LILA KRISHAN versus MANI RAM GODARA & ORS

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 592 · Decided: 08-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
S92 
I 
LILA KRISHAN 
'· 
MANI RAM GODARA & ORS 
May8, 1985 
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. V ARADARAJAN AND 
RANGANATH MISRA JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, u. 33 (4) and 36(4)-S;rutiny of 
Nomination Papers-Scope of-Whether Returning Officer is under an obligation 
to rerlfy the entire Electoral Ro!/ to establish identity of proper. 
Respondents challenged in the High Court the election of the appcl1ant 
to Fatehbad Constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly under s.100(1) 
(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (Act, for short) on the ground 
that the nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and 
Raj Tilak had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The proi:>oscr 
of Mani Ram Chhap.;:,la was one Brij Bhushan while the proposer of Raj Tilak 
was one Upender Kumar. Brij Bbush3n's serial number in the electoral roll was 
26 while Upender Kumar's was 77. In Form 3A, these numbers were correctly 
indicated. But in the nomination papers the numbers had been shoWn as 126 
and 177 respectively The Returning Officer rejectc-d these nomination papers 
as the serial number or the proposers as disclosed in the nomination papers 
did not tally with reference to the electoral roll. The l{igh Court set aside the 
election of the appellant holding that the Returning O_fficer acted mala fide 
and had either directly or indirectly been respoilsihle for the alteration in the 
nomination p'apers, sinCe the nomination papCrs when filed were in order and 
while they were in the custody of the Returning Officer's Establishment, inter 
polations had been made and on the basis thereof the nomination papers had 
been rejected. 
Allowing the appeal to this Court by the appellant, 
HELD: 1. (i) When admittedly the nomination papers have been 
handled by the staff in the establishment of the Returning Officer and by the 
candidates and _their agents before scrutiny began, it is difficult to ascribe the' 
insertion of figure "1' to the Return-ing Officer. Therefore, the conclusion of 
the High Court that the Returning Officer either by himself or through some· 
body caused the interpolation to be done is totaUy unwarranted even if this 
Court accepts as a fact that the figure a1• appearing before the rest of the 
number in the column for serial number in the electoral roll was not there 
when the nomination papers had been flied. 
Strictly speaking. the insertion 
· in the instant case is a forgery and anlounts to a criminal etc. - To put that 
· re!ponsibility on the Returning Officer without cosent evidence is hishly 
improper. [597H; S98A; C.Dj 
-· 
LILA KRISHAN V. M.R. GODARA 
593 
1. (ii) From the evidence it is clear th?t the nomination papers were 
taken up for scrutiny one after the other and the Returning Officer has stated 
that he used to pass orders either of acceptance or rejection of each of the 
nomination papers after due scrutiny. That position has aJso been accepted 
by witnesses on the sides of the election petitioners. The evidence on the 
side of the election petitioners does indicate that the nomination papers were 
first shown to the candidates and their agents and scrutiny followed thereafter. 
The Returning OfHcer had denied, as already pointed out, that he had made 
an open declaration that all the nomination papers were in order. Mani Ram 
Chhapola has admitted in his deposition that by 2 P.M. on the date of scrutiny 
the fact that his nomination paper had been rejected on the ground indicated 
had been notified to him by the Returning Officer. If the Returning Officer 
wanted to play any mischief he could have avoided intimating the fact of 
rejection or at any rate delayed the same. In the absence of cogent evidence 
on the side of the election petitioners and accepting the evidence of the 
Returning Officer that he had scrutinised the nomination papers one after the 
other and contemporaneously accepted or rejected the same by providing 
grounds of rejection, there is no doubt that contemporaneous order rejecting 
the nomination papers had been made i.n the instant cases. [598 F-H; 599AJ 
2(i) Indisputably the insistence on disclosure of the serial nwnber in 
the prescribed column against the proposer is for the purpose of identifying the 
proposer and ascertaining that he is competent to propose. The scope of 
scrutiny is obviously to verify the contents of the nomination paper with a 
view to ascert~ining whether the form is in order a

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