RAMJI PRASAD SINGH versus RAM BILAS JHA & FOUR ORS.

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 24-09-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

741 
RAMJI PRASAD SINGH . 
v. 
RAM BILAS JHA & FOUR ORS. 
September 24, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
Represe11tation of the People Act 1950-Sec. 15, 21, 22, 
23-Preparation 
and revision of electoral roll-Amendment, transposition or deletion of entries 
in electoral roll-Provision of Sec. 23 if mandatory-Representation of the 
People A.:t 1951-Every person on electoral roll whether e11titled to vote even 
if name not brought in accordance with law-Sec. lOO(l)b-Sec. 123 (l)(A)b-
Bribery-Proof of-Quasi-criminal in nature-Interference with appreciation of 
evidence by Hig/1 Court. 
Bihar and Orissa Municipal Act 1922-S. 389. 
In March, 1972, the Election Commission issued a notification calling upon 
the Muzaffarpur Local Authorities Constituency to elect one member to the 
Bihar Legislative Council. 
One of the constituencies was1 the notified area com-
mittee of Dumm. The· last date fon filing1. nomination was 5-4-1972. The poll 
was held on 30-4-1972 and the result was declared on 1st May, 1972. Respon-
dent no. 1 an independent candidate secured the 
highest number of votes, 
namely 61, whereas his nearest rival respondent no. 5 secured 36 votes.. 
The 
appellant Ramji Prasad Singh, a voter, filed an election petition challenging the 
election of respondent no. 1 inter alil! on the following two grounds : 
(1) 40 voters 'of the Dumra Notified Area Committee were illegally 
prevented from exercising their franchise 
which materia.lly affect-
ed the result of the election. 
(2) Respondent no. 1 attempted to bribe two voters. 
The Government of Bihar had nominated 40 persons to be th~ members of 
the Dumra notified Area Committee by its notification dated 5-5-1971. 
All of 
them were duly: enrolled as voters in the electoral roll. 
On 4-4-1972 the State 
Government issued a notification cancelling the notification dated 5-5-1971 and 
nominating 40 other persons mentioned therein as members of the Dumra Noti-
fied Area Committee. In a Writ Petition filed by some of the sitting members, 
the High Court passed an interim order staying the operation of the notification 
dated 5-5-1971. 
The names of the 40 persons who were nominated earlier 
were removed from the electoral roll and it was alleged that the names of 40 
new members were included. The old members were not permitted to vote on 
the ground that their names were not on the electoral roll and the new members 
were not permitted to vote on the ground that the High Court had issued the 
stay order. 
SectiOI\ 389 of the Bihar & Orissa Municipal Act 7 of 1922 em-
powers the State Government to make appointments to Notified Area Committee. 
Section 15'of the Representation of the People Act 1950 provides that for every 
constituency there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accord-
ance with the provisions of the Act. Section 21 deals with the preparation and 
revision of the electoral roll. 
Section 22 provides the procedure for correction 
of entries in electoral rolls. 
Section 23 (3) provides that no amendment, trans-
position, or deletion of any entry shall be made under 
section 22 and no 
direction for the inclusion of a nam~ in the electroal roll of a constituency shall 
be given after the last date for making nominations for the election. 
The High Court dismissed the election petition. 
The appellant contended : 
1. Section 62 (I) of the Representation of People Act, 19 51 provides that 
no perrnn who is not and except as expressly provided by this Act every person 
B· 
c: 
F 
G 
H1 
•. 
742 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1977] I S.C.R. 
.A 
who i>. for the time being entered in the electoral roll ol any constituency sha!I 
be entitled to vote in that constituency and, therefore, since tbe names of the 41l 
new perrnns were in the electoral roll and since they were illegally prevented 
from voting which has materially affected the result of the election. the election 
must be set aside. 
2. The elected candidate attempted to bribe two voters and thereby rendered 
his election void under sec. JOO (l)(b) read with sec. 123 p)(A)fbJ of the 
B 
Representation of the People. :.ct 1951. 
·C 
E 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : I. It is implicit in section 62 ( 1) that ·the name of the person who 
claims 
to be entitled to vote in a constituency must have been en~ered in the 
electoral roll of that particular constituency iri accordance with law. 
If the 
n;ime of a. person is entered in the electoral roll'in violatio
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.