{"id":60619,"date":"1999-10-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-10-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999"},"modified":"2015-05-04T18:54:04","modified_gmt":"2015-05-04T13:24:04","slug":"krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999","title":{"rendered":"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. A.S. Cji, S. Rajendra Babu, R.C. Lahoti<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  3653 of 1999\n\nPETITIONER:\nKRISHNA MOHINI\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMOHINDER NATH SOFAT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/10\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nDR. A.S. ANAND CJI & S. RAJENDRA BABU  & R.C. LAHOTI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
1999 Supp(4) SCR 76<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n
R.C. LAHOTI, J. This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation
\nof the People Act, 1951 preferred by a candidate, who, though successful at
\nthe polls, has lost in the election petition before the High Court. For the
\nsake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed
\nin the election petition filed before the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mohinder Nath Sofat, the defeated candidate, filed an election petition
\nputting in issue the election of Smt. Krishna Mohini, the returned
\ncandidate, alleging improper rejection of the nomination papers of Sarvshri
\nPritam Chand and Mohan Singh and also that the result of election insofar
\nas it concerns the returned candidate having been materially affected by
\nthe improper acceptance of nomination paper of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj.
\nThe two grounds were covered by Section 100(l)(c) and Section 100(1)(b)(i)
\nof the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as
\nthe `Act’, for short). Both the pleas have prevailed with the learned
\nDesignated Election Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, The
\nelection petition has been allowed and the election of the returned
\ncandidate set aside.\n<\/p>\n
Legislative Assembly elections including for 14-Solan Constituency of
\nHimachal Pradesh Vidhan Sabha were held in the months of January and
\nFebruary, 1998 as per the programme notified by the Election Commission of
\nIndia. Nomination papers were to be filed between 28.1.1998 and 4.2.1998
\n(both days inclusive). Scrutiny of nomination papers was to take place on
\n5.2.1998. Last date for withdrawal of candidature was 7.2.1998 upto 3 p.m.
\nAllotment of symbols was to take place after 3 p.m. on 7.2.1998. Date of
\npolling was 28.2.1998. Counting of ballots was to take place on 2.3.1998.\n<\/p>\n
The petitioner filed his nomination as a candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party,
\na registered and recognised political party. The respondent filed her
\nnomination as a candidate of Indian National Congress (I), a registered and
\nrecognised political party. One Pritam Chand son of Bahadur Ram, filed his
\nnomination (Ex. PW 1\/P) as a candidate of Shiv Sena (a registered –
\nunrecognised political party). On the date of scrutiny, his nomination was
\nrejected by the Returning Officer by an order passed as under :\n<\/p>\n
“Since the nomination of main candidate has been accepted, he being
\nsubstitute candidate, his nomination papers are rejected.”\n<\/p>\n
One Mohan Singh son of Shiv Ram had filed his nomination (Ex. PW I\/R) as a
\ncandidate of Himachal Vikas Congress (a registered- unrecognised political
\nparty). His nomination was also rejected by the Returning Officer by an
\norder passed as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“The main candidate since has been accepted hence his nomination is
\nrejected.”\n<\/p>\n
Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj (PW 2) had filed his nomination (Ex. PW 1\/ N) as a
\ncandidate of Communist Party of India (CPI). The date and time of
\npresentation of nomination as endorsed on his nomination paper are
\n“4.2.1998” and “12.45. p.m.” The Oath Form (Ex. PW I\/O) bears the date and
\ntime of the Oath having administered by the Returning Officer as “4.2.1998”
\nand “12.44 am.”\n<\/p>\n
There were four other candidates whose nomination papers were found to be
\nin order and were accepted by the Returning Officer. Thus, there were in
\nall seven candidates in the fray. The contesting candidates secured the
\nvotes as under :-<\/p>\n
\n\nS. No. Name of Candidate            Party affiliation          No. of votes\npolled\n\n1.     Ms. Krishna Mohini      Indian National (respondent)     Congress\n2.     Jagdish Chand Bhardwaj     C.P.I                             598<\/span>\n3.     Mohinder Nath Sofat      Bhartiya Janta Party   12,184(Petitioner)\n4.     Ravinder Nath Parihar         Samajwadi Party                512<\/span>\n5.     Vinod Kumar          Himachal Vikas Congress              1,063\n6.     Smt. Satya Devi              Shiv Sena                     72<\/span>\n7.     Harminder Singh Thakur     Independent                    9,739\n\n<\/pre>\n
In accordance with the above result of counting, the respondent-Krishna
\nMohini was declared elected. She had defeated her nearest rival, the
\npetitioner, by a margin of 26 votes.\n<\/p>\n
According to the petitioner, the nomination papers of Sarvshri Pritam Chand
\nand Mohan Singh were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer. Though
\nthese two candidates, as per their nomination papers, had claimed
\nthemselves to be alternate candidates of Shiv Sena and Himachal Vikas
\nCongress respectively, but each of the nomination papers was proposed by
\nten electors of the Constituency and as such both were entitled to be
\ntreated as independent candidates and none of the nomination papers filed
\nby them could have been rejected inspite of the nomination papers of the
\nmain candidates having been accepted by the Returning Officer. Improper
\nrejection of any nomination paper is by itself a ground for avoiding the
\nelection of the returned candidate under Section l00(1)(c) of the Act.
