VIVEKA NAND GIRI versus NAWAL KISHORE SAHI

Citation: [1984] 2 S.C.R. 558 · Decided: 16-02-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
,. 
' 
• 
...• 
. . 
558 
A 
.• 
VIVEKA NAND GIRi 
v .. 
, ·NA VI AL K!Sf!:ORE SAHI 
February 16, !984 
.. 
. [S. MURTAZA FAZ~L ALI, A. VAAADARAJAN AND· 
RANGANATH MISRA, .JJJ 
Ri!presentatton of _the People A~t. 1951 Section 36 · (4}-Nomiffation papeT-
iiscr,pancy in age of candidate as mentioned rn.'the · nom1ndt101r paper. and tn electoral 
roll-Rejectron .of no1n1nation pdper-Whether vcil1d and proper. 
T,li.e ap_pellant was elected to tJie State Legislative Asseffibly and the first r~spon
ient, the defeated candidate. -filed an Election Petition for setting- aside the election 
'"as being void bn accotint,of, iffiproper erjection of the nomination paper's .of one of 
the candidates by the .Returning Officer. 
~t was c:Ontended tha.'t. the· Returning 
Officer rejected four ri01nination· papers submitted-by the candidate, three on the 
ground that 'the serial 'number aUd part number o'f 'the caD.didates Wiere wrong 
with- reference to_ the el_ectoral roll, .and the fourth on the. ground-that · there was. 
dlfferenfe in the age- of the candi_date. 
The· High Court beld,that n·o· nomination pit per cOUld be rejected qnless the defect 
was of a substantial character,· and that the difference in the age of the candidate 
··as given in the electoral.roll arld the nomination paper Was· not a material en·or and 
no. opiJortunity haviilg been given to ·ihe.cindidate when the nOmination papers· 
were filed tO re.move an:Y defect, the rejection of the nomination papers by the.Return- . 
·ing Officer Was_ improper, ·and the election of the appeJlant \vas set s~side as being 
VQid ·on that grounp.: 
' 
' 
Dismissing 'the appeal, 
HELD: 1. The rejettio:n of the n.Omination paper on the· gr·o~nd of difference 
in the age. was improper, fof having rcgafd to the :provisions of sectiofl ·36(4) of :the 
or the Repre~entation 'Of the Peop'!e Act, 1951 the defect is not,. of a substantial . 
character. The' appellant's election. iS 'consequently void under sectio.n 1 oo· (l)(c) 
.of the Act on th_e g~ound of improper rejection of the nomination paper.- [564 E-F] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
In the :insta~t _cise, the differ.;:nc~ in the age of the ca~didate,· as entered i~ the 
G 
electoral ro_ll arid the ~omination paper wollld ·fall under th,e category~of 'inaccurate 
de3Cripti.on' mention~d in the prC>viso tO" section 33(4) and it was the~efore.obligatory · 
on the_· part of.the .Returniilg Officer to have it corrected or to overlook it having 
regard to the-language ~f the said proviso. [563 H; 564.A] 
. 
2. 
A. p:!rsori to be entitfoci to be registered in the electoral. roll for a ·consti- ·. 
tUency should be~ 21 ·years of age on thi qualifying._date- and. a pers_on to be chosen, 
. 
. 
·' 
-
" 
. -
I 
H 
)ia·· 
• 
:f 
' 
~~~ 
; 
·!( 
.. 
~ 
~· ... 
.... 
., 
·~ 
... 
. 
. ' 
,. 
VIVEKA NANO v. NA WAL KISHORE (Voradarajah, J.) .. 
·559 
. 
' 
. 
. . 
to fill a seat l-n 'tl~e ·Lcgislat.ute .. of a. S_t~t~· ~hOuid i~ot be. iess. than .25 y~ars ~f age. 
The s~bstanti.il·_requir~ment as regards'-the questiori of the age bf the candidate, _at 
. fhe tin1:! of sc,·utin.Y of nqrnitiµ.tion papef'iS that. he_'shOuld have completed. 25 'Years· 
·of age and :=;hould l1a.ve b~:::n registered in the elcctora-1 roll for that constituency and 
.•,not·w!tet~~r th~re·was_a differe11ce ·o·f 4.Years in the age of th_c candidate as n1entio'ne'd 
.' ·in th;;: clect?ra~ roll an~ ,th:) no'mination pap'ei.-as in, the in_stant case. The (Jifference 
in·agc is "'not ~t'n error of subStantif1T character. [562 G-B"; 564 C-D] 
~. 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. . . 
. i· 
. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRJSD!CtION : Civil Appeal Nti: 1081l. of 1983•' 
ll~ 
' 
From the judgmeut and''oi:der d•ted 11-1.0-83 otthe .Patna High 
Court in·,t.P .. 27 of i980. 
, ·' 
, 
'· 
. '• 
. 
Dr. f;,.M. Si11ghvi, KN. Rai and A.M. Singh vi for th7 appellant. 
k ... 
L:R. Singh, A.Shara11 & Svlama11 Khurshid. ·ror the. respondent. 
' 
. 
' 
'. 
. 
D.P. Si11gh; and D,P, MukhiHjee for the intei'vener. 
. . 
.• 
·, 
.. 
.. 
-
. 
·~ 
· The Judgment, of the court was delivered by 
', VARADA.RA.JAN, .t. This appeal under s. I 16(A) of-the Represerita-
:.tion of People Act, 1951, hereinafterrefqrcd to as, the. 'Ac( arises out 
, of the judgment ofa learned Single. Judge.ofthc Patna High Court in 
~ 
Elyction Petition, No. 27 of 1980, setting aside the apr.ellant's, elec-
, !ion to the Bihar Legislative' ~sse;nh'y from 
No~ 64, Rui Saidi:mr' 
I 
.constituency on the ground tl1at t.he election is V<{id on account ,of 
:··
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.