LexSHEIKH ABDUL REHMAN versus JAGAT RAM ARYAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
E
SHEIKH ABDUL REHMAN
v.
JAGAT RAM ARYAN
February 11, 1969
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.]
597
Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, 1957, s. 51(a)-Signed oalh form
filed before authorised officer-No oath or affirmation made before the
officer nor oath for1n signed before hini-If section con1plied with.
Section 5 l(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution provides that
a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the State
Legislature unless Ile 1nakes and subscribes an oath or affirmation in the
prescribed for"' before the person outhorised in that behalf. The Election
Commission nc:ified the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning
Officer as the authorised officers.
Where a candidate did not sign the oath form before the Assi;tant
Returning Officer, nor make oath or affirmation in his presence, but pre-
sented to the Assistant Returning Officer the candidate's nomination paper
along with the oath form filled up and signed before presentation,
HELD: There was no sufficient compliance with s. 51 (a) and there-
fore, the candidate was not qualified to be choseri to fill the seat in the
Legislature under the section, and his nomination paper \vas liabl~ to be
rejected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny under s. 47(2)
(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957
[601 E-F, H; 602 A·Bl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1527 of
1968.
Appeal under s. 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representa·
tion of the People Act,. 1957 from the Judgment and order dated
F
April 29, 1968 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in ElectiOn
Petition No. 33 of 1967.
R. N. Bhalgotra and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant.
R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and S. Chakravarti,
for the respondent.
G
The Judgment of th.~ Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. This appeal is directed against a ju?g~ent. o~ a
Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dtsm1ssmg
an election petition for setting aside th~ election of the respondent
Jagat Ram Aryan to the legislative assembly of the State of Jamm~
& Kashmir from the Bhaderwah schedulefl caste assembly consl!-
'H
tuency.
!
The last date for filing the nomination papers was January 20,
1967. The date of scrutiny of nomination papers was January 23,
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1969] 3 s.c.R.
1967. The date of poll was February 21, 1967. The date of
counting and dc;claration of result was March l, 1967. Several
candidates filed their nomination papers from this constituency.
The candidates were : {I) Jagat Ram Aryan, (2) Faquir Chand,
(3) Narain Dass, (4) Nikka Ram, (5) Bhagat Ram, (6) Om
Parkash and (7) Swami Raj. The first five filed their nomination
papers on January 23, 1967 before the Assistant Returning
Officer, Kahan Singh, a Tehsildar of Bhaderwah. On scrutiny of
the nomination papers, the Returning Officer Abdul Gani accept-
ed as valid the nomination papers of J agat Ram and Faquir Chand
and rejected the nominations papers of the remaining candidates
for various reasons.
At the poll the contest was between Jagat
Ram, the congress candidate and Faquit" Chand, the National
Conference candidate.
Respondent Jagat Ram having secured
larger number of votes was declared elected.
The appellant, a voter in the constituency, filed the ckction
petition for setting aside the respondent's election on the ground
that the nomination papers of Narain Dass, Nikka Ram and
Bhagat Ram were improperly rejected.
The High Court found
that the nomination paper of Bhagat Ram was properly rejected
and this finding is no longer challenged.
The nomination paper of Nikka Ram was rejected on three
grounds : ( 1 ) he did not make and subscribe the oath or affinna-
B
c
I>
tion as required by's. 51(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitu-
tion; (2) he was not a member of a scheduled caste and (3) his
E
father"s name was not correctly shown in the electoral rolls. The
nomination paper of Narain Dass was rejected on two grounds :
( 1 ) he did not make and subscribe the oath or affirmation as re-
quired bys. 51 (a) and (2) he was not a member pf a scheduled
caste. The High Court found that both Narain Dass and Nikka
Ram were members of the scheduled caste "Megh". It also held
that the error in the electoral roll with regard to the name of
F
Nikka Ram's father was not a ground for rejecting his nomination
paper having regard to s. 44 ( 4) of the J. & K. ReExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.