Holding

The Returning Officer could not be said to have improperly rejected the nomination paper; clerical errors in part numbers are not substantial defects unless the officer could have ascertained the correct details at scrutiny, and unpleaded evidence of alleged tripping is inadmissible.

Summary

The election petition filed by Sat Pal challenged the election of the appellant to the Haryana Legislative Assembly on the ground that the nomination paper of another candidate, Dog Ram, had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer due to clerical errors in the part numbers of the electoral roll. The Single Judge held that the errors were not substantial under the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act and that the Returning Officer had "tripped" the candidate, thereby invalidating the election. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether such errors constitute a substantial defect and whether the alleged "tripping" was a permissible ground for rejection. The Court held that the Returning Officer could not be said to have improperly rejected the nomination paper, as the errors in part numbers do not amount to a substantial defect unless the officer could have ascertained the correct details at the time of scrutiny, and the evidence of tripping was not pleaded and therefore inadmissible. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order and upheld the election of the appellant.

Issues considered

Whether the Returning Officer improperly rejected the nomination paper of Dog Ram.
Whether errors in the part numbers of the electoral roll constitute a defect of substantial character under the proviso to Section 33(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the alleged "tripping" of the candidate by the Returning Officer is a valid ground for rejecting a nomination paper.
Whether evidence of the alleged tripping, not pleaded in the election petition, is admissible.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 2(f)
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 116A, s. 33(4), s. 36

Subjects

election petitionnomination paperreturning officerelectoral rollsubstantial defectRepresentation of the People Actscrutinyprocedural errorSupreme Court

Judgment

Ht··
A·

IlRIJ MOHAN
v.

SAT PAL

March 13, 1985

(S. MURTAZA fAZAL ALI AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.J c
The Representation of People Act 1951, Section 33 Assembly Ele.c_tion-
Nomination Paper of Candidate-Mitakes-Regarding serial numli_er, part
number, house number-Nomination .paper rejected on scrutiny by Returning~
Officer-Rejection whether valid_:_Mistakes whether of a substantial character.

'lhe respondent in the appeal an election, filed an election petition chat- D~J
lenging the election of the appellant to the Assembly. He contended in the
petition that in the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from Jind
constituency one Dog Ram filed nomination paper. His name was proposed
by Ram Pratap, an elector ~f the constituency. Dog Ram-Candidate was
registered as an elector at serial No. 177 and house No. 57 in part 39 of the
electoral roll of the constituency whereas the proposer was registered as elector
at serial No. 313 and house No. 6 in part 39 of the same constituency. The E,
name and postal address of Dog Ram were correctly given in the nomination
paper but the part of the electoral roll was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by
an inadvertant mistake committed by the person who filed the nomination
paper. Similarly, in the case of the proposer, the serial number of the elector·
and the number of the constituency were given correctly but the number of his
house was wrongly entered in the column meant for the part of t'he electoral
roll. At the time of scrutiny no other candidate or proposer objected to the F -,;
acceptance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer on
his own rejected the nomination paper on the ground that particulars of the :
candidate and the proposer have been wrongly entered in the nominati~n paper.

The appellant contested the election petition contending that the Return-
ing Officer had compared the admittedly inaccurate particulars given in the
nomination paper with those entered in the part of the.voters' list mentioried in G ~}
the nomination paper and found· them to be incorrect and asked candidate
Dog Ram- to show the names of himself and his proposer in the electoral
roU and that as the canClidate was unable to do so he rejected the nomination
paper and was right' in doing so.

· In the nomination paper the serial numbers in the voters' list of the
candidate and his proposer have been correctly given as 177 and 313 respec.. H''
•
t19ssl j s.c.il..
tively but the part numbers have been given wrongly as 57 and 6 respectively
which are their respective house numbers instead of the correct part No. 39,

