VIRJI RAM SUTARIA versus NATHALAL PREMJI BHANVADIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 04-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'; 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
_\ 
F 
G 
H 
VIRJI RAM SUTARIA 
v. 
NATHALAL PREMJI BHANV ADIA AND ORS. 
November 4, 1968 
(G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 173-0ath to be taken by candidate 
for 
election to the Legislature-Form of oath prescribed in Third Schedule-
Oath taken in Gu;arati language-Use of expression 'Ra;ya Sabha' for 
'Legislative Assembiy'-Oath whether taken in proper form-Effect on 
election-Directory or mandatory. 
The returned candidate at an election to the Gujarat Legislative As-
sembly held in February 1967 had taken his oath as prescribed by Art. 
173 of the Constitution 
in 
the 
Gujarati version of 
the 
relevant 
form set out in the Third Schedule to the Constitution. In the said version 
the term "Legislative Assembly" was translated as "Rajya Sabha". In 
an election petition it was urged that the term "Rajya Sabha" was equiva-
lent not to "Legislative Assembly" but to "Legislative Council", and there-
fore the oath was not taken by the returned candiJate in the proper form 
and his election. was liable to be set aside. 
The High Court having decided 
against the election petitioner appeal against its judgment was filed in this 
Court. 
HELD : (i) The word 'sabha' means a gathering or a meeting or an 
assembly of persons for a definite purpose. 
Giving the word 'sabha' 
the: 
said meaning in the word 'Rajya Sabha' it would not be possible to hold 
that the oath was not in compliance with the form 
prescribed in Art. 
173(a) of the Comtitution. No doubt by common parlance in many of 
the States in Northern India the expression 'Rajya Sabha' has come 
to 
mean the Legislative Council of a State while the State Legislative Assem-
bly is known as Rajya Vidhan Sabha. But in the. absence of any authorita-
tive tran<:latiop of the expression "State Legislative Assembly" in Gujarati 
the popular meaning of the expression could not give proper guidance. The 
State of Gujarat has no Legislative Council of the State. 
The Legislature 
consists of one house only, namely, the State Legislative. Assembly. There 
could therefore be no misaprirehension either in the person taking- the 
oath or in. the Re.turninq Officer when he was acceotin!I. the nomination 
paper with the oath in Gujarati form that the candidate who afterwa1ds 
won the election was being nominated as a candidate to fill a seat in the 
Legislative Council of the State and not in 
the Legislative Ascembly. 
[630 D-G] 
As the essential requirements of the oath given in the form in the 
Third Schedule were not deviated from in the Gujarati form used in this 
case it could not be held that the oath subscribed in this case was not 
in compliance with Art. 173 merely because of the popular meaning of 
the word "Rajya Sabha". 
(ii) Non.-compliance with th~ nrovisions of a statute or Constitution 
will not necessarily render a proceeding invalid if by considering its nature. 
it:i desi~n and t!ic consequellces which foliow from its non-observance one 
is not led to the conclusion that the legislature or the Constitution-makers 
intended that there should be no departure from the strict words used, 
(633 G-HJ 
628 
SUPRE11E COURT REPORTS 
[1969] 2 S.C.R. 
In the present case the essential requirement of Art. 173 read with 
Form Vil-A was that the person taking the oath or making the affinna-
tion would bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution an.cl would 
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India. 
The words which precede 
this portion are merely descriptive of the person and of his nomination 
as a candidate. 
It is re,asonabie to think that a mere. misprint in the 
form of the Oath or a n1ere inaccuracy in 
rendering 
the 
expression 
"Legislative Assembly" in Gujarati would not be fatal to the election of 
the candidate, if otherwise valid. [634 Al 
Kamarcia Nadar v. Kunju Thevar, [1959] 
S.C.R. 
583, 
Murarka 
Radhey Shyam Ram Kumar v. 
Roop Singh Rathore, [1964] 3 S.C.R. 
573; Ch. Subbarao v. Member, Election Tribunal, 
Hyderabad, 
[1964] 
6 S.C.R. 213; State of U.P. v. Manbodhan Lal Srivastava, [1958] S.C.R. 
533 and State of Punjab v. Sat Pal Dang ·and State of Punjab v. Dr. 
Baldev Prakash & Ors., [1969] 1 S.C. R. 4 78, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1180 of 
1968. 
Appeal under s. 116A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated Jain'uary 17, 18, 
1968 of the Gujarat High Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 
1967 . 
. Shyamala Pappu and Vineet

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