{"id":205666,"date":"1977-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1977-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977"},"modified":"2017-01-06T07:26:30","modified_gmt":"2017-01-06T01:56:30","slug":"kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977","title":{"rendered":"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1992, \t\t 1978 SCR (1) 208<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1977\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nKRISHNAIYER, V.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR 1992\t\t  1978 SCR  (1) 208\n 1977 SCC  (4) 153\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation\t of   the  People  Act,\t  1951-Election\t  to\nLegislative  Council from local\t authorities'  constituency-\nElectoral roll not corrected and brought upto-date-If  would\nvitiate an election held on that basis.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nArticle\t 171(3)\t of the Constitution provides  that  of\t the\ntotal  number  of' members of the Legislative Council  of  a\nState  one third shall be elected by electorates  consisting\nof members, among others, of local authorities in the  State\nas   Parliament\t may  by  law  specify.\t  Part\tIV  of\t the\nRepresentation\tof  the People Act, 1950  which\t deals\twith\nelectoral, rolls for Council constituencies, provides in  s.\n21(2)  that  if\t the electoral roll is not  revised  in\t the\nmanner\tstated therein, the validity or continued  operation\nof  the said electoral roll shall not thereby  be  affected.\nSection\t 27(2)\tof this part prescribes\t the  procedure\t for\nmaintaining the electoral roll corrected uptodate.\nIn  the election to the State Legislative Council  from\t the\nlocal authorities' constituency, the appellant was  declared\nelected\t by  a\tmajority  of 18\t votes.\t  In  this  election\npetition,  the respondent, who was the\tdefeated  candidate,\nalleged\t that although long before the notification  of\t the\nelection  new  office bearers in place of 13  Presidents  of\ncooperative  societies\tand  4 coopted\tmembers\t of  Kshetra\nSamities   were\t elected,  the\telectoral  rolls  were\t not\ncorrected and brought uptodate as a result of which  persons\nwho were not entitled to vote in the election,\tparticipated\nand that this had materially affected the result.  Upholding\nthe contention, the High Court held that the electoral\troll\ncould  not be deemed' to be an electoral roll for  the\ttime\nbeing  in force within the meaning of s. 2(1) (e) read\twith\ns. 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951  because\nit was not brought uptodate in accordance with the mandatory\nprovisions  of\ts. 27 of the 1950 Act and that\tan  election\nheld  on the basis of an invalid and ultra  vires  electoral\nroll was void.\nAllowing the appeal,\nHELD  : The High Court is clearly wrong in holding that\t the\nelectoral roll was illegal or ultra vires with reference  to\nthe  particular entries of voters and' that on that  account\nthe election was liable to be set aside. [216G]\n1.   Although under s. 27 the electoral registration officer\nhas  to maintain in his office the electoral roll  corrected\nuptodate  and  this  had not been done in  this\t case,\tmere\nremissness  of\tthe  officers in performing  their  duty  in\npreparation  of the electoral rolls is not relevant for\t the\npurposes of determining the question in the entire scheme of\nthe  Act  and  the  object and\tpurpose\t of  preparation  of\nelectoral rolls under the 1950 Act. [213G]\n2.(a) In a catena of cases this Court has consistently taken\nthe  view that the finality of the electoral roll cannot  be\nchallenged   in\t an  election  petition\t even\tif   certain\nirregularities\thad  taken place in the preparation  of\t the\nelectoral  roll or if subsequent disqualification had  taken\nplace  and  the electoral roll had on that  score  not\tbeen\ncorrected  before  the\tlast hour  of  making  nominations.