\nJagdish Chander Bhardwaj had not taken oath after the submission of the
\nnomination paper before the Returning Officer, who was authorised by the
\nElection Commission of India to administer the oath or affirmation as
\nrequired by Article 173 of the Constitution and hence his nomination paper
\nwas illegally accepted which has resulted into the result of election being
\nmaterially affected.\n<\/p>\n
According to the respondent, the nomination papers of Pritam Chand and
\nMohan Singh were rightly rejected by the Returning Officer as they were
\nmere alternate or substitute candidates Of Shiv Sena and Himachal Vikas
\nCongress respectively. Inasmuch as the nomination papers of Smt. Satya Devi
\nand Shri Vinod Kumar, the candidates set up by the said two political
\nparties respectively, were found to be in order and accepted, the question
\nof accepting nomination papers of alternate\/substitute candidates did not
\narise. Their nomination papers were rightly rejected by the Returning
\nOfficer. So far as Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj is concerned, the timings
\nendorsed on the nomination paper and oath form suffer from a clerical error
\nmerely. Oath was administered to Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj by the Returning
\nOfficer after the presentation of nomination paper by him and, therefore,
\nhis nomination paper was rightly accepted by the Returning Officer.\n<\/p>\n
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were
\nframed by the learned Designated Election Judge ;-\n<\/p>\n
“1. Whether the petitioner does not disclose full, concise and material
\nfacts and does not disclose a cause of action? If so, its effect? OPR<\/p>\n
2.  Whether the petitioner has knowingly and intentionally concealed the
\nmaterial facts? If so, its effect? OPR<\/p>\n
3. Whether the nomination papers of S\/Shri Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh
\nhave been wrongly and improperly rejected and the election of respondent
\nNo. i is liable to be declared void under Section 100(1)(c) of the
\nRepresentation of People Act? OPP<\/p>\n
4,    Whether the nomination papers of Jagdish Chand Bhardwaj were wrongly
\naccepted and the result of election has been materially affected thereby?
\nOPP<\/p>\n
3.   Relief”\n<\/p>\n
Issues Nos. 1 and 2 were not pressed for decision by the learned senior
\ncounsel for the respondent before the High Court and they were accordingly
\ndecided against the respondent. Shri O.P. Sharma, learned senior counsel
\nfor the appellant, has disputed the correctness of the factual statement
\nrecorded by the High Court that the two issues were not pressed for
\ndecision. However, we are not persuaded to entertain such a plea. Firstly,
\nno application disputing the correctness of the factual statement recorded
\nby the learned Designated Election Judge in his judgment has, been moved
\nbefore the same Judge. Secondly, we also do not find any merit in the plea
\ncontained in the written statement filed in the High Court on which the two
\nissues have been framed. Even if pressed for decision, these two issues
\nwould have been liable to be decided in favour of the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
Issue Nos. 3 and 4 have been decided in favour of the election petitioner
\nallowing the relief of setting aside the election of the respondent under
\nIssue No. 5. The findings on these issues are under challenge in this
\nappeal.\n<\/p>\n
We would first take up the Issue No. 3.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit PW-l\/G is the nomination paper of Mohan Singh, which was filed at
\n2.55 p.m. on 4.2.98, It has been subscribed by ten proposers, who are
\nelectors of the Constituency, In part-III of the nomination paper, Mohan
\nSingh has declared himself to have been set up at the election by the
\nHimachal Vikash Congress party. For the choice of symbols, he has given
\n`telephone’ as the first preference and left blank the space meant for
\nsecond and third preferences.\n<\/p>\n
Pritam Chand filed his nomination paper at 1.55 p.m. on 4.2.98. In Part-Ill
\nof the nomination paper, he has declared himself to have been set up as a
\ncandidate by Shiv Sena, a registered unrecognised political party. The
\nspace meant for giving the choice of three symbols in the order of
\npreference has been left blank. The nomination paper is subscribed by ten
\nproposers, all being electors of the Constituency.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit R-l is the communication in form-A made on behalf of Himachal
\nVikash Congress to the Chief Electoral Officer, Himachal Pradesh and the
\nReturning Officer for the 14-Solan Constituency, pursuant to para 13(b),\n<\/p>\n
(c) and (d) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968
\ndeclaring Shri Chaman  Lal, General Secretary of the party, as the person
\nauthorised for 14-Solan Constituency appending his specimen signatures.\n<\/p>\n
Exhibit R-3 is form-B filed under the signature of the said Chaman Lal on
\n3.2.98 before the Chief Electoral Officer, 14-Solan Constituency, pursuant
\nto paragraph 13(b), (c) and (d) of the Election Symbols (Reservation and
\nAllotment) Order, 1968 whereby it was declared that the `approved
\ncandidate’ was Vinod Kumar and Mohan Singh was `substituted candidate’ who
\nwill step-in as a contesting candidate on the approved candidate’s
\nnomination being rejected on scrutiny or his withdrawing from the contest.\n<\/p>\n
Similarly, form-A was filed before the Chief Electoral Officer, Himachal
\nPradesh, and the Returning Officer for the Solan Constituency on behalf of
\nShiv Sena forwarding the specimen signatures of Shri Satish Pradhan `Rajya
\nSampark Neta’ of Shiv Sena, as the person authorised for the purpose. Form-
\nB was filed under the signature of Shri Satish Pradhan declaring Satya Devi
\nto be the `approved candidate’ of Shiv Sena and Pritam Chand as `substitute
\ncandidate’ who will step-in as contesting candidate, on the approved
\ncandidate’s nomination being rejected on scrutiny or his withdrawing from
\nthe contest.\n<\/p>\n
It is to be noted that neither form-A nor form-B bears the signatures of
\nany candidate. Indeed there is no provision in any Act, Rules or Order
\nwhich requires any such form to be signed or subscribed to by a candidate.\n<\/p>\n
At the scrutiny, the nomination papers of Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh were
\nrejected by the Returning Officer as already stated.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Designated Election Judge has held both the rejections to be
\nillegal, which finding has been vehemently attacked by Shri O.P, Sharma,
\nthe learned senior counsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
The provisions of Sections 33 and 36 of the Act insofar as relevant for our
\npurpose, are extracted and reproduced hereinunder :-\n<\/p>\n
“33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid
\nnomination.-(1) On or before the date appointed under clause (a) of Section
\n30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer, between the
\nhours of eleven O’ clock in the forenoon and three O’clock in the afternoon
\ndeliver to the returning officer at the place specified in this behalf in
\nthe notice issued under section 31 a nomination paper completed in the
\nprescribed form and signed by the candidate and by a elector of the
\nconstituency as proposer,<\/p>\n
[Provided that a candidate not setup by a recognised political party, shall
\nnot be deemed to be duly nominated for election from a constituency unless
\nthe nomination paper is subscribed by ten proposers being electors of the
\nconstituency;\n<\/p>\n
Provided further that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the
\nreturning office on a day which is a public holiday;\n<\/p>\n
Provided also that in the case of a local authorities’ constituency,
\ngraduates’ constituency or teachers’ constitutency, the reference to “an
\nelector of the constituency as proposer” shall be construed as a reference
\nto ten per cent of the electors of the constituency or ten such electors,
\nwhichever is-less, as proposers.”]<\/p>\n
xxx                                          xxx
\nxxx<\/p>\n
36. Scrutiny of nominations.-(1) On the date fixed for the scrutiny of
\nnominations under section 30, the candidates, their election agents, one