In the appeal to the High Court the question was as to whether the
nomination paper of Dog Ram was improperly rejected. On the evidence led
by the parties the Single Judge found that the candidate Dog Ram and his
proposer were registered as voters in the constituency and were qualified to
B contest the election and propose the candidate respectively. It was further
found that errors in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and the
proposer in the electoral roll an1 the nomination paper do not constitute
defects of a substantial character as mentioned in the proviso to Section 33(4)
of the Act. The Single Judge accepted the evidence of P.W. 2 that when he
and the candidate presented the nomination paper the Returning ,Officer told
them that it was in order and held that the Returning Officer had thus tripped
c them into .an error and observed that had he told them that there were s0me
discrepancies in the nomination paper they would have either made the correc-
tions then and there and Would have gone more fully prepared to meet objec-
tions at the time of the scrutiny. Accordingly the election petition was allowed
and appellant's election was declared as void. On the ground that the nomi-
nation paper 9f Dog Ram was improperly rejected.
• •
The elected candidate appealed to this Court.

Allowing the Appeal,

HELD : 1. The Returning Officer in the instant case could not be said
to have improperly rejected the n•JIDination paper of Dog Ram. [340G}
E
2. It is not poss_ible to say generally and in the abstract that all errors
in regard to electoral roll numbers of the candidate and thec;>roposer in the
electoral rolls or nomination papers do not constitute defects of a substantial
character. They would not be defects of a substantial character only if at the
time of the scrutiny the Returning Officer either by himself with the materials
placed -before him during the scrutiny or with the assistance of the candidate
F or his proposer or any other person is able to find out the correct serial num-
ber of the candidate and the proposer in the electoral roll. If that is not the
case, he would be committing a grave error by accepting the nomination paper
without verifying whether the candidate is a voter in that or any other consti-
tuency of the State and whether the proposer is a voter in that constituency.
l334G-H ; 335A]

G. 3. No amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was
never put forward in the pleadings. In the instant case, there is no allegation
in the election petition that there was any assurance by the Returning Officer
at the time of receipt of the nomination paper that there was nothing' wrong
in it. In tl1e absence of any such allegation in the election· petition, the
evidence of proposer P.W .. 2, which is not even corroborated by the evidence
of any other witness that he and the candidate presented the nomination paper
to the Returning Officer and showed him the voters' list and that- he told them
hlw MoaAN v. sAf ~Al
then that the nomination paper was in order, is not acceptable. In the circums· A'
tances the Single Judee was not justified in accepting the evidence of P.W. 2
and holding that the Returning Officer was guilty of tripping the candidate and·
the proposer by any assertion on his part into any one~.be!ieving that there
was nothing wrong in the nominatiOn paper. [335B ; C-EJ

4. The candidate and the proposer are always expected to go fully pr~
B
pared to meet any objection that may be raised by any candidate or even by
Returning· Officer himself suo motu ai the time of the scrutiny and they ·cannot
be e~PCcted to .go any the less prepared merely because the Returning Officer
had received- the nomination paper without raising any' objection. It is at the
time of scrutiny which is done in the presence of all concerned that the nomi-
nation papers cOme ·up fot more detailed c6nsideritio0. at the' handS of the
Returning Officer against whom there is no estoppel in regard to the statutory
duty of scrutiny. [335F-G)
c

~ , 5{i) The evidence of P.W. 1 is larg~ly corroborated by the Returnjng
Offic'er's order. R.W. 1 is an advocate and was himself a candidate but retired
at a later stage. He stated that the electoral rolls were lying on the table ~f
the Returning Officer at the time of the scrutiny. There is no reason. for not n
accepting this evidence of R.W. I. [3360-E) . ' P

5(ii) The electoral rolls were lying on the Returning Officef's table at
the'iime 'or the scrutiny and therefore, there would have ·been no necessity for
nog·Raffi and P.W. 2 to ask the Returning Offi~er to give them the electoral
roll relating to their village for clearing his doubt. The evidence of P.W. 2 E
is therefore not acceptable. [336F]

