KUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH versus JAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1978] 1 S.C.R. 208 · Decided: 28-07-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
20 8 
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH 
v. 
JAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS 
July 28, 1977 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Election to Legislative Council /ro1n 
local authorities' constituenf:y-E'lectoral roll not corrected and brought 11pto-
date-If would vitiate an election held 011 that basis. 
Article 171(3) of the Constitution provides that of the total number of 
members of the Legislative Council of a State one third shall be elected by 
electorates consisting of members, among others, of loca-1 authorities in the 
State as Parliament may by Jaw specify. Part I\/ of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1950 which deals with electoral rolls for Council constltuenc1es. 
provides ins. 21(2) that if the electoral ro1l is not revised in the manner stated 
therein, the validity or continued operation of the said electorr~I roll shall not 
thereby be affected. 
Section 27(2) of this part prescribes the procedure for 
maintaining the electoral roll corrected uptodate. 
In the election to the State Legislative Council from the local authorities' 
constituency, the appellant was declared elected by a majority of 18 votes. In 
this election petition, the respondent, who was the defeated candidate, alleged 
that although long before the notification of the election new office bearers i11 
place of 13 Presidents of cooperative societies and 4 
coopted 
members 
of 
Kshetra Samities were elected, the electoral rolls were not corrected and brought 
uptodate as a result of v,rhich persons who were not entitled to vote in the elec-
tion, participated and that this had materially affected the result. 
Upholdin~ 
the contention, the High Court held that the electoral roll could not be deemed 
tn be an electoral rroll for the time being in force within the meaning of s. 2(1) ( e) 
read with s. 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 because it was 
not brought uptodate in accordance \vith the mandatory provisions of s. 27 of 
the. 1950 Act and that an election held on the basis of an invalid and ultra vires 
electoral roll \Vas void. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : The High Court is clearly Mong in holding that the electoral roll 
\Vas illegal or ultra vires with reference to the particular entries of voters and 
that on that a-ccount the election ·was linble to be set aside. 
[216UJ 
1. Although under s. 27 the electoral registration officer has to maintain irr 
his office the electoral roll corrected uptodate and this had not been done_ in 
this case, mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty in preparation 
of the electoral roJls is not relevant for the purposes of determining the question· 
in the entire scheme of the Act and the object and purpose of preparation of 
electoral rolls under the 1950 Act. [2\JG] 
2. (a) In a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken the view that 
the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition even 
if certain irregularities had taken place in the preparation of the electoral roll 
or if subsequent disqualification had taken place and the electoral roll had on that 
score not been corrected before the last hour of making nominations. 
After 
that dead line the electoral roll of a constituency cannot be interfered with and 
no one can go behind the entries except for the purpose of considering disqualifi-
cation under s. 16 of the 1950 Act. 
[2160] 
Baidydnath Panjiar v. Sitarani Mahto & Ors., [1970] 1 SCR 839, Kabul Singh 
v. Kundan Singh & Ors. [1970] 1 SCR 845, Pan1pakavi Ravappa Balagali v. B. D. 
Jatti & Others. [1971] 2 SCR 611 and Hariprasad Mulshankar Trivedi v. V. B. 
Raju & Others. [1974] 1 SCR 548 followed. 
1
KUNWAR NRIPENDRA v. J. R. VERMA (Goswami, J.) 
20!1 
2(b) There is a clear distinction between a challenge to the right of a voter 
A 
to be registered in an electoral roll and the jurisdiction of an authority appointeo 
under the Act to enter a name in the electoral roll. 
l215F] 
Ran1ji l'ra.\ud Singh v. Rarn Bilas- !ha & four Ors. [1977] 1 SCR 741 
and 
B. M. Ra111asiran1y v. B. M. Krishna~nurthy and Others [1963] 3 SCR 
479 
applied. 
3. The voters whose participation in the election was questioned, were electors 
·within the meaning of s. 2(1)(e) of the 1951 Act, 
entitled to vote 
under 
s. 62 of that Act and were not disqualified under s. 16 of the 1950 Act. There· 
fore, it \\'Ould have been wrong on the part of the presiding o_fficer not t

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