SARNAM SINGH versus SMT. PUSHPA DEVI & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 1 S.C.R. 630 · Decided: 27-10-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SARNAM SINGH 
."'"' 
v. 
SMT. PUSHPA DEVI & ORS. 
OCTOBER 27, 1987 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section JOO-Improper 
,...
rejection/acceptance of nomination-Distinction and effect of-Result 
of election-Whether materially affected-Burden of proof-Whether 
discharged. 
c 
In the election to the Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly _l_
fro111 coastituency No. 41 held in early March, 1985, 16 candidates 
clllltel!ted. Respondent No. 1 was declared elected having secured 
23,fl06 votes. Respondent No. 2 secured 20, 735 votes being the next 
... hest. The difference of votes secured by them was in the order of 
D 2,271 votes. Respondent No. 8 who was working as a teacher in a college 
and who was one of the candidates secured 3,606 votes which were more 
than the difference between the votes secured by respondent No. 1 
and2. 
The appellant who was an elector at the said election filed an 
'"r-1 
E election petition contending that respondent No. 8 was holding an 
'oMce of profit' under the State Government as he was working as a 
teacher in a college and therefore, the acceptance of his nomination by 
~ 
the returning omcer was illegal, that since respondent No. 8 secured 
3,'416 votes which were higher than the difference between the votes 
secured by respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, the election of 
F respoadent No. 1 should be considered as having been materially 
affected by the wrongful acceptance of the nomination paper of respon· 
I~ 
dent No. 8, and the election of the respondent No. 1 was, therefore, 
liable to be set aside. Respondent No.I contested the election petition 
pleading that the acceptance of the nomination paper of respondent 
No. 8 was not illegal since he was not holding an office of profit under ~,~ 
G the State Government, and that even if the acceptance was illegal the 
election could not be set aside since the result of the election was not 
materially affected thereby. 
' ~ 
DiBmissing the petition, the High Court held that the acceptance 
< 
of the nomination paper of respondent No. 8 was not illegal as he was 
H net holding an office of profit under the State Government and that 
630 
SARNAM SINGH •· PUSHPA DEVI . 
631 
..,J.,.. 
even if the acceptance of the nomination paper was illegal, the appellant 
had not established that the result of the election of respondent No. 1 A 
had been materially affected on the facts and in the circumstances or the 
case. 
In the appeal to this Court on the question: whether the appellant ·. 
had established that the result of the election·or respondent No; 1 had.· B 
been materially affected by the wrongful acceptance of the nomlnailon · 
)I( 
paper ofrespondent No. 8. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD: The appellant has not discharged the burden which· 
clearly lay on him of proving that the result of the election had been C 
materially affected, even assuming that the nomination of respondent·. 
No. 8 had been improperly accepted. [640E) 
Section 100 of the Representation· of the People Act makes a 
distinction between the effect of improper rejection or any nomination, D 
and the . effect or the improper acceptance or any nomination on 
the election. IC a nomination of any person at an election had been 
improperly rejected the election of the returned candidate Is liable 
to be set aside without any further proof because it is difficult to 
visualise the number of votes which the person whose nomination has 
been rejected would have secured at the election and there Is every 
E · 
likelihood of the returned candidate not securing the highest number of 
votes. [634E-G) ·. 
· 
Clause (c) of sub-section (1) states that if the High Court is of the · 
opinion that any nomination has been improperly rejected it shall dee-.· ·· · 
lare the election of the returned candidate to be void, [634G) 
· · 
· F 
r. ' - ' -
r 
Sub-clause (i) of clause (d) ofsub-section (1) requires a petitioner 
in an election petition to establish two grounds in order to get the 
election or the returned candidate set aside. namely (i) that there has . 
been improper acceptance of any nomination and (ii) that by reason or 
entry or the candidate whose nomination baS been improperly accepted • G .... · 
into the contest ·the result of the election insofar as the returned candi· 
date is concerned has been materially affected. [63SA-B) . 
· 
Having regard to the facts or the instant case it is not possible

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