S(iii). The evidence of P .W .3 that the Returning Officer did not ask
Dog Ram to show the names of himself and his pr6poser in the electoral roll
is inconsistent with the allegations in the election petition as also. the evidence
of P.W. 2 that the Returning Officer said so. Therefore, the evidence of P.W. 3
is not accept<i:ble. The evidence of R.W. 1 is accepted. The Returning Officer
- fourid O.isctepancY in the names, serial number and part number mentioned in
tlie nominatiort ' paper on the one hand and those found in the electora1 ~oil
with reference to those nu1nbers on the other and that on account of 'his in-
ability to ascertain with the particulars made available before him wheiher th~
candidate Do~ Raffi and his proposer P.W. 2 weie"electorS i~ the collstitu~ncy
he asked the candidate Dog Ram to Point out the names of himself and nis
.proposer in ·t~e electofal roll to satisfy him that they are electors in the G
crinstituency and that as he was unable to do so, he rejected the nomination
paper by his order Ex. P.W. l/B. [337G-H ; 338A]

• Hira Singh Pal v. Madan Lal [1968) 2 SCR 778, Ram Awadesh Singh v
Sumztra Devi & Ors (1972] 2 S.C.R. 674 and Viveka Nand Giri v. Nawal
Kishore Sahi A.LR. 1984 S.C. 856 : not applicable. H
[1985] 3 S.c.R..

A CrvrL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2650 of-

1984

Appeal U/s 116 A of.the R.P. Act 1951 from the Judgment
and Order dt. 30.5.84 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
B at Chandigarh in E.P. No. 7 of 1982.

H.L. Sibal, Kapil Sibal. Mrs. Madhu Tewatia Singh and N.M;
Pop/i for the Appellant.

S.N.'Kacker and Ravinder Bana for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VARADARJAN. J. This appeal by the respodent in Election petition
No. 7 of 1982 on the file of the Punjab and Harydna High Court is
directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge declaring
the appellant's election from the Jind constituency of the Haryana
D.
Legislative Assembly as void on the ground that the nomination
paper of a candidate Dog Ram was improperly rejected. The last
date for filing nomination papers was 24.4.1982, and in the scrutiny
made on 26.4.1982 nomination papers of two candidates including
Dog Ram were rejected by the Returning Officer. The principal
E contest was between one Mange Ram, a Congress (I) candidate
and the appellant, an independent candidate who had been set up
by the Lok Dal party. The polling was on 19.5.1982 and after the
counting was made on 20.5.1982 the appellant was declared elected
from the Jind constituency. ·

F The election petition was filed by the respondent Sat Pal, an
elector in the Jind constituency. His case in the election was that
Dog Ram was registered as an elector at Serial No. 177 and house
No. 57 in part 39 of the electoral roll of the Jind constituency.
Ram Partap who proposed Dog Ram as a candidate, was registered
as elector at Serial No. 313 and house No. 6 in part 39 of the same
G constituency. The name of Dog Ram and his postal address
were correctly given in the nomination paper. But the part of
the electoral roll was mentioned as 57 instead of 39 by an inadver-
tant mistake committed by the person who filled the nomination
paper. Similarly, in the case of the proposer Ram Partap, the
serial number of the elector and the number of the constituency
were given correctly but the number of his house was wrongly entered
hlU.i MOHAN v. SAT PAL (Varadara)an, i.)

in the column meant for the part of the electoral roll. These A
inaccuracies in the nomination paper were technical in nature and
should have been rectified by the Returning Officer at the time of
scrutiny. No oJher candidate or proposer objected to the accep-
tance of the nomination paper of Dog Ram but the Returning Officer
on his own rejeeted the nomination paper by the following order :
B
"Particulars of the candidate and the proposer have been
wrongly entered in the nomination paper. The candidate
who is present in person failed to show me the voters'
list where bis and the proposer's names are entered. Hence
rejected." c
The appellant contested the election petition contending that the
Returning ;officer compared the admittedly inaccurate 'particulars
given in the nomination paper with those entered in the part onhe
voters' list mentioned in the nomination paper and found them to be
incorrect and asked Dog Ram to show the names of himself D:
· and his proposer Ram Partap in the electoral rolls and that as the
candidate was unable to do so he rejected the nomination paper and
was right in doing so.