\nAfter  that dead line the electoral roll of  a\tconstituency\ncannot\tbe  interfered\twith and no one can  go\t behind\t the\nentries\t except for the purpose of  considering\t disqualifi-\ncation under s. 16 of the 1950 Act. [216D]\nBaidydnath  Panjiar  v. Sitaram Mahto & Ors.,<\/a> [1970]  1\t SCR\n839,  Kabul  Singhv. Kundan Singh & Ors. [1970] 1  SCR\t845,\nPampakavi Ravappa Balagali v. B. D. Jatti & Others.<\/a> [1971] 2\nSCR  611  and Hariprasad Mulshankar Trivedi v.\tV.  BRaju  &\nOthers.<\/a> [1974] 1 SCR 548 followed.\n209\n2(b) There is a clear distinction between a challenge to the\nright  of a voter to be registered in an electoral roll\t and\nthe jurisdiction of an authority appointed under the Act  to\nenter a name in the electoral roll. [215F]\nRamji  Prasad Singh v. Rain Bilas Jha &<\/a> four Ors.  [1977]  1\nSCR  741  and  B. M. Ramaswamy v. B.  M.  Krishnamurthy\t and\nOthers<\/a> [1963] 3 SCR 479 applied.\n3.   The  voters  whose participation in  the  election\t was\nquestioned,  were electors within the meaning of s.  2(1)(e)\nof  the 1951 Act, entitled to vote under s. 62 of  that\t Act\nand  were  not\tdisqualified under s. 16 of  the  1950\tAct.\nTherefore,  it\twould  have been wrong on the  part  of\t the\npresiding   officer   not  to  allow   those   voters\tfrom\nparticipating  in the voting even though their names  could,\nat  the\t appropriate time, have been  legitimately  excluded\nfrom the electoral roll. [215B-C]\n4.   The  respondent's\tcontention  that by  reason  of\t the\ndeliberate omission or s.     21  in,  s.  27  (2)  (e),  no\nfinality is intended in the case of an electoral roll for  a\ncouncil\t constituency is without force.\t The proviso  to  s.\n21(2) relates to revision of in electoral roll and sets\t at\nrest any possible controversy in case there was no  revision\nof  electoral  roll for one reason or other.   The  proviso,\ntherefore,  has been advisedly inserted in s. 21(2)  with  a\nspecific  purpose  of forestalling a  situation.   The\tsame\ncaution\t is  not  necessary in the case\t of  preparation  of\nelectoral rolls tinder s. 27(2), the alterations whereof are\nconcomitant with statutory    transformations  of the  local\nauthorities under provisions of the local     Acts.  If\t any\nmodicum of caution is yet necessary, even that is  preserved\nby s. 23(3)    which is made applicable, in terms, under  s.\n27(2)(e). [216A-C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 875 of 1975.
\nFrom  the Judgment and Order dated the 2nd May 1975  of\t the
\nAllahabad  High Court (Lucknow Bench), Lucknow\tin  Election
\nPetition No. II of 1974.\n<\/p>\n
P.   R. Mridul and E. C. Agrawala, for the Appellant.
\nP.   H. Parekh, (A.  C.), for Respondent No. 1.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nGoswami, J. This appeal under section 116A of the  Represen-
\ntation\tof  the People Act, 1951, is  directed\tagainst\t the
\njudgment  of the Allahabad High Court in the, matter  of  an
\nelection  to the U.P. Legislative Council held on April\t 28,
\n1974,  from the Local Authorities’  Constituency,  Faizabad.
\nWe  are concerned here with Kshettra Samitis which  are\t the
\nlocal authorities (see Fourth Schedule of the Representation
\nof  the\t People\t Act, 1950,  Uttar  Pradesh).\tBesides\t the
\nappellant, ten candidates (respondents 1 to 10) filed  their
\nnomination  papers.  Six of them (respondents 5 to  10)\t had
\nwithdrawn their candidature.  Out of the five left there was
\nno  contest worth the name from respondents 2, 3 and 4.\t The
\nprincipal contest, therefore, was between the appellant\t and
\nrespondent  No.\t 1  (hereinafter to  be\t described  only  as
\nrespondent).   The  last date for submission  of  nomination
\npapers\twas  April  2, 1974.  At  the,\tpoll  the  appellant
\nsecured\t 927  votes and the respondent 909,  the  difference
\nbeing  only  of\t 18 votes.  The\t appellant  was,  therefore,
\ndeclared elected on April 29, 1974.\n<\/p>\n
The  respondent filed an election petition (being No. 11  of
\n1974) before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High  Court.