\nproposer of each candidate, and one other person duly authorised in writing
\nby each candidate, but no other person, may attend at such time and place
\nas the Returning Officer may appoint; and the returning officer shall give
\nthem all reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all
\ncandidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid
\ndown in section 33.\n<\/p>\n
(2) The Returning Officer shall then examine the nomination papers and
\nshall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination, and may,
\neither on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry,
\nif any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the
\nfollowing grounds :-\n<\/p>\n
(a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the candidate<\/p>\n
either is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to fill the
\nseat under any of the following provisions that may be applicable, namely-\n<\/p>\n
Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191. Part II of this Act [and sections 4 and 14
\nof the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963.]; or<\/p>\n
(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions<\/p>\n
of section 33 or section 34; or<\/p>\n
(c)  that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on the<\/p>\n
nomination paper is not genuine.\n<\/p>\n
(3)…………(not reproduced)<\/p>\n
(4) The Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on the
\nground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.”\n<\/p>\n
xxx                                        xxx\nxxx\n\n[underlining by us]\n\n<\/pre>\n
the first and third provisos to sub-section (1) of Section 33 have been
\nadded by the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1996 [Act 21 of
\n96] w.e.f. 1.8.1996. Prior to this, there was only one proviso which is now
\nthe second proviso in the present form.\n<\/p>\n
In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 324 of the Constitution read
\nwith Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Rules 5
\nand 10 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and all other powers
\nenabling it in this behalf, the Election Commission of India has issued the
\nElection Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the “Symbols Order”, for short). This order provides for
\nallotment of symbols to the contesting candidates, for classification of
\nsymbols into reserved symbol-reserved for exclusive allotment to contesting
\ncandidates set up by a recognised political party, and free symbol -which
\nis a symbol other than a reserved symbol. Para 6 classifies political
\nparties into recognised and unrecognised political parties. To be a
\nrecognised political party in a State, a political party must satisfy the
\nconditions specified in clause (A) or clause (B) of sub-para (2) of Para 6
\nof the Symbols Order. A recognised political party may be a National party
\nor a State party. A candidate set up by a recognised party in an election
\ncontest can choose only a symbol reserved for that political party.
\nCandidates set up by political parties other than recognised ones and
\nindependent candidates are entitled to free symbols. A candidate other than
\na candidate set up by a recognised National or State Party in that State or
\na candidate set up by a State party at elections in other State, has to
\nchoose and to be allotted a free symbol. A free symbol chosen by only one
\ncandidate must be allotted to him and to no one else. Where the same free
\nsymbol has been chosen by several candidates at such election the manner
\nhow the symbol shall be allotted as amongst those several candidates is
\nlaid down in sub-para 3 of para 12 of the Symbols Order.\n<\/p>\n
Para 13 of the Symbols Order [as substituted by O.N. 2G3-E dt. 5.8.1996,
\nand effective at the relevant time] provides as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“13. When a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by a political party.-
\nFor the purposes of this Order, a candidate shall be deemed to be set up by
\na political party if, and only if,-\n<\/p>\n
(a) the candidate has made a declaration to that effect in his nomination
\npaper;\n<\/p>\n
(b) a notice in writing to that effect has, not later than 3 p.m. on last,
\ndate for making nominations, been delivered to the Returning Officer of the
\nconstituency and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State;\n<\/p>\n
(c) the said notice is signed by the President, the Secretary or any other
\noffice bearer of the party and the President, the Secretary or such other
\nofficer bearer is authorised by the party to sent such notice; and<\/p>\n
(d) the name and specimen signature of such authorised person are
\ncommunicated to the Returning Officer of the constituency and to the Chief
\nElectoral Officer of the State not later than 3.00 p.m. on the last date
\nfor making nominations.”\n<\/p>\n
For the purpose of Symbols Order, as defined in clause (h) of Para 2,
\n“Political Party” means an association or body of individual citizens of
\nIndia registered with the Commission as a political party under Section 29A
\nof the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The scheme of the Symbols
\nOrder shows that it does not deal with unregistered political parties. It
\ndeals with registered political parties by sub-dividing them into
\nrecognised and unrecognised political parties and with independent
\ncandidates. To be entitled to the benefit of allotment of symbols reserved
\nto a recognised political party, the candidate has to be one set up by a
\nrecognised political party arid in a manner prescribed by Para 13 of the
\nSymbols Order. The privilege enjoyed by a candidate set up by a recognised
\npolitical party, as spelt out by a combined reading of Section 33 of the
\nAct with the provisions of Symbols Order, is that his nomination paper is
\ncomplete, inter alia, if proposed by an elector, (i.e., one only) of the
\nConstituency. If the candidate be one not set up by a recognised political
\nparty, i.e., if he be a candidate set up by an unrecognised political party
\nor be an independent candidate, his nomination paper must be subscribed by
\nten proposers being electors of the Constituency. Nomination paper filed by
\na candidate set up by an unrecognised political party or an independent
\ncandidate, cannot be proposed by a single elector of the Constituency or by
\nelectors less than ten.\n<\/p>\n
Prior to the amendment in the body of the Act introduced by Act No, 21 of
\n1996, which inserted, inter alia, the first proviso to sub-section (1) of
\nSection 33 of the Act, the expression “recognised political party” was not
\nto be found used in the Act. The Representation of the People (Amendment)
\nAct, 1989 (Act No. 1 of 1989) introduced, w.e.f. 15.6.1989, Section 29A as
\nalso clause (f) in sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 2(l)(f)
\ndefines “political party” to mean an association or a body of individual
\ncitizens of India registered with the Election Commission as a political
\nparty under Section 29A. The latter provision lays down the manner of such
\nregistration. Symbols Order, 1968 divides `registered political parties’
\ninto recognised and unrecognised ones. For the purpose of Symbols Order as
\ndefined by Para 2(1 )(h) thereof, `political party’ is a political party
\nregistered with the Commission under Section 29A of the Act. The Act does
\nnot define recognised political party. The expression “recognised political
\nparty” as occurring in first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of
\nthe Act must be assigned the same meaning as assigned to it by the Symbols
\nOrder.\n<\/p>\n
The submission of Shri O.P. Sharma, the learned senior counsel for the
\nappellant, is that setting up or otherwise of a candidate by a recognised
\npolitical party is an integral part of the scheme of sub-section (1) of
\nSection 33 of the Act and hence an essential requirement of a valid
\nnomination paper. A candidate, who claims to have been set up by a
\npolitical party, but fails in substantiating such claim, would be deemed to
\nhave not complied with the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 33 of
\nthe Act. He would attract the wrath of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of
\nSection 36 of the Act resulting in the rejection of his nomination paper.