In the first part of the nomination paper, Annexure R-6 Ram
Partap, P.W. 2 has stated thus under his signature: E

"I nominate as a candidate for election to the Legislative
Assembly from the 48 Jind constitue~·t assembly ;

Candidate's name Dog Ram s/o Mohan Lal
Postal Address Village A mar Heri, Post Office
Ahirka (Jind)

His name is entered at SI. No. I 77 in Part No. 57 of the elec-
toral roll for the 48 Jind Assembly Constituency.
G
My name is Ram Partap and it is entered at SI: No. 313 in
part No. 6 of the electoral roll for the 48 Jind assembly
Constituency.''

In Part No. 39 of the voters' list relating to Amar Heri village,
Dog Ram is entered at SI. No. J77 and House No. 57 and Ram R
t198513 s.c.tt.
A Partap, P.W. 2 is entered at SI. No. 313 and house number 6.
Thus it is seen that in the nomination paper, Serial Nos. of -Dog
Ram and Ram Partap, P. W. 2 have been correctly given as 177 and
313 respectively, but the part numbers have been given wrongly as
57 and 6 respectively which are their respective house numbers
instead of the correct part No. 39.
B
The learned Single Judge who tried the election petition framed
the issue as to whether the nomination paper of Dog Ram was
improperly rejected.

c On the side of the respondent three witnesses were examined 'f
and they are : the election Kanungo Jai Singh, P.W. 1 the proposer -'f
Ram Pratap P.W. 2 and the Congress \I) candidate Mange Ram,
P.W. 3. The appellant relied upon the evidence of bis sole witness
Guiab Singh, R.W.1.

D P.W. 1 bas stated in his evidence that Dog Ram son of Mohan
Lal was registered as voter at SI. No. 177 in house No. 57 and that
the proposer Ram Partap, P.W. 2 was registered as votor at SI. No.
313 in part 39 of the electoral roll of Amar Heri village. In his cross
examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that in Jind constituency there
were 77000 voters ontered in 97 parts of the electoral roll and that >
E the voter at SI. No. 177 in part No. 57 is one Krishan son of Ami Lal
of Jalalpura Khurd village while the voter at SJ. No. 313 in Part No.
6 is one Premo wife of Satbir of Barsana village. P.W. 2 has stated
in his evidence that he and Dog Ram presented the nomination
paper to the Returning Officer on 24.4.1982 ·and he told them that
it was in order and that at the time of the scrutiny he told them
that there were some mistakes in the nomination paper. He has~
further .stated that he and Dog Ram volunteered to show the actual •
voter>' list but he declined to have a look at the voters' list relating
into Amar Heri village and insisted that the particulars mentioned
in the nomination paper alone could be seen by him. P.W. 3 has
stated in his evidence that nobody raised any objection to the
G' nomination paper filed by Dog Ram but the Returning Officer him-
self raised an objection saying that the particulars are not properly
filled in. He has further stated that Dog Ram and P.W. 2 were
present at that time and they told the Returning Officer that if the .,..._
voters' list was supplied to them they would be in a position to
show the correct particulars and he did not comply with their request.
11 On the other hand, R.W. 1 who had filed a recrimination petition
' BRIJ MC?HAN v. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, J.) 3l7
against Mange Ram in Elcetion Petition No. 8 of 1982, has stated
in his evidence that the Returning Officer asked Dog Ram to
show the relevant part and the serial number in the voters' list where
his. name is entered and Dog Ram failed to do so ·though the
voters' list was lying on the Returning Officer's table at that
time.and an opportunity was given to Dog Ram ,for seeing the
same and that the Returning Officer, therefore, rejected the nomina- B
tion paper of Dog Ram after raising an objection suo motu.

The learned Single Juge found that the candidate Dog Ram
and the proposer Ram Partap were registered as voters in the -Jind
constituency and were qualified to contest in the election and
propose the ·candidate respectively. This fact was not disputed .c
before the learned Ju'dge. He found that errors in regard to electoral
roll numbers of the candidate. and the proposer in the electoral rolls
and the nominati0n paper do not constitute defects of a substantial
character as mentioned in the proviso to s. 33(4) of the Represen-
tation ·of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') which
reads~

"33(4) On the presentation of a nomination paper, the
returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names and
electoral roll numbers of the candidate and his proposer as
.entered in the nomination paper are- the same as those
entered in the electoral rolls: E