\nAs  many as 13 issues were raised before the High Court\t and
\nwe are principally
\n210<\/span>
\nconcerned with only one question which is the subject matter
\nof issue Nos. 1, 4 and 13.  The issues read as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1. (a)\t Whether  the  votes  cast  by\t the
\n\t      persons  mentioned in clause (a) of para 4  of
\n\t      the election petition were void ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Were  those persons not electors  within
\n\t      the  meaning  of\tsection\t 2(1)  (a)  of\t the
\n\t      Representation  of  the People  Act,  1951  on
\n\t      28-4-1974 when the election was held ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      4. (a)\t Whether  the five persons named  in
\n\t      para 8 of the election petition had ceased  to
\n\t      be  coopted members of Kshettra Samitis  after
\n\t      the  expiry  of the term\tof  Kshettra  Samiti
\n\t      Bhiaon in the year 1973 ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Can\t this question be enquired  into  by
\n\t      this Tribunal ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   If so were the said persons not electors
\n\t      on  the  date  of election  and  as  such\t not
\n\t      entitled to vote ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (d)   Whether  the votes of the  said  persons
\n\t      are void ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (e)   Whether the reception of the void  votes
\n\t      of  the said persons materially  affected\t the
\n\t      result of the election ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      13.   (a)\t Whether the electoral roll  on\t the
\n\t      basis of which
\n\t      election was held is ultra vires as alleged in
\n\t      para 17 of the election petition ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   Whether  this  question  can  be   taken
\n\t      notice  of  by the Tribunal in  this  election
\n\t      petition ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (c)   Whether  the election held on the  basis
\n\t      of\tthe said electoral roll is void ?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  issues cover the case of 17 persons whose names\twere
\nrecorded as electors in the electoral rolls grounded on\t the
\nrequisite qualifications that 13 of them were Presidents  of
\ntheir  respective Cooperative Societies and the remaining  4
\nwere  coopted members of Kshettra Samitis.  But\t since\tthey
\nhad  ceased to be the Presidents or coopted members  on\t the
\nnew  office  bearers  being subsequently  elected  in  their
\nplaces\tlong before the notification of the  election,\tthey
\nwere wrongly continued in their electoral rolls and as\tsuch
\nwere  not entitled to vote, notwithstanding the presence  of
\ntheir names in the electoral rolls.  Their participation  in
\nthe  election has materially affected the result.   This  is
\nthe case of the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The  High  Court accepted the contention and set  aside\t the
\nelection observing as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  these facts it is more than evident\tthat
\n\t      the   concerned  officers\t failed\t  in   their
\n\t      mandatory\t duty and they did not\tcorrect\t the
\n\t      electoral\t roll  upto  date  as  required\t  by
\n\t      section  27.   This incorrect  electoral\troll
\n\t      could  not  therefore  be\t deemed\t to  be\t the
\n\t      electoral\t roll  for the time being  in  force
\n\t      within the
\n\t      211<\/span>
\n\t      meaning  of section 2(1)(e) read with  section
\n\t      62  of  1951 Act.\t The election  held  on\t the
\n\t      basis   of  this\tinvalid\t and   ultra   vires
\n\t      electoral roll is also void”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court, however, observed that “it is not known  in
\nwhose  favour  they exercised their votes so as\t to  exclude
\nthem”.\n<\/p>\n
We  may here observe that if the High Court is right on\t the
\nfirst  point  a\t further question  will\t arise\twhether\t the
\nelection  of the appellant has been materially\taffected  by
\nthe  reception\tof  void votes in  his\tfavour.\t  As  stated
\nearlier,  the  High Court has not addressed itself  to\tthis
\naspect.\n<\/p>\n
The principal question that arises for consideration in this