\nThe learned counsel further submitted that Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh had
\nboth claimed to have been set up by Shiv Sena and Himachal Vikas Congress
\nrespectively. Both failed in substantiating their such claim. Both the
\npolitical parties had set up Satya Devi and Vinod Kumar respectively as
\ntheir approved candidates. The Returning Officer was, therefore, justified
\nin rejecting their nomination papers. Neither Pritam Chand nor Mohan Singh
\nwas present at the time of scrutiny. Neither of the two had at any time
\ndeclared or expressed before the Returning Officer his desire of contesting
\nthe election as an independent candidate either in writing or orally. The
\nReturning Officer was, therefore, fully justified in rejecting their
\nnomination papers. The finding to the contrary recorded by the learned
\nDesignated Election Judge is wholly unsustainable in law and is liable to
\nbe set aside.\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the submission of Shri Sharma, the learned senior counsel
\nfor the appellant, is based on a misappreciation of the correct scope and
\npurport of the relevant provisions of law and hence has not appealed to us.\n<\/p>\n
The historical background and the Objects and Reasons leading to the
\nissuance of the Symbols Order have been traced and set out by this Court in
\nSadiq AH and Anr. v. The Election Commission of India, New Delhi and Ors.,
\nAIR (1972) SC 186 vide paras 17 and 18, This Court has observed :-\n<\/p>\n
“17. Perusal of the different paragraphs of the Symbols Order makes it
\nmanifest that they provide, as is made clear by its preamble, for
\nspecification, reservation, choice and allotment of symbols at elections in
\nParliamentary and assembly constituencies as well as for the recognition of
\npolitical parties in relation thereto and for matters connected therewith.
\nOne such matter is the decision of a dispute when two rival sections or
\ngroups of a recognised political party claim to be that party for the
\npurpose of the Symbols Order………\n<\/p>\n
18…………..It may be pertinent to find out the reasons which led to
\nthe<\/p>\n
introduction of symbols. It is well known that overwhelming majority of the
\nelectorate are illiterate. It was realised that in view of the handicap of
\nilliteracy, it might not be possible for the illiterate voters to cast
\ntheir votes in favour of the candidate of their choice unless there was
\nsome pictorial representation on the ballot paper itself whereby such
\nvoters might identify the candidate of their choice. Symbols were
\naccordingly brought into use. Symbols or emblems are not a peculiar feature
\nof the election law of India. In some countries, details in the form of
\nletters of alphabet or numbers are added against the name of each candidate
\nwhile in others, resort is made to symbols or emblems. The object is to
\nensure that the process of election is as genuine and fair as possible and
\nthat no elector should suffer from any handicap in casting his vote in
\nfavour of a candidate of his choice. Although the purpose which accounts
\nfor the origin of symbols was of a limited character, the symbol of each
\npolitical party with the passage of time acquired a great value because the
\nbulk of the electorate associated the political party at the time of
\nelections with its symbol………”\n<\/p>\n
Though Rule 4 of the Conduct of Elections Rules requires every nomination
\npaper presented under sub-section (1) of Section 33 to be complete in such
\none of the Form 2-A to 2-E as may be appropriate and, therefore, the blank
\nspace meant for showing three symbols in order of preference as symbols of
\nthe candidate’s choice, has to be filled in, however, non-filling of the
\nspace as to choice of symbol is not a defect of substantial character. Such
\ndeficiency in the nomination paper is saved by the proviso to Rule 4 of the
\nConduct of Elections Rules, 1961 which provides that a failure to complete
\nor defect in completing, the declaration as to symbols in a nomination
\npaper shall not be deemed to be a defect of a substantial character within
\nthe meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 36, Choosing a wrong symbol,
\nleaving blank the space meant for filling the choice of symbols and an
\nerror in describing the symbol-are all defects not of substantial
\ncharacter. An independent candidate may mention as his preference the
\nsymbol reserved for a recognised political party, but that again will not
\nbe a defect of substantial character. Dealing with such cases, this Court
\nhas held in K.S. Abdul Azeez v. Ramanathan Chettiar and Ors., AIR<\/a> (1967) SC
\n85, that the question of symbols should not play an important part because
\nsymbols can be assigned by political parties till the date for withdrawal
\nand nomination paper should not be cancelled (on this ground) during the
\ninterval.\n<\/p>\n
In N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. Raja Nainar and Ors,, AIR<\/a> (1959) SC 422, this
\nCourt has held that there can be no rejection of nomination paper outside
\nsub-section (2) of Section 36, Under S. 32 of the Act, any person may be
\nnominated as a candidate for election if he is duly qualified under the
\nprovisions of the Constitution and the Act-Section 36(2) authorises the
\nreturning officer to reject any nomination paper on the ground that he
\neither is not qualified or is disqualified for being chosen under the
\nprovisions referred to therein. If there are no grounds for rejecting a
\nnomination paper under S, 36(2), then it has to be accepted, and the name
\nof the candidate is to be included in a<\/p>\n
list of validly nominated candidates vide Sec. 36(8).
