KRISHNA MOHINI versus MOHINDER NATH SOFAT

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 76 · Decided: 26-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
KRISHNA MOHINI 
v. 
MOHINDER NATH SOFAT 
OCTOBER 26, 1999 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., S. RAJENDRA BABU AND 
R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 29-A, 33, 36 and 
100(/)(c). 
Election-Nomination-Candidates-Set up by recognised and 
unrecognised political parties-Distinct(on between-Held: The nomination 
paper of the candidate set up by a recognised political party has to be 
subscribed to by one elector as proposer whereas that of the unrecognised 
D political party has to be subscribed to by ten proposers. 
Election-Nomination-Substitute candidates-Set up by recognised and 
unrecognised political parties-Recognised political party set up more than 
one candidate-Held: The one who complies with the requirements of 
paragraph 13 of Symbols Order will be treated as an official candidate set 
E up by such political party-His nomination even if subscribed to by a single 
elector as proposer is valid-Nomination of a substitute candidate cannot 
be rejected if it is subscribed to by ten proposers even if the nomination of 
the main candidate is accepted-in such a case the substitute candidate has 
to be treated as an independent candidate-Improper rejection of such 
F nomination paper renders the election void-Election Symbols (Reservation 
and Allotment) Order, 1968, para 13-Election Commission Circular dated 
9-8-1996, paras 7,14 and 15-Handbookfor Returning Officers, 1998, Chap. 
VJ paras J0.3(iii),(iv) and (vii). 
Election-Nomination paper-Symbols-Error or omission-In 
G description of-Held: Not a defect of a substantial character-Hence, 
nomination paper cannot be rejected on this ground and appropriate symbol 
as per entitlement must be allotted to the candidate concerned-Conduct of 
Election Rules, 1961, Rules 5 and JO. 
H 
Election- Oath or affirmation-Taking of-Held: To be taken by the 
76 
. ,. ,_ 
KRISHNA MOHIJl!I v. M.N. SOFAT 
77 
-;, . 
candidate after submission of his nomination paper but before date of scrutiny- A 
Therefore, oath or affirmation taken before submission of nomination form or 
after date of scrutiny is invalid-However, mere clerical error regarding time 
of taking oath or affirmation will not invalidate the nomination-Constitution 
of India, 1950, Article 123. 
Words and Phrases: 
B 
''Recognised political party' '-Meaning of-Jn the context of First 
proviso to Section 33(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
The respondent, a defeated candidate in an election to State Legislative c 
Assembly filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the 
election of the appellant-returned candidate alleging improper rejection of 
the nomination papers of one P and M, the substitute candidate of registered 
and unrecognised political parties, and also that the result of the election 
insofar as it concerned the respondent was materially affected by the improper 
acceptance of the nomination paper of one J. The two grounds were covered D 
by Sections lOO(l)(c) and lOO(l)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951. 
On the day of scrutiny, the Returning Officer rejected the nominations 
of P and M on the ground of acceptance of the nomination papers of the main E 
candidates of the respective political parties. The date and time of presentation 
of the nomination as endorsed in the nomination paper of J were "4-2-1998" 
and "12.45 p.m." respectively. The oath form bore the date and time of the 
oath having been administered by the Returning Officer as "4-2-1998" and 
"12.44 p.m." respectively. The Designated Election Judge of the High Court 
allowed the election petition and set aside the appellant's election. Hence this F 
appeal 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the nomination papers 
of M and N were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer as they were mere 
alternate or substitute candidates of the main political parties; that the timings 
G 
endorsed on the nomination paper and oath form of J suffered from a mere 
clerical error and that the .oath was administered to J by the Returning Officer 
after the presentation of the nomination paper by J and, therefore, his 
nomination paper was rightly accepted by the Returning Officer . 
. 
-~ 
On behalfofthe respondent it was contended that though P and M had H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A claimed that they were alternate or substitute candidates of the main political 
parties each of the nomination papers was proposed by ten electors of the 
co

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