\nappeal\tis whether the High Court is right in  holding\tthat
\nthe  electoral\troll  was invalid and  the  voters  recorded
\ntherein were, as such, disqualified from voting on the\tdate
\nof election.\n<\/p>\n
Article 171 of the Constitution provides for composition  of
\nthe Legislative Councils.  Under sub-article (3) thereof “Of
\nthe total number of members of the Legislative Council of  a
\nState-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   as nearly as may be, one third shall  be
\n\t      elected  by electorates consisting of  members
\n\t      of  municipalities, district boards  and\tsuch
\n\t      other  local  authorities\t in  the  State\t  as
\n\t      Parliament may by law specify”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Part  IV  of  the  Representation of  the  People  Act\t1950
\n(briefly  the  1950  Act) deals\t with  electoral  rolls\t for
\nCouncil\t Constituencies.  Section 27 in that  Part  provides
\nfor   preparation   of\t electoral   rolls   for    ,Council
\nConstituencies.\t  Sub-section (2) of that section  reads  as
\nfollows
\n\t      “(2)  For\t the  purpose of  elections  of\t the
\n\t      Legislative Council
\n\t      of   a   State  in  any\tlocal\tauthorities’
\n\t      constituency-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   the electorate shall consist of  members
\n\t      of    such   local   authorities\t  exercising
\n\t      jurisdiction  in any place or area within\t the
\n\t      limits  of that constituency as are  specified
\n\t      in  relation  to\tthat  State  in\t the  Fourth
\n\t      Schedule;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   every   member   of\t each\tsuch   local
\n\t      authority\t  within   a   local\tauthorities’
\n\t      constituency   shall   be\t  entitled   to\t  be
\n\t      registered  in  the electoral  roll  for\tthat
\n\t      constituency.\n<\/p>\n
\t      (c)   the\t electoral registration officer\t for
\n\t      every  local authorities’\t constituency  shall
\n\t      maintain\tin  his\t office\t in  the  prescribed
\n\t      manner  and form the electoral roll  for\tthat
\n\t      constituency corrected up-to-date;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (d)   in\t order\tto  enable   the   electoral
\n\t      registration officer to maintain the electoral
\n\t      roll corrected up-to-date, the chief executive
\n\t      officer. of every local
\n\t      212<\/span>
\n\t      authority\t  (by  whatever\t  designation\tsuch
\n\t      officer may be known) shall immediately inform
\n\t      the electoral registration officer about every
\n\t      change   in  the\tmembership  of\tthat   local
\n\t      authority;  and  the  electoral\tregistration
\n\t      officer shall, on receipt of the\tinformation,
\n\t      strike  off from the electoral roll the  names
\n\t      of persons who have ceased to be, and  include
\n\t      therein the names of persons who have  become,
\n\t      members of that local authority; and\n<\/p>\n
\t      (e)   the\t provisions of sections 15, 16,\t 18,
\n\t      22  and  23 shall apply in relation  to  local
\n\t      authorities’  constituencies as they apply  in
\n\t      relation to assembly constituencies”.
\nThis  sub-section was substituted by the Amendment Act 2  of
\n1956,  There were also some significant changes in the\t1951
\nAct by Amendment Act 27 of 1956.  For example, the words “or
\nof any other Act or rules relating to election” were deleted
\nfrom  the original section 108(2)(c) by the  1956  Amendment
\nAct, which goes to show that violation of the provisions  of
\nthe 1950 Act were not included as one of the grounds, in the
\nabove  clause, liable to materially affect the result of  an
\nelection.   In the context of sub-section (2) of section  27
\nof  the\t 1950  Act, section 23 provides\t for  correction  of
\nentries in electoral rolls either on application made to the
\nelectoral registration officer or on his. own motion.
\nSection\t 23 of the 1950 Act is material for our purpose\t and
\nmay be, read :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “23. (1) Any person whose name is not included
\n\t      in  the electoral roll of a  constituency\t may
\n\t      apply  to the electoral  registration  officer
\n\t      for the inclusion of his name in that roll.