\n“.,.,…………..the improper<\/p>\n
rejection or acceptance must have reference to S. 36(2), and the rejection
\nof a nomination paper of a candidate who is qualified to be chosen’ for
\nelection and who does not suffer from any of the disqualifications
\nmentioned in S. 36(2) would be improper within S. 100(l)(c).”\n<\/p>\n
The distinction between nomination filed by a candidate set up by a
\nrecognised political party and a candidate not set up by a recognised
\npolitical party is precise. A perusal of first proviso to sub-section (1)
\nof Section 33 of the Act makes it clear that a candidate not set up by a
\nrecognised political party, meaning thereby a candidate set up by an
\nunrecognised political party or an independent candidate, in order to be
\nduly nominated for election must have his nomination paper subscribed by
\nten proposers being electors of the Constituency. If such nomination paper
\nbe subscribed by only one elector as proposer or by a number of electors
\nless then ten, then it will amount to non-compliance with the provisions of
\nSection 33. A candidate, who is merely a substitute or a cover candidate
\nset up by a recognised political party, may file his nomination paper
\nproposed by only one elector of the Constituency. If the nomination paper
\nof the approved candidate of that political party is accepted, the
\nnomination paper filed by the substitute or cover candidate, shall be
\nliable to be rejected because there can be only one candidate set up by a
\nrecognised political party. In order to be a candidate set up by a
\nregistered and recognised political party so as to take advantage of being
\nproposed by a single elector, all the four requirements set out in clauses\n<\/p>\n
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Para 13 of the Symbols Order must be satisfied. If
\nany one or more of the requirements are not satisfied, the benefit of
\nnomination being proposed by a single elector is not available to him. A
\nsituation can be visualised where more candidates than one may be aspiring
\nto be the candidates each set up by the same recognised political party.
\nThe one in respect of whom notice and communication in forms A and B
\nreferable to sub-para (b),<\/p>\n
(c) and (d) of Para 13 of Symbols Order have been filed not later than 3.00
\np.m. on the last date for making nominations shall be treated as a
\ncandidate set up by such political party. His nomination paper, even if
\nsubscribed to by single elector as proposer, shall be valid subject to
\nsatisfying other conditions as to validity. If any of the requirements
\ncontemplated by sub-para (b), (c) and<\/p>\n
(d)  of Para 13 of the Symbols Order are not complied with by filing the
\nrequisite notice and communication, then the candidate shall not be deemed
\nto be one set up by the recognised political party. His nomination, if
\nsubscribed by a single elector or electors less than ten, shall be liable
\nto be rejected. If the nomination paper of such a candidate is subscribed
\nto by ten proposers being electors of the Constituency within the meaning
\nof first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, then the
\nnomination paper cannot be rejected because an error or omission as regards
\nsymbol or choice thereof being a defect not of a substantial character,
\nwould not come in the way of the nomination being accepted. The nomination
\npaper shall be accepted as valid and an appropriate symbol to which the
\ncandidate may be entitled in accordance with the Symbols Order shall be
\nallotted by the Election Commission.\n<\/p>\n
In the nomination paper (Ex. PW- 1\/P) filed by Pritam Chand, he claimed to
\nhave been set up by Shiv Sena, a registered but unrecognised political
\npatty. Vide Para 5 of the Election Petition, it is alleged that Shiv Sena
\nwas an unrecognised political parry. Similarly, Mohan Singh in his
\nnomination (Ex. PW-l\/R) claimed to have been set up by Himachal Vikas
\nCongress a registered unrecognised political party. Vide Para 6 of the
\nElection Petition, it is averred that Mohan Singh was the candidate of an
\nunrecognised political party, Himachal Vikas Congress. These facts are not
\ndisputed in the written statement vide paras 5 and 6, Thus, it is not in
\ndispute that both these candidates were set up by unrecognised political
\nparties. Both the nomination papers were subscribed each by ten electors of
\nthe Constituency as proposers. The Returning Officer had no other option
\nbut to accept their nomination forms as none of them was otherwise
\ndisqualified and the nomination forms also did not suffer from any other
\ninfirmity. In fact, the filing of Forms `A’ and `B’ as regards them was not
\nof any significance. The only question to which the Returning Officer was
\ncalled upon to apply his mind was as regards the allotment of symbol to
\neach one of them and that stage would have arisen only after the scrutiny
\nwas over and the stage for allotment of symbol arrived after 3.00 p.m. on
\n7.2.98. Each one of them was to contest the election either as a candidate
\nset up by an unrecognised political party or as an independent candidate.
\nThe nomination paper of Pritam Chand did not mention the choice of any
\nsymbol. The nomination paper of Mohan Singh mentioned Telephone’, the
\nsymbol of Himachal Vikas Congress, as the symbol of first preference and
\nleft the second and third preference blank. The Election Commission could
\nhave allotted an appropriate symbol to each one of the candidates to which
\nhe was entitled subject to the symbols having been accepted by the
\nReturning officer.\n<\/p>\n
A candidate may be aspiring for being set up by a recognised political
\nparty. He can pin his hopes for being sponsored by such political party
\nupto the hour by which the time for filing the nomination papers expires.
\nIf he fails to obtain such sponsorship by the recognised political party in
\naccordance with the provisions contained in Para 13 of the Symbols Order,
\nthen he has the choice of continuing his candidature as an independent
\ncandidate subject to his satisfying the requirement of having been proposed
\nby ten electors of the Constituency and other requirements as to the
\nvalidity of a nomination paper. If he does not withdraw his candidature,
\nthen he would be a candidate validly nominated. Such a candidate who has
\nnot been able to secure sponsorship by a recognised political party at the
\ntime of filing his nomination papers but is still hopeful of securing such
\nsponsorship, has the choice of filing nomination papers more than one. In
\none of the nomination papers subscribed by one elector of the Constituency
\nhe may declare himself to have been set up by a recognised political party.