Provided that on misnomer or inaccurate description or
clerical, technical or printing error in- regard to the name
of the ·candidate or his proposer or any other person,
or in regard to any place mentioned in the electoral
roll or the nomination paper and no clerical, technical or F
• printing error in regard to the electoral roll numbers of
any such person in the electoral roll or the nomination
paper, shall affect the full operation of the electoral roll
·or the nomination paper· with respect to such person or
place in any case where the description in regard to the
name of the person or place is ·such as to be commonly G
understood ; .and the returning officer shall permit any such
misnomer, inaccurate description or clerical, . technical ot
printing error to be corrected and where necessary, direct
that any such misnomer, inaccurate description, clerical,
_technical or printing error in the el_ectora! roll or ill tl\~
· ppmin~tiQP paper ~11~1\ \]~ oyej·loo~eq",
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.J\,

Though there is no allegation in the election petition that the
Returning Officer assured the candidate Dog Ram and the proposer
Ram Partap, P.W. 2 that the nomination paper was in order, the
learned Single Judge accepted evidence of P.W. 2 that when he and
the candidate Dog Ram presented the nomination paper on
24.4.1982, the Returning Officer told them that it was in order, and he
B held that the Returning Officer had thus tripped them into an error
and observed that had he told them that there were some discrepan-
cies in the nomination paper they would have either made the
corrections then and there or would have gone more fully prepared
to meet objections at the time of scrutiny. In that view he bas
observed in his judgment :
<i!··
"If an act or omission on his part is shown to have trip-
ped into an error an otherwise competent person to offer
himself as a candidate, who inspite of being desirous of
fighting election is unable to do so because of the
error committed by the Returning Officer then such
a candidate will be allowed to urge that because of the non-
compliance by the Returning Officer with the provisions of
the Act the people of the constituency have not
been able to make a choice in accordance with law. In my
conside.red opinion it would be a fit case to hold that the
result of the election has been materially affected. This
E
in effect is the law and spirit of s. JOO(!) (d) (iv) of the Act.
The scrutiny was held in Jind which is a district town and
the Returning Officer is normally expected to have the assis-
tance of the election staff including the Election Kanungo at
the time of the scrutiny. If he had put a few questions to
E Dog Ram and Ram Partap, P.W. 2 about their residence and
numbers of their house, the Kanungo would have at once
brought out the relevant electoral rolls containing the names
of these two persons. For reasons aforementioned I am of
the opinion that the nomination paper of Dog Ram
'candidate had been wrongly rejected",
G.
He accordingly allowed the election petition with costs
assessed at Rs. 2500 and declared the appellant's election as void.

The only issue framed by the learned Single Judge as stated +-
earlier is: '.'Whether the nomination paper of Sbri Dog Ram contes-
JJ, i n~ c~m!ic!~te has l>\ien improperly rejected". froll! thi§ ii \lpes 11ot
DRIJ MOHAN v. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, j.) 329
fo1Iow .as. Mr. Sibal, learned counsel appearipg for the appellant A
<;ontends, that the first respondent had not ch~lleqged the rejectfon
oLthe_particulars in the nomination paper so far as they relate to the
pr~poser Ram Partap, P.W.2 for they.too form .an integral part of
.the nomination paper and the consequence would be the same,
namely, rejection of the nomination paper of the candidate even if it
B
.be forthe defect in. the particulars relating to the proposer.

According to - r. 4 of the Conduc.t of Election Rules, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') every nomination paper pre-
sented under sub-s. (I) of s. 33 of the Act may be completed in such
one of the· forms 2A to 2E as may be appropriate. Section. 33( I)
relating to representation of nomination papers and requirements for
c
a valid. nomination says that the nomination.paper shall be completed
in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and an elector. of
the constituency. It is clear from this sub-section that the proposer
of the candidate must be elector of the constituency, Section 32 of
the Act relating -$O nomination of a candidate for election says that
any· persori may be nominated as a candidate for election to fill a