\n\t      (2)   The\t  electoral   registration   officer
\n\t      shall,  if  satisfied that  the  applicant  is
\n\t      entitled\tto  be registered in  the  electoral
\n\t      roll, direct his name to be included therein :
\n\t      Provided\tthat if the applicant is  registered
\n\t      in   the\t electoral   roll   of\t any   other
\n\t      constituency,   the   electoral\tregistration
\n\t      officer\t shall\t  inform    the\t   electoral
\n\t      registration    officer\t of    that    other
\n\t      constituency   and  that\tofficer\t shall,\t  on
\n\t      receipt  of  the information, strike  off\t the
\n\t      applicant’s name from that roll.
\n\t      (3)   No amendment, transposition or  deletion
\n\t      of  any entry shall be made under\t section  22
\n\t      and  no direction for the inclusion of a\tname
\n\t      in the electoral roll of a constituency  shall
\n\t      be  given under this section, after  the\tlast
\n\t      date for making nominations for an election in
\n\t      that  constituency  or  in  the  parliamentary
\n\t      constituency within which that constituency is
\n\t      comprised\t and before the completion  of\tthat
\n\t      election”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      213<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      Under  section  24,  there  is  provision\t for
\n\t      appeal from any order passed under section  22
\n\t      or section 23.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      We may also refer to section 30 which has been
\n\t      relied upon by the appellant.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “30.  No civil court shall have jurisdiction-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (a)   to\tentertain  or  adjudicate  upon\t any
\n\t      question\twhether\t any  person is\t or  is\t not
\n\t      entitled to be registered in an electoral roll
\n\t      for a constituency; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)   to\tquestion the legality of any  action
\n\t      taken   by  or  under  the  authority  of\t  an
\n\t      electoral\t registration  officer,\t or  of\t any
\n\t      decision\tgiven  by  any\tauthority  appointed
\n\t      under  this Act for the revision of  any\tsuch
\n\t      roll”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section 32 provides for punishment of the officer  concerned
\nfor  breach of\tofficial  duty\tin  connection\twith   the
\npreparation,  revision\tor  correction,\t etc.  of  electoral
\nrolls.\n<\/p>\n
We are not required to write on a clean slate with regard to
\nthe  controversy  raised  in this appeal.   The\t High  Court
\nappears\t to have been impressed by the fact that a  duty  is
\ncast  under  section  27 of the 1950 Act  on  the  electoral
\nregistration   officer\tto  maintain  the   electoral\troll
\ncorrected  up-to-date and that since this had not been\tdone
\nthe  names  of the voters who had admittedly  ceased  to  be
\nPresidents or coopted members some time in 1973 ought not to
\nhave  appeared in the electoral rolls and that as such\tthey
\nwere disqualified from voting in the election.
\nIt is true that under ‘section 27 the electoral registration
\nofficer\t has  to maintain in his office\t an  electoral\troll
\ncorrected   up-to-date.\t  So  far  as  any  change  in\t the
\nmembership of a local authority is concerned there is also a
\nduty  cast  under section 27(2)(d) on  the  chief  executive
\nofficer\t of every local authority to immediately inform\t the
\nelectoral  registration\t officer about such a  change.\t The
\nelectoral registration officer, on receipt of such  informa-
\ntion from the chief executive officer, shall strike off\t the
\nold  names  and substitute the new names of members  of\t the
\nparticular   local   authority.\t  Even\tthe   new   members,
\nthemselves,  could apply for registration of their names  by
\ndeletion  of those of their predecessors in due time.\tThis
\nwas not done.\n<\/p>\n
Mere remissness of the officers in performing their duty  in
\npreparation  of the electoral rolls is not relevant for\t the
\npurpose of determining the question in the entire scheme  of
\nthe  Act  and  the object and  purpose\tof  preparation,  of
\nelectoral rolls under the 1950 Act.\n<\/p>\n
In Baidyanath Panjiar v. Sitaram Mahto & Ors.(1) this  Court
\n,categorically held as follows
\n(1)  [1970] 1 S.C.R. 839.\n<\/p>\n
214<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “A  fair reading of the various clauses in  S.
