RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM versus VANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR.

Citation: [2016] 9 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 03-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 74 
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM 
v. 
VANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.3797 of2015) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Representation of People Act, 1951 - ss.33(5), 36(2)(b), 87, 
C JOO(l)(a) and JOO(l)(d) - Election of appellant to a constituency 
of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly - Election petition filed 
by respondent No. J - High Court held that appellant had not filed 
the electoral roll (or certified copy thereof) of his constituency, 
therefore the returning officer had committed an illegality in 
D accepting the nomination of appellant - High Court came to the 
conclusion that election of appellant was liable to be declared void 
uls.JOO(J)(a) along with s.JOO(l)(d)(i) - On appeal, held: High 
Court ought to have found out whether improper acceptance of the 
nomination had materially affected the result of the election - Without 
dealing with that question/issue, it was not empowered to declare 
E the election of appellant-returned candidate as void - To declare 
election void uls.JOO(l)(a), it must be established that the returned 
candidate is not a voter of any assembly constituency of the State -
Election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner itself 
stated that the appellant-returned candidate was a registered voter 
F 
of a constituency - There was no pleading at all to the effect that 
appellant was not a voter - Therefore, order of High Court 
unsustainable - Election of appellant-returned candidate was valid. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The election of the appellant-returned candidate 
a is declared to be valid in law. [Para 17] (82-G] 
2. Under s.100 (l)(d) of Representation of People Act,1951, 
an election is liable to be declared void on the ground of improper 
acceptance of a nomination if such improper acceptance of the 
nomination has materially affected the result of the election. This 
H 
is in distinction to what is contained in s.lOO(l)(c) i.e. improper 
74 
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM v. VANSHMANI PRASAD 
VERMA AND ANR. 
rejection of a nomination which itself is a sufficient ground for 
invalidating the election without any further requirement of proof 
of material effect of such rejection on the result of the election. 
The High Court did not endeavor to go into the further question 
that would be required to be determined even if it is assumed 
that the appellant-returned candidate had not filed the electoral 
roll or a certified copy thereof and, therefore, had not complied 
with the mandatory provisions of s.33(5) of the 1951 Act. Before 
setting aside the election on the above ground, the High Court 
ought to have carried out a further exercise, namely, to find out 
whether the improper acceptance of the nomination had materially 
affected the result of the election. The High Court having failed 
to determine the said issue naturally, it was not empowered to 
declare the election of the appellant returned candidate as void 
even if it is assumed that the acceptance of the nomination of the 
returned candidate was improper. (Para 9) (79-F-H; 80-A-C) 
3.1 Under s.lOO(l)(a), the election of the returned candidate 
is liable to be declared void if, i11ter ali<t, he was not qualified for 
membership of Parliament or the State Legislature as may be. 
S.5 of the 1951 Act deals with qualifications for membership of a 
Legislative Assembly of a State which, i11ter lllill, requires a 
candidate to be an elector of any Assembly constituency of the 
State. To declare an election void u/s.lOO(l)(a), it must, therefore, 
be established that the returned candidate is not a voter of any 
assembly constituency of the State. [Para llj (80-E-F] 
3.2 No objection to the effect that the returned candidate 
was not qualified to contest the election as he was not a voter of 
any assembly Constituency of the State was raised in the objection 
filed in election petition. Neither was any objection taken to the 
effect that the returned candidate was not eligible to participate 
in the election as he had not furnished the electoral roll of the 
Constituency in which he was a voter or a certified copy thereof. 
However, in the election petition filed, it was pleaded in para 
1.11, that the returned candidate had "failed to furnish a certified 
copy of the voter list to entitle him to contest the election from 
Devsar constituency as he is registered voter of 80, Singrauli 
constituency and without filing the

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