-
seat if be is qualified to be chosen to fill that seat under the provisions
-I of the Constitution ·and the Act or under the provisions of the
Government of Union Territories Act; 196}, as the case may he.
Section 5 of the Act relating to qualifications for membership. of a
Legislative Assembly says that "a person shall not be qualified to he E
c~ose_n to fill a seat in the Legislaiive Assembly of a State' unldss -:---
. --.._: (a) in the case of a seat reserved.for the Scheduled Castes
or for .the Scheduled Tribes of that State, be is a mem-
ber of any of those castes or of those tribes, as the case
may he, and is an elector for any A'sembly Consti· F
tuency in that State ;

(b) in the case of a seat reserved for an autonomous .
district of Assam, be is a member of a. Scheduled Tribe
.of any autonomous district and is an elector for the
Assembly Constituency in which such seat or any other G
seat is reserved for that district ; and
--+ (c) in the case of any other seat, be is an elector for any
·Assembly Constituency in tbe·State". ·· .

We are corcerr ed in the pmert case with clause le) of s. 5 of
11
the A~t. Th~r~fpre, the canoidate PO!Dinated inust lie an ~l~ctor for
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] 3 S.C.!l.

A any Assembly Constituency in the State concerned. Form 2B is the
appropriate form in the present case. It is found at page 239 of the
Manual of Election Law corrected upto December 1982 .. It 'ccinsists
of four parts, the first relating to the candidate and the proposer,
the second relating to delivery of the nomination paper to the
Returning Officer, the third relating to the decision of the Returning -.I..
B Officer accepting or rejecting the nomination paper and the.fourth
relating to the receipt of the nomination paper and notice of scru·
tiny. The first part has to be signed by the candid.ate and the
proposer and the other three parts have fo be signed by the Return- ~
ip,g_ Officer. The first part is extracted for easy reference : r-
"Election to the Legislative Assembly of-----State

I nominate as a candidate for election to the Legislative
' . Assembly from the------assembly constituency.

Candidate's name---------- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
D
His postal address----- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

His name is entered at S. No.----- - - - - - - - i n part
No.- - - - - - - - - o f the electoral roll for the---·----
assembly constituency.

My name is----'-----------and it is entered at
S. No. --~----------in Part No.-------..:... __
of the electoral roll for the --------assembly constituency.

Date - - - - - - - - - (Signature of proposer) -:)..~
F " .
···························································································
, I, the above-mentioned candiate assent to this nomination and
hereby declare -
·r
··(a) 'that I have completed-- ------years of age;
G
(b) that I am set up at this election by the -----party ;
: (c) .that the symbols I have chosen are, in order of referenc~ +
(i) - - - - - - - - - ( i i ) -~-,,-o· -..,-..,....,....=~
~µ\l \iii) ----.,.--:---c-=--c:

•')
,
J
BRIJ MOHAN 1'. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, J.) 3~\

I further declare that I am a member of the--------- A
caste/tribe which is a scheduled caste/tribe·of the State of------
in relation to--- - - - - - --(area) in that State.

Date - - - - - - - - (Signature of candidate)
.~.
Tn the first part the proposer must mention the name of the B
candidate and his own name ~nd the serial numbers and part numbers
of the electoral roll of the Assembly Constituency concerned where
the name of the candidate and bis own name are entered and he is
also required to furnish the postal address of the candidate. It may
be stated that there is no specific provision in the Rules for fur-
nishing the postal address of the candidate in the nomination paper
c
though in Form 2B it is required to be given by the proposer. It is
obvious that the serial number and the part number of the electoral
rolls of the constituency concerned relating to a candidate and the
proposer are required to be given in the nomination form in order
to enable the Returning ·officer to verify whether the candidate and D
the proposer are registered as electors and qualified to be nominated
as a candidate and to propose.the c.~ndidate as a candidate for filling
a seat in the Legislative Asseµibly. Rule 2(f) of the Rules says that
the "Electoral roll number of a person means; (i) the serial number
of the entry in the electoral roll in respect of tba.t person ; (ii) the
serial number of the part of the electoral roll in which such entry E
occurs and (iii) the name of the const.ituency to which the electoral
roll relates." These particulars have to be furnished in the nomina-
tion paper.
Section 33(4) of the Act says; "On the presentation of a nomi'
nation paper, the returning officer shall satisfy himself that the names F
and electoral roll numbers of the candidate and bis proposer as
entered in the nomination paper are the same as those·entered in the
electoral rolls :

Provided that no misnomer or "inaccurate description .or
clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the name of G
. the candidate. or his proposer or any other person, or in
regard to any place· mentioned in the electoral roll or the
nomination paper and no clerical, technical or printing error
in regard to the ·electoral roll numbers of any such person
in the electoral roll or the nomination paper, shall affect the
f~ll opera\jgn '?f t!ie ~lector~l r<?!I or \h~ pomin?tiop paper ff
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) 3 S.C.R.