\n\t      27(2)  will make it clear that the entries  in
\n\t      an  electoral roll of a constituency, as\tthey
\n\t      stood on the last date for making the  nomina-
\n\t      tions  for  an election in  that\tconstituency
\n\t      should be considered as final for the  purpose
\n\t      of that election”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      In Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh & Ors.,<\/a> (1)  it
\n\t      was further held as, follows :-
\n\t      “The  mandate of that provision is  plain\t and
\n\t      unambiguous.   It prohibits inclusion  of\t any
\n\t      name   in\t  the  electoral  roll\t after\t the
\n\t      prescribed  date whether the  application\t for
\n\t      inclusion was made before or after that date”.
\n\t      In Pampakavi Rayappa Balagali v. B. D. Jatti &
\n\t      Others<\/a>(2),\t  this. Court again held  as
\n\t      follows :-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “The entire scheme of the Act of 1950 and\t the
\n\t      amplitude\t of  its provisions  show  that\t the
\n\t      entries  made  in\t an  Electoral\tRoll  of   a
\n\t      constituency   can  only\tbe   challenged\t  in
\n\t      accordance  with the machinery provided by  it
\n\t      and  not\tin any other manner  or\t before\t any
\n\t      other forum unless some question of  violation
\n\t      of  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  is
\n\t      involved”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi v. V. B. Raju and  Others,<\/a>
\n(3) Mathew, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench and after
\nreferring  to,\tseveral\t earlier  decisions  of\t this  Court
\nreached the conclusion as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Section\t30 of that Act makes it\t clear\tthat
\n\t      civil  courts have no power to adjudicate\t the
\n\t      question.\t  In these circumstances we  do\t not
\n\t      think that it would be incongruous to infer an
\n\t      implied  ouster  of the  jurisdiction  of\t the
\n\t      court  trying an election petition to go\tinto
\n\t      the question.  That inference is\tstrengthened
\n\t      by the fact that under S. 100(1)(d)(iv) of the
\n\t      1951 Act the result of the election must\thave
\n\t      been  materially\taffected  by  non-compliance
\n\t      with the provisions of the Constitution or  of
\n\t      that  Act or of the rules, orders\t made  under
\n\t      that Act in order that High Court may  declare
\n\t      an  election to be void.\tNon-compliance\twith
\n\t      the provisions of S. 19 of the 1950 Act cannot
\n\t      furnish  a  ground for declaring\tan  election
\n\t      void under that clause”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In the above context we may also refer to section 62 of\t the
\nRepresentation of the People Act 1951 (briefly the 1951 Act)
\nwhich reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “62.  (1) No person who is not, and except  as
\n\t      expressly\t provided by this Act, every  person
\n\t      who  is,\tfor the time being  entered  in\t the
\n\t      electoral\t roll of any constituency  shall  be
\n\t      entitled to vote in that constituency.
