or rejection of the nomination paper by F 
the returning officer shall depend on his forming an opinion as 
to whether the defect is of a non-substantial character or of a 
substantial character. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 33 
of the Representation of the People. Act, 1951 shows that so far as sub-
section (4) is concerned the effect of non-compliance may be merely G 
an irregularity which would not necessarily entail the rejection of 
nomination paper. (1180-F, E-F] 
Harcharan Singh v. S. Mohinder Singh and Ors., AIR (1968) SC 
1500; Viveka Nand Giri v. Nawal Kishore Sahi, (1984] 3 sec 10 and H 
1172 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar and Ors., IO ELR 189, 
referred to. 
2.1. If the want of qualification does not appear on the face of the 
nomination paper or the electoral roll but is a matter which could be 
B established only by evidence, an inquiry at the stage of the scrutiny of 
nomination papers is required under the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 only if there is an objection to the nomination. The returning 
officer is then bound to make such inquiry as he thinks proper on the 
result of which he can either accept or reject the nomination. But when 
C the candidate appears t

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