K.S. ABDUL AZEEZ versus RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 672 · Decided: 28-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

K. S. ABDt:L AZEEZ 
l'. 
RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR & ORS. 
February 28, 1966 
(P. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCIIOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, A1''D 
S. M. S!KRI, JJ.] 
The Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 36(4) and 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, r. ~Filling up nomination paper with 
one reserved symbol and leaving tire rest blank-If a defect of "substantial 
character." 
1bc nomination Form prescribed for election to the State Assembly 
had a blank space, where a candidate could show three symbols in order 
of preference as his symbol. 
One of the candidates for election showed 
only ooe symbol which was reserved for a political party, and left blank 
the rest of the space. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination 
paper holding that the defect was of a substantial character. Alleging 
that the rejection was improper, two voters filed an election petition chal-
lenging the election of the appellant who was successful at the ensuing 
election. The Tribunal dismissed the petition but, on appeal, the High 
Court set aside the election on the ground that the rejection was improper. 
In appeal to this Court, 
A 
B 
c 
D 
HELD: Under s. 36(4) of the Act, the returning officer shall not 
reject the nomination paper when the 
defect is not of a 
substantial 
character. The mention of the reserved symbol, 
in the first space and 
E 
leaving blank the rest of the space is covered by the phrase, "failure to 
complete, or defect in completing, the declaratioo as to symbols," in the 
proviso to r. 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, and was therefore not 
defect of a substantial character. [674 E] 
• 
I 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 435of1965 
... 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 4, 1963 
F 
of the Madras High Court in Appeal against Order No. 300 of 
1962. 
R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant. 
R. Mahalingier, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
Hidayatullab, J. At the last General Election to the Assembly 
in the Madras State five candidates filed their nomination papers 
for the Nilakottai constituency. The appellant K. S. Abdul Az.ccz 
was one of them and at tqe ensuing election he was successful 
having polled 4,000 and odd votes in excess of those of his nearest 
H 
rival. Four other candidates had filed nomination papers and they 
included respondents 3 to 5 in this appeal. One of the candidates 
withdrew and the nomination paper of the 5th respondent 
... • 
-
/ 
\ .. 
~ 
l 
I .. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
AllDUL AZEEZ V. RAMNATHAN (Hidayatullah, /.) 
673 
(Peyathevar) was rejected at the scrutiny. He had shown in his 
nomination paper only one symbol in the spaces provided for three 
symbols and that was the star which is reserved for the Swatantra 
Party. He was not the accredited candidate of the Swantantra 
Party and as he had not shown any other symbol, the nomination 
paper was held to contain a defect of substance. 
After the election was over two voters (who are respondents 1 
and 2 in this appeal) filed an election petition against the appellant 
and one of the grounds urged against him was that as the rejection 
of the nomination paper of Peyathevar was improper, under s. 100 
(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act the election was void. 
Other grounds on which the election was challenged need not 
concern us because nothing turns upon them in this appeal. The 
Election Tribunal held that the nomination paper was rightly rejected 
and dismissed the election in petition negativing the other allegations 
to the election at the same time. On appeal by the two voters the 
decision of the Tribunal was reversed and it was held that the 
nomination paper was improperly rejected and the election of the 
appellant was, therefore, void. On hearing Mr. Ganapathy Iyer 
and looking into the relevant provision on the subject of symbols 
we are satisfied that the decision of the High Court was right. 
The matter has to be considered in relation to the Conduct 
of Election Rules, 1961. Sub-rule(!) of Rule 5 enables the Election 
Commission to specify the symbols that may be chosen by candi-
dates at elections and the restrictions to which their choice shall be 
subject. By virtue of this power the Election Commission issued a 
notification No. So 2316 dated 19th September, 1961 which showed 
in a table the symbols for the Madras Legislative Assembly elec-
tions. Some of these symbols were reserved for recognised p

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