SHIV CHARAN SINGH S/O SHRI ANGAD SINGH versus CHANDRA BHAN SINGH S/O SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 713 · Decided: 19-01-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
SHIV CHARAN SINGH S/o SHRI ANGAD SINGH 
v. 
CHANDRA BHAN SINGH S/o SHRI MAHAVIR 
SINGH & ORS. 
JANUARY 19, 1988 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section lOO(d)(i)-
Election-Improper acceptance of nomination paper of a contesting 
candidate-Result of election of returned candidate-Whether mate-
rially affected-Burden of proof on election petitioner-Whether elec-
C 
tion can be declared void on surmises and conjectures. 
The validity of the appellant's election to the Legislative Assembly 
was challenged by two electors, Respondent Nos. I and 2, on the gronnd 
that improper acceptance by the Returning Officer, of the nomination 
paper of one of the contesting candidates who was not qualified to 
D 
contest the election under Art. 173(b) of the Constitution, bad mate-
rially affected the resnlt of the election of the returned candidate. 
The appellant contested the election petitions, contending that 
there was no Improper acceptance of nomination paper of the candidate 
in question and that the appellant's election was not materially affected. 
E 
The High Court held that there was Improper acceptance of the 
nomination paper, as the candidate in question was not competent to 
contest election for the reason that be was below 25 years of age. It also 
held that the election of the appellant was materially affected, because 
there was a difference of only 4497 votes between the votes polled by the 
F 
.~ppellant and the next unsuccessful candidate and if the candidate 
· 
whose nomination paper bad been Improperly accepted had not con-
! 
tested, the votes polled by him would have gone in favour of the next 
unsuccessful candidate and other candidates, in which case the next 
unsuccessful candidate could have polled the majority of valid votes. It 
accordingly declared the appellant's election void. 
In the appeals before this Court it was contendeil on behalf of the 
appellant that the finding recorded by the High Court that the impro-
G 
per acceptance of the nomination paper of the candidate In question bad 
materially affected the result of the appellant's election was based on 
conj.ectures and surmises and not on any legal evidence and that none of H 
713 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
714 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
th.e two election petitioners had produced ariy cogent and reliable evi-
dence to discharge the burden that the result of the election was mate-
rially affected on account of improper acceptance of the nomination 
paper of the candidate in question. 
On behalf of the respondents, it was urged that on the material on 
record and having regard to the number of votes polled by the candi-
date whose nomination was improperly accepted and the difference 
between the votes polled by the appellant and the next unsuccessful 
candidate, the findings recorded by the High Court were sustainable in 
law and the same were in accordance with the law laid down by this 
Court, in Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram & Ors., [ 1984] t SCR 966. 
Allowing the appeals, 
HELD: l. The election petitioners have failed to prove that 
the result of the election of the appellant was materially affected on 
the ground of improper acceptance of nomination paper. Therefore, 
the election of the returned : candidate could not be declared 
void. [727C-D I 
2. t Improper acceptance of nomination paper of any contesting 
candidate (other than the contesting candidate) does not ipso facto ren-
der the election· of the returned candidate void. The election can be 
declared void only if it is found that the result of the election of the 
returned ·candidate was m~terially affected on the ground of such 
improper acceptance. The burden of proving the material effect on the 
result of ele'ction is always on th..- election-petitioner challenging the 
validity of the election of the returned candidate. Unless this burden is 
-" 
discharged by the election petitioner the result of the returned candi,:_, 
date cannot he declared void. [719F-H] 
-
\ 
2. 2 The result of the election can be affected only on the proof 
that the votes polled by the candidate whose nomination paper had 
wrongly been accepted would have been distributed in such a manner 
amongst the remaining candidates that some other candidates (other 
G 
than the returned candidate) would have polled the highest number of 
valid votes. In the absence of any such proof, the result cannot be held 
to have been materially affected. [72

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