\nHe may file yet another nomination paper declaring his candidature as an
\nindependent subscribed by ten electors of the Constituency as proposers. A
\nsingle nomination paper though containing a declaration by the candidate of
\nhis having been set up by a recognised political party, may itself be
\nsubscribed by ten electors of the Constituency as proposers. In either
\ncase, his nomination would be valid insofar as the aspect of proposing is
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
Consequent upon amendments having been made in the Representation of the
\nPeople Act, 1950 and 1951 by the Amendment Act, 1996 (Act No. 21 of 1996)
\nw.e.f. 1.8.96, the Election Commission of India issued a Circular dated
\n9.8.96 for the guidance of the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States
\nand the Union Territories. Paragraphs 7,14 and 15 thereof are relevant for
\nour purpose, which are extracted and reproduced hereunder :-\n<\/p>\n
“7. Under the amended section 33 of the Representation of the People Act,
\n1951, the nomination of a candidate at the election to the House of the
\nPeople or a State Legislative Assembly shall be required to be subscribed
\nby-\n<\/p>\n
(i) One elector of the constituency as proposer, if the candidate has been
\nset up either by a recognised National Party or by a recognised State party
\nin the State or States in which it is recognised as a State party :\n<\/p>\n
(ii) ten (10) electors of the constituency as proposers, if the candidate
\nhas been set up by a registered-unrecognised political party or if he is an
\nindependent candidate.\n<\/p>\n
14. It may be further noted that having regard to the changed law, the
\nReturning Officer will have to be satisfied at the time of the scrutiny of
\nnominations whether a candidate who claims to have been set up by a
\nrecognised National or State party and whose nomination paper is subscribed
\nonly by one elector as proposer has in fact been duly set up by such
\nrecognised party or not, so as to decide the validity or otherwise of his
\nnomination paper. Therefore, it is essential that the political parties
\nintimate the names of the candidates set up by them to the Returning
\nOfficers concerned and Chief Electoral Officer of the State well before the
\ndate of scrutiny of nominations. Accordingly, the Commission has decided
\nthat all political parties must hereafter give the formal intimation in
\nregard to the candidates set up by them to the aforesaid authorities NOT
\nLATER THAN 3.00 P.M. ON THE LAST DATE FOR MAKING NOMINATIONS IN FORMS `A’
\nAND `B’ prescribed for the purpose by the Commission under para 13 of the
\nElection Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968. The said para 13
\nof the Symbols Order has also been amended by the Commission accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
15. As a result of the aforesaid amendments made to the Forms of nomination
\npaper and paragraph 13 of the Symbols Order, certain consequential
\namendments have also become necessary in the above referred Forms `A’ and
\n`B’ in which the political parties give formal intimation with regard to
\nthe candidates set up by them. A copy each of the revised Forms `A’ is also
\nenclosed herewith for your information and use at all future elections. It
\nwill be observed from the revised Form `B’ that the parties have still been
\ngiven an option in that Form to intimate the name of the substitute
\ncandidate who will step-in, if the nomination of the main approved
\ncandidate of the party is rejected on scrutiny. But such substitute
\ncandidate shall be deemed to have been set up by the party, only if all the
\nrequirements under the said para 13, as amended, of the Election Symbols
\n(Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 have been fulfilled in his case.
\nIf, however, the nomination of the main approved candidate of the party is
\nfound valid on scrutiny, the substitute candidate shall not be deemed to
\nhave been set up by that party for the purposes of the amended section 33
\nof the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and his nomination paper will
\nbe scrutinised by the Returning Officer having regard to the other
\nprovisions of that Act.”\n<\/p>\n
So are the instructions for the guidance of the Returning Officers
\ncontained in the Handbook for Returning Officers, 1998 vide paragraphs 10.3\n<\/p>\n
(iii), 10.3 (iv) and 10.3 (vii) of Chapter-VI as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“(iii) If a candidate has filed one nomination paper with both parts I and
\nII thereof filled and he fails to bring notice in Forms `A’ and `B’ from
\nthe authorised officer-bearer of the concerned political party, the
\nnomination paper may be accepted if Part II is properly filled subscribed
\nby ten electors as proposers, as there will be substantial compliance with
\nthe provisions of Section 33 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) If a candidate, Who filled his nomination paper as candidate claiming
\nto be set up by an un-recognised political party, fails to bring in his
\nfavour a notice from the concerned political party in Forms `A’ and `B’,
\nhis nomination paper will be accepted if it is subscribed by ten electors
\nas proposers, and he would be deemed to be an independent candidate.\n<\/p>\n
xxx                                         xxx\nxxx\n\n<\/pre>\n
(vii) The nomination paper of a substitute candidate of a recognised
\npolitical party will be rejected if the nomination paper of the main
\napproved candidate of that recognised political party is accepted, However,
\nif such substitute candidate has also filed another nomination paper
\nsubscribed by ten electors as proposers, this latter nomination paper will
\nbe scrutinised independently by treating the candidate as an independent
\ncandidate. Further, if the nomination paper of the main approved candidate
\nof the parry is rejected, then also the nomination paper of the substitute
\ncandidate will be accepted, provided that the party has intimated his name
\nas its substitute candidate in Form `A’ and `B’ filed before 3 p.m. on the
\nlast date for making nominations.”\n<\/p>\n
In our opinion, the above-said Circular and guidelines issued by the
\nElection Commission of India are consistent with the statutory provisions
\nand correctly bring out the position of law.\n<\/p>\n
In the case of Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh, the controversy before the
\nReturning Officer was confined to the allotment of symbol only. The
\nquestion of testing validity of nomination papers by reference to first
\nproviso to sub-section (I) of Section 33 of the Act, did not arise at all
\nfor that proviso is confined in its application to the candidates set up or
\nclaiming to have been set up by a recognised political party. It had no
\napplication to the nominations filed by Pritam Chand and Mohan Singh. The
\nlearned Designated Election Judge was, therefore, right in holding that
\nnone of the two nomination papers suffered from any defect of substantial
\ncharacter and the Returning Officer was, therefore, not right in rejecting
\nthe said nomination papers. We agree with the finding so recorded.\n<\/p>\n
It was submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant before us
\nthat inspite of the above-said findings, the election of the returned
\ncandidate (the appellant) was not liable to be set aside inasmuch as Pritam
\nChand and Mohan Singh were dummy and non-serious candidates. Such an
\ninference, according to him, flows from the circumstance that none of them
\nwas present at the scrutiny of nomination papers. On the nomination papers
\nbeing rejected, none of them tried to obtain copies of orders rejecting
\ntheir nominations. On the contrary, they withdrew their security deposits.
