MAHADEO versus BABU UDAI PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 564 · Decided: 10-11-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

564 
MAHADEO 
v. 
BABU UDAI PRATAP SINGH AND OTHERS 
November 10, 1965 
A 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., V. RAMASWAMI AND 
B 
P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.] 
Representat;ion of the People Act (43 of 1951), .sj. 100 (1) (d)(iv) •Ni 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, r. 56(2.) (g)-Scope of. 
At the general elections for a seat in the U.P. Legislative Assembly, the 
appellant was declared elected. The name of the 1st respondent who w,a., 
a defeated' candidate, was inaccurately printed in the ballot papers issued as 
"Udai Bhan Pratap Singh" though his symbol was correctly shown. Alleg-
ing that the incorrect printing of h:s name had materially prejudiced his 
prospects of securing the votes of all his supporters, he challenged the · 
appellant's election by an election petition. The Election Tribunal, and 
the High Court on appeal, set aside the appellant:s election. The High 
Court rejected the 1st respondent's contentions that the misprinting con-
stituted an irregularity in the form or the design of the ballot paper and 
that therefore r. 56(2) (g) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, had 
been contravened. The High Court, howeveT, held that the misprinting 
of the 1st respondent's name on the ballot papers rendered the appellant's 
election void under s. lOO(l)(d)(i\') of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951. 
In the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The appeal should be allowed and the election petition dis· 
missed. [572 E] 
The design to which r. 56(2) (g) refers is the form, the pattern or the 
outline of the ballot paper and not its contents. The High Court was 
therefore right in holding that r. 56(2)(g) had not been contravened by 
the misprinting. [572 B-C] 
c 
D 
E 
The High Court and the Election Tribunal were in error when' they 
came to the conclusion that the appellant's election had been rendered 
F 
void under s. lOO(l)(d)(iv) by reason of the fact that the 1st respondent's 
name had been misprinted on the ballot papers. The misprinting was an 
irregularity which fell under the section as it amounted to non-compliance 
of r. 22 of the Rules. 
But the proof of such non-compliance did not 
necessarily or automatically rende.r the 
appellant's 
election void. To 
make the election void, the 1st respondent had to prove the non-compli-
ance and its material effect on the election. Since he had failed to prove 
G 
the latter fact, his challenge to the validity of the appellant's election 
could not be sustained. [570 B; 572 C-DJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 478 of 
l965. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated January 29, 1964 
of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in First Appeal 
H 
No. 4 of 1964. 
M. C. Setalvad and/. P. Goyal, for the appellant. 
? 
• 
' 
MAHADEO v. u. P. SINGH (Gaiendragadkar, C.J.) 
565 
A 
Bishan Singh, Bima/esh Chandra Agarwala and C. P. Lal, for 
respondent no. 1. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. The short question which arises in this 
B appeal is whether the Election Tribunal, Lucknow, and the High 
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, were right in 
holding that the election of the appellant Mahadeo was invalid 
under s. 100 ( 1 )( d) (iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 
1951 (No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act). The facts 
leading to this point are not many, and there is no dispute about 
c them. 
At the General Elections of 1962, for the U.P. Legislative 
Assembly seat in Constituency No. 133 in Mijhaura, District 
Faizabad, 6 persons offered themselves as candidates. The appel-
lant was one of them, and in fact, as a result of the election, he 
was duly declared to have been elected. 
Respondent No. l, 
Udai Pratap Singh was another candidate. The appellant received 
D 17,688 votes, whereas respondent No. 1 received 10,985 votes. 
There were 4 other candidates besides these two, but we are not 
concerned with them in the present appeal. Respondent No. 1 
challenged the validity of the appellant's election by filing an elec-
tion petition in that behalf before the Election Tribunal, Lucknow. 
It appears that the election symbol of the appellant was scales 
E 
(Tarazu), whereas that of respondent No. 1 was lamp (Deepak). 
In his petition, respondent No. 1 alleged that his real name is 
Udai Pratap Singh and not Udai Bhan Pratap Singh. 
His real 
name had been recorded in the electoral roll and had been men-
tioned as such in his nomination paper. Even so, in the ballot 
paper issued on

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