\n\t      (1)   [1970] 1 S.C.R. 845.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   [1971] 2 S.C.R. 611.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   [1974] 1 S.C.R 548
\n\t      215<\/span>
\n\t      (2)   No\tperson shall vote at an election  in
\n\t      any  constituency if he is subject to  any  of
\n\t      the  disqualifications referred to in  section
\n\t      16  of the Representation of the\tPeople\tAct,
\n\t      1950 (48 of 1950)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tnot  disputed  that the\t persons  whose\t names\twere
\nrecorded  in  the  electoral roll and  participated  in\t the
\nvoting\twere not disqualified under section 16 of  the\t1950
\nAct.   That being the position it would have been  wrong  on
\nthe  part of the Presiding Officer not to allow\t the  voters
\nwhose  names  were  recorded in the electoral  roll  of\t the
\nconstituency to participate in the voting, even though their
\nnames  could  have  been earlier  at  the  appropriate\ttime
\nlegitimately excluded from the electoral roll.\tThese voters
\nare electors within the meaning of section 2 (1) (e) of\t the
\n1951  Act and were entitled to vote under section 62 of\t the
\n1951 Act.\n<\/p>\n
In  a  democracy  and  for.  that  matter  in  an  election,
\nperennial  vigilance should be the watch-word for all.\t If,
\ntherefore,  notwithstanding  the  provisions  of  the\tlaw,
\nappropriate  action was not taken at the  appropriate  time,
\nthe  provisions\t of the election law which have\t got  to  be
\nconstrued  strictly, must work with indifference  to  conse-
\nquences, immediate or mediate.\tOn the part of the  officers
\nalso  it will vitalise and invigorate a\t healthy  democratic
\npractice  if, charged with the electoral  duties,  demanding
\nhigh  probity,\tthey  neither exhibit  rank  remissness\t nor
\naccelerated  alacrity  apt  always  to\tbreed  suspicion  of
\npartisanship.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Parekh  appearing,\t as amicus  curiae,  has  drawn\t our
\nattention to a decision of this Court in Ramji Prasad  Singh
\nv. Ram Bilas Jha & Four Ors.<\/a> (1) to which I was a party.  It
\nis  not possible to hold that Ramji decision (supra)  is  of
\nany  aid  to  counsel in his submission in  support  of\t the
\nimpugned judgment.  This Court in that case referred to\t the
\nearliest case on the subject, namely, B. M. Ramaswamy v.  B.
\nM.  Krishnamurthy  and Others<\/a>(2) that it “bad  come  to\t the
\nconclusion that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be
\nchallenged  in\ta proceeding in which the  validity  of\t the
\nelection  is  questioned”.  This Court has  further  clearly
\nobserved in Ramji’s case (supra) as follows
\n\t      “There  is  a  clear  distinction\t between   a
\n\t      challenge\t to  the  right of  a  voter  to  be
\n\t      registered  in  an  electoral  roll  and\t the
\n\t      jurisdiction  of an authority appointed  under
\n\t      the  Act\tto  enter a name  in  the  electoral
\n\t      roll”.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Parekh also invited our attention to section 27 (2)\t (e)
\nof  1950 Act wherein section 21 of that Act is omitted.\t  He
\nsubmits that under proviso to sub-section (2) of section  21
\n“if  the  electoral roll is not revised\t as  aforesaid,\t the
\nvalidity  or continued operation of the said electoral\troll
\nshall  not thereby be affected”.  From this he submits\tthat
\ndeliberate  omission of section 21 in section 27 (2) (e)  is
\nvery significant and no finality is intended in the case  of
\nelectoral roll for a Council Constituency in Part IV of\t the
\n1950 Act.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1977] 1 S.C.R. 741.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1963] 3 S.C.R. 479.\n<\/p>\n
216<\/span><\/p>\n
We  appreciate\tthe ingenuity of the  submission.   We\tare,
\nhowever, unable to accept the submission notwithstanding the
\nomission of section 21 in section 27(2)(e) of the 1950\tAct.
\nThe  proviso  to  section 21(2) relates to  revision  of  an
\nelectoral roll and sets at rest any possible controversy  in
\ncase there happens to be no revision of electoral rolls\t for
\none  reason  or\t other.\t The proviso,  therefore,  has\tbeen
\nadvisedly inserted in section 21(2) with a specific  purpose
\nof  forestalling  a  situation.\t The  same  caution  is\t not
\nnecessary  in  the case of preparation\tof  electoral  rolls
\nunder section 27(2), the alterations whereof are concomitant
\nwith  statutory\t transformations of  the  local\t authorities
\nunder  provisions  of  the local Acts.\tIf  any\t modicum  of
\ncaution is yet necessary, even that is preserved by  section
\n23(3)  which  is made applicable, in  terms,  under  section
\n27(2)(e).   The\t submission of counsel, thus, flies  in\t the
\nface of the scheme and object of the above provisions.
