MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA ETC. versus RETURNING OFFICER FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 17-09-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MITHILESH KUMAR SINHA ETC. 
v. 
RETURNING OFFICER FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND 
ORS. ETC. 
SEPTEMBER 17, 1992 
(J.S. VERMA, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S.C. AGRAWAL, 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952: Sections 5B(J) 
A 
B 
and (5)-fi.equirements unde,-J'Deliver" and "subscribe"--Construction of 
C 
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 : Sections 14A, 
13(a)-Locus Standi to file election petiton-Requirements-'Candidate'-
Constructiolt-"Non-compliance of mandatory requirements for a valid 
nominatiort-Election pen·tion by such person-Maintainability of 
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 : Section 17 read 
with Order XXXIX Rules 2, 5, 7 and 34 read with Order XXIII, Rule 6 of the 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966--'Trial'-Constructiort-Election petition not dis-
closing triable issues or cause of action-Maintainability of 
D 
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952: Sections 5E(5), 
E 
14, lB(l)(c), 18(2) read with Form 2 under Rule 4 of the Presidential and 
Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1974 and read with Section 171C, 
!PC-Election petition on grounds of wrongful acceptance of the nomination 
papers of other three candidates and of undue influence-No material facts 
to constitute undue influence ground available in petitiort-Effect of 
F 
Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 : Section 
14---Frivolous petitions filed in cavalier fashio...-Need to prevent entertaining 
such petitions-Supreme Court's observations for screening such petitions. 
Words and Phrases-"Deliver
01
, "Subscribe" "Candidate", "Triati_ G 
Meaning of 
Election-Pree 'dent of India-Returned candidate's election challenged 
on the ground of wrongful acceptance of nomination papers of the can-
didates-E1fect of Locus standi to file election petition-Petition not disclos-
ing cause of action--AfaintainabiUty of-Supreme Court's observations for H 
651 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A screening frivolous petitions. 
Supreme Court Rules, 1966 : Order XXXIX, Rules 2, 5, 7 and 34 read 
with Order XXIII, Rule 6-Election petition not disclosing cause of ac-
tion-Maintainability of 
B Election Petiton No. I of 1992. 
Petitioner's nomination paper for contesting the election to the office 
of President of India was rejected by the Returning Officer on the ground 
that it was not subscribed by at least ten electors as proposers and at least 
C ten electors as seconders as required by section SB(l)(a) of the Presiden· 
tial and Vice- Presidential Elections Act, 1952 and that according to section 
S(b)(S), singnatnres of some of the electors were inoperative, being com-
mon in one of the nomination paper of another candidate, which nomina-
tion paper was first delivered to. the Returning Officers. 
D 
Petitioner in the election petition under section 14 of the Act chal· 
lenging the election of the returned candidate before this Court contended 
that the rejection of his nomination paper was wrongful, which is a ground 
under section 18(l)(c) for a declaration that the election of the returned 
candidate was void; that he was a 'candidate within the meaning of section 
E · 13(a), as his nomination paper was subscribed by the required number of 
proposers and seconders; that bis proposers and seconders, \lho were 
common in one of the nomination paper of another candidate, had sub-
scribed the petitioner's nomination paper earlier in point of time and 
therefore, delivery of the another candidate's nomination paper to the 
Returning Officer earlier than delivery of the petitioner's nomination 
F 
paper did not have the effect of making the common signatures on the 
petitioner's nomination paper inoperative. 
G 
The returned candidate and the Attorney General or India, raising 
·the preliminary objection, contended that the petition be rejected as the 
petitioner was not a 'candidate' as defined in section 13(a) of the Act and 
that be was not competent to present the election petition as required 
under section 14A; that there were no averments in th~ petition to raise 
any triable issue relating to the grounds under section 18(l)(c) of\lTongful 
rejection of his nomination paper or under section 18(1)(a) of undue 
influence, and that the petition be rejected under Order XXXIX, Rules 2, 
H 5, 7 and 34 read with Order XXlll, Rules 6 or the Supreme Court Rules, 
MITillLESHSINHA v. RETURNING OFFICER 
653 
1966, as it did n

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