\nNone of them has filed any Election Petition on his own. We are not
\nimpressed with submission. That apart illegal rejection of a nomination is
\nby itself a ground for setting aside an election without further proof of
\nthe result of the election of the returned candidate having been materially
\naffected, this Court’s decision in Hira Singh Pal v. Madan Lal, AIR<\/a> (1968)
\nSC 1179 is a complete answer to the contention forcefully advanced by the
\nlearned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
In Hira Singh Pal’s case (supra), one Hari Das was the approved candidate
\nof Indian National Congress. Madan Lal was set up as a substitute candidate
\nof the same party. The respondent had asked for the Congress symbol,
\nnamely, a pair of bullocks, which was also asked, for by the approved
\ncandidate. At the time of scrutiny, the respondent was absent. His
\nnomination was rejected being defective. The respondent did not ask for a
\ncopy of the order of the Returning Officer rejecting his nomination. He had
\nalso acted as a counting agent of Hari Das, the approved candidate of the
\npolitical party, who had contested the election. The respondent had also
\nactively canvassed for the approved candidate. This Court arrived at a
\nfinding from the facts and circumstances established in the case that the
\nrespondent was at no time a genuine candidate and in fact the rejection of
\nhis nomination paper was being availed for undoing the result of the
\nelection in view of the approved candidate having lost at the election.
\nThis Court further held ;-\n<\/p>\n
“AH that we have to consider in this appeal is whether the Returning
\nOfficer   was   right   in   rejecting   the   nomination   of   the
\nrespondent…………….Obviously, he rejected the nomination papers for
\nthe reason that the respondent was only a dummy candidate but that was not
\na matter for him to decide. Ff he was a dummy candidate there was occasion
\nfor him to withdraw his candidature after the scrutiny of the nomination
\npapers. Therefore, it is quite clear that the respondent’s nomination
\npapers were improperly rejected. Such a rejection was impermissible under
\nS. 36 and the same is a ground for setting aside the election under Section
\n100 of the Representation of the People Act,”\n<\/p>\n
Vide Issue No. 4, the High Court has arrived at a finding that the
\nnomination paper of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj was filled on 4.2.98 at 12.45
\np.m. However, the Form of Oath accompanying the nomination papers shows the
\noath as required by Article 173 of the Constitution having been subscribed
\nby Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj at 12.44 a.m. on 4.2.98, which means that the
\noath was taken by him much before the filing of the nomination paper.
\nInasmuch as the oath was not taken by the said Shri Bhardwaj after his
\nhaving been nominated as a candidates, his nomination paper was liable to
\nbe rejected. It was illegally accepted. He secured 598 votes. The
\ndifference between the votes secured by the returned candidate (appellant)
\nover the votes secured by the defeated candidate, was only 26 votes. On the
\nquestion whether the result of the election has been materially affected by
\nillegal acceptance of nomination paper of said Shri Bhardwaj, the learned
\nDesignated Election Judge made a review of the law available on the point
\nand referred to the observations made by this Court in J. Chandrasekhra Rao
\nv. Jagapathi Rao and Ors.,<\/a> [1993] Supp. 2 SCC 229 and Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmil
\nRam and Ors.,<\/a> [1984] 2 SCC 281 and held that the margin of votes by which
\nthe returned candidate has succeeded being small while the number of votes
\nsecured by the candidate whose nomination was accepted was many a number of
\ntimes in proportion to the margin, the result of the election can be
\nassumed to have been materially affected. In arriving at this finding, the
\nlearned Judge also drew strength from the factum of non-examination of the
\nreturned candidate in the Court.\n<\/p>\n
Article 173 of the Constitution (the relevant part thereof) provides as
\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n
“A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the
\nlegislature of a State unless he-\n<\/p>\n
(a) is a citizen of India, and makes and subscribes before some person
\nauthorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation
\naccordingly to the form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule;\n<\/p>\n
(b)……………..,…………; and<\/p>\n
(c)………………………….”\n<\/p>\n
the form of oath reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“Form of oath or affirmation to be made by a candidate for election to the
\nLegislature of a State :-\n<\/p>\n
I………………….having been nominated as a candidate to fill a seat
\nin<\/p>\n
the Legislative Assembly (or Legislative Council), do swear in the name of
\nGod\/Solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the
\nConstitution of India as by law established and that I will uphold the
\nsovereignty and integrity of India.”\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis supplied]<\/p>\n
Section 32 of the Act provides as under :-\n<\/p>\n
32. Nomination of candidates for election.-Any person may be nominated as a
\ncandidate for election to fill a seat if he is qualified to be chosen to
\nfill that seat under the provisions of the Constitution and this Act or
\nunder the provisions of the Government of Union Territories Act, 1963 (20
\nof 1963), as the case may be.”\n<\/p>\n
According to sub-section (2) of Section 36 of the Act, one of the grounds
\non which a nomination can be rejected is that on the date fixed for
\nscrutiny of the nominations, the candidate was not qualified for being
\nchosen to fill the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution,<\/p>\n
Under sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act, a candidate is deemed to
\nhave been nominated only after his nomination paper complete in all
\nrespects in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and proposer
\nhas been delivered to the Returning Officer between 11,00 a.m. and 3,00
\np.m. The law has been settled in Pashupati Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad
\nSingh, AIR<\/a> (1968) SC 1064 by a three-Judge Bench that the oath or
\naffirmation has to be taken by the candidate after he has been nominated,
\ni.e., after he has submitted the nomination papers, but before the date of
\nscrutiny. It follows that an oath or affirmation taken before the
\nsubmission of nomination form and on or after the day of scrutiny would be
\ninvalid depriving the nomination paper of its validity. Following the law
\nlaid down by this Court in the case of Pashupatti Nath Singh, (supra) and
\nKhaje Khanavar Khadarkhan Hussain Khan and Anr, v, S. Nijatingappa and
\nAnr., AIR (1969) SC 1034, the Election Commission has issued instructions
\ncontained in paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2 of Chapter-V of the Handbook for
\nReturning Officers, which read as under :-\n<\/p>\n
“22.1. The oath or affirmation should be made and subscribed before the
\ndate fixed by the Election Commission for scrutiny or nomination papers at
\nthat election. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Pashupati Nath Singh
\nv. Harihar Prasad Singh, AIR<\/a> (1968) SC 1064 and Khader Khan Hussain Khan
\nand Ors. v. Nijalingappa, [1970] 1 SCR 548 have clarified the position and
\nremoved all doubts in regard to the actual making and subscribing the oath
\nor solemn affirmation.\n<\/p>\n
22.2. According to these decisions, the oath or solemn affirmation can be
\nmade and subscribed by a candidate only after his nomination paper has been
\ndelivered and it cannot be so made and subscribed on the date of scrutiny.