\nThus  in a catena of cases this Court ha consistently  taken
\nthe  view that the finality of the electoral roll cannot  be
\nchallenged   in\t an  election  petition\t even\tif   certain
\nirregularities\thad  taken place in the preparation  of\t the
\nelectoral  roll or if subsequent disqualification had  taken
\nplace  and  the electoral roll had on that  score  not\tbeen
\ncorrected before the last hour of making nominations.  After
\nthat  dead line the electoral roll of a constituency  cannot
\nbe  interfered\twith and no one can go\tbehind\tthe  entries
\nexcept for the purpose of considering disqualification under
\nsection 16 of the 1950 Act.\n<\/p>\n
The  election  could  be  set  aside  only  on\tthe  grounds
\nmentioned  in  section 100 of the 1951 Act.   In  this\tcase
\nreliance   was\tplaced\tunder  section\t100(1)(d)(iii)\t for
\ninvalidating the election on the ground of reception of void
\nvotes.\t We  have  already shown  that\tthe  electoral\troll
\ncontaining  the\t particular names of voters  was  valid\t and
\nthere  is, therefore, no question of reception of  any\tvote
\nwhich was void.\t There is, thus, no substance in that ground
\nfor challenging the election.\n<\/p>\n
It  is\ttrue,  the result is that with a  small\t margin\t the
\nappellant  landed  first as the victor in the  election\t and
\neven  the  balance  might  have\t tilted\t in  favour  of\t the
\nrespondent  if\tthe  so-called\tinvalid\t votes\twere  to  be
\nexcluded.  But this uncanny consequence cannot be helped  on
\nthe  law laid down by this Court and for very  good  reasons
\nimpregnated  in the electoral provisions demanding  constant
\nawareness  on  the  part  of all  and,\tabove  all,  of\t the
\ncitizenry.\n<\/p>\n
We are, therefore, of opinion that the High Court is clearly
\nwrong  in  holding that the electoral roll  was\t illegal  or
\nultra  vires  with reference to the  particular\t entries  of
\nvotes and that on that account the election was liable to be
\nset aside.  We, therefore, set aside the judgment and  order
\nof the High Court and restore the election of the  appellant
\nto  the\t U.P. Legislative Council.   The  election  petition
\nstands\tdismissed with costs.  In the view we have taken  it
\nis not necessary to consider the second question with regard
\nto  the\t point\twhether the result of the  election  of\t the
\nappellant was materially affected or not.  In the result the
\nappeal is allowed, but since the respondent has not  entered
\nappearance we will make no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
217<\/span><\/p>\n
We  are\t thankful to both Mr. Mridul for  his  well  planned
\nsubmission  with considerate brevity and to Mr.\t Parekh\t for
\nhis able assistance as amicus curiae on a very short  notice
\nfrom the Court.\n<\/p>\n
We  may say at end that this case discloses in\tan  election
\nmatter,\t the negative attitude of officialdom while  Ramji’s
\ncase  (supra)  exposed a lurid instance of  an\tover-zealous
\npositive drive.\n<\/p>\n
P.B.R.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\nallowed.\n3--786SCI\/77\n218<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 1992, 1978 SCR (1) 208 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: KUNWAR NRIPENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. RESPONDENT: JAI RAM VERMA AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT28\/07\/1977 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KRISHNAIYER, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-205666","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1977-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-06T01:56:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977\",\"datePublished\":\"1977-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-06T01:56:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\"},\"wordCount\":3361,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\",\"name\":\"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1977-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-06T01:56:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1977-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-06T01:56:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977","datePublished":"1977-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-06T01:56:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977"},"wordCount":3361,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977","name":"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1977-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-06T01:56:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunwar-nripendra-bahadur-singh-vs-jai-ram-verma-and-others-on-28-july-1977#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunwar Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs Jai Ram Verma And Others on 28 July, 1977"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205666","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=205666"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/205666\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=205666"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=205666"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=205666"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}