\nYou should, therefore, advise the candidate to make the oath or affirmation
\nimmediately after presenting their nomination papers and in any case not
\nlater than the day previous to the date of the scrutiny.”\n<\/p>\n
The above-said instructions correctly bring out the legal position.\n<\/p>\n
However, the finding arrived at by the learned Designated Election Judge
\nbetrays too pedantic an approach and overlooks the effect of oral testimony
\nadduced by the respondent. Tek Chand (RW3), the Returning Officer, has very
\nclearly stated that the nomination paper (Ex. PW-l\/N) was presented by Shri
\nJagdish Chander Bhardwaj before him on 4.2.98 at 12.45 p.m. After the
\nnomination paper was presented to him, he had carried out the preliminary
\nexamination thereof which took 2-3 minutes, whereafter he had administered
\nthe oath to the candidate. The Oath Form (Ex. PW I\/O) was signed by the
\ncandidate in his presence. The date and tune recorded on Ex, PW 1\/N and Ex,
\nPW 1\/O were in the handwriting of Khiali Ram, Election Kanungo, who was
\nassisting him. The time recorded as `12,44′ a.m. on Ex, PW I\/O was clearly
\na clerical error. The witnesses very emphatically stated that Oath was
\nadministered only after the submission of nomination paper (Ex. PW 1\/N),
\nthe time where of insofar as the witness could recollect was 12,46 p.m. No
\nobjection to the validity of nomination was taken by anyone at the time of
\nscrutiny, Khiali Ram, Election Kanungo, has also appeared in the witness
\nbox as RW-4. He too has stated mat the time recorded on Ex. PW I\/O was
\nwrong and appears to be an outcome of rush of work in the office at the
\ntime of filing of the nomination papers. Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj (RW-2)
\nhas in his statement narrated the facts, which find support from the
\ntestimony of the Returning Officer and the Election Kanungo assessing him.
\nHe has stated that on submission of the nomination papers the same were
\nexamined in about one or two minutes by the Returning Officer and then the
\nReturning Officer asked him to take Oath in the prescribed form which he
\ndid. Sitting in a comer of the office of the Returning Officer he signed
\nthe oath form.\n<\/p>\n
The learned Trial Judge is certainly not right in recording the finding
\nthat the oath was administered before the filing of the nomination papers
\nby literally accepting the time of oath at 12.44 a.m., as recorded on the
\noath form. The oath could not and must not have been administered on the
\nmidnight intervening 3rd and 4th day of February, 1998, If the oath was
\nadministered by the Returning Officer, it was certainly between 11.00 a.m.
\nand 3.00 p.m. of 4.2.98. That shows that the time 12.44 a.m. as recorded on
\nthe oath form was an obvious effort. Once this fact is accepted, the weight
\nof overwhelming testimony coming from the mouth of the Returning Officer
\nand the Officer assisting him, both being public officers having no obvious
\nreason to tell a lie, should have been assigned due weight. Taken it into
\nconsideration as corroborating the testimony of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj,
\nthe learned Trial Judge should have held that the oath was administered
\nafter the presentation of the nomination forms before the Returning
\nOfficer. We hold it to be so and accordingly set aside the finding to the
\ncontrary recorded by the learned Designated Election Judge. In our opinion,
\nthe nomination form of Jagdish Chander Bhardwaj was not illegally accepted.
\nThe acceptance was legal. We need not, therefore, examine the legal-issue
\nwhether the result of the election can be said to have been materially
\naffected by the acceptance of the nomination paper of Jagdish Chander
\nBhardwaj as it is not necessary.\n<\/p>\n
Inasmuch as the finding as to illegal rejection of the nomination papers of
\nPritam Chand and Mohan Singh, as recorded by the learned Designated
\nElection Judge, has been upheld, the election was void and has been rightly
\nheld to be so by the High Court. Under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of
\nSection 100 of the Act, improper rejection of any nomination is by itself
\nenough to avoid the election without requiring further proof of the result
\nof the election having been materially affected.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is
\ndismissed accordingly though without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 Bench: Dr. A.S. Cji, S. Rajendra Babu, R.C. Lahoti CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 3653 of 1999 PETITIONER: KRISHNA MOHINI RESPONDENT: MOHINDER NATH SOFAT DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26\/10\/1999 BENCH: DR. A.S. ANAND CJI & S. RAJENDRA BABU & R.C. LAHOTI JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT […]<\/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-60619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 - 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\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-04T13:24:04+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=\"43 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-04T13:24:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\"},\"wordCount\":8425,\"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\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\",\"name\":\"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-10-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-04T13:24:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 - 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\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-04T13:24:04+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":"43 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999","datePublished":"1999-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-04T13:24:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999"},"wordCount":8425,"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\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999","name":"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-10-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-04T13:24:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishna-mohini-vs-mohinder-nath-sofat-on-26-october-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishna Mohini vs Mohinder Nath Sofat on 26 October, 1999"}]},{"@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\/60619","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=60619"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/60619\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=60619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=60619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=60619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}