.w.ith respect to such person or place in any case where the
<lescription in regard to the name of the person or place is
such as to be commonly understood ; and the returning
. office.r shall permit any such misnomer or inaccurate descri-
ption or cteric~J, te~hnical or printing error to be corrected
. and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer,
B inaccurate description, clerical, technical or printing error
. in the electoral roll or in the nomination paper shall be
overlooked."

The Hand Book for Returning Officer, issued by the Election
Commission of India, says what the Returning O:ficer and the Speci-
c fied Assistant Returning Officer should do as each nomination paper
·is filed. It says· that the Returning Officer or Specified Assistant
Returning Officer js not to hold a formal scrutiny of any nomination
paper at this stage. If the candidate is an elector in the constituency
conc.erned, the Returning Officer or the Specified Assistant Returning •
f(
D Officer should compare the entries in the nomination papers with the
entries in the electoral roll relating to the serial number and the.
name of the candidate and the proposer. If he comes from any other
constituency, the officer should compare the entries in the nomina-
tion paper with th entrie' relating to the candidate's name 'in the
electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant part thereof or a
E certified .copy of .such entry. The candidate is required by law to
produce before the officer such electoral roll or relevant part thereof
or a certified copy of the relevant entries thereof as per s. 33(5) of
the Act. Legally, the responsibility for producing documentary
evidence of registration as elector in a different constituency rests
entirely on the candidate. The instruction reiterates what is contained
F iry .the . proviso to s. 33(4) of the Act and further states that the points
which the Returning Officer or Specified Assistant Returning Officer
are required · by s. 33(4) to be disposed of should be invariably dis-
posed of at time of the receipt of the nomination paper and that it
wiJI be improper for the officer at the time of scrutiny to reject the
nomination paper for defects which could have been cured at the
earlier stage of presentation of the nomination paper. It was con·r
ceded by Mr. Kacker, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
respondent, that the enquiry at the stage of receipt of nomination
paper is ·what he called a peripheral one and that no legal conse- \
quence.flow·from the omission on the part of the Returning Officer',
or Specl6ed Assistant Returning Officer to carry out hi§ r~spQll§ibility '
H
Bl th~ stai:e pf receipt pf the nominMion paper,
BRIJ MOHAN v. SAT PAL (Varadarajan, J.) 33j
Section 36 of the Act relating to scrutiny of nomination paper A
reads:

"36(1) O.i the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations
under section 3LJ, the candidates, their election agents, one
proposer of each candidate, and one other person duly
B
authorized in writing by each candidate, but no other per-
son, may attend at such time and place as the returning
officer may appoint ;

and the returning officer shall give them all reasonable
facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candi·
dates which have been delivered.within the time and in the
c
manner laid down in section 33.

(2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination
papers and shall decide all objections which may be made
to any nomination and may either on such objection or on n
pis own rnotion, after such s·ummary inquiry, if any, as he
thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the
following grounds :

(a) · that on the date fixed for the scurtiny of n0minations
the candidate either is not qualified or is disqualified
E
for· being chosen to fill the seat under any of the
following provisions that may be applicable, namely :-
Articles 84,102,173 and 191, Part II of this Act and
section 4 and 17 of the Government of Union Terri-
tories Act, 1963 ;
F
(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the
•
provisions of section 33 or section 34 ·; or ·

(c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on
nomination paper is not genuine:

...................... " '
-+ Sub-section 6 of s. 36 requires that the Returning Officer shall
endorse on each nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting
the same and says that if .the nominatfon paper is rejected he shall
r~9oril it1 writing a· brief slatemep\ 9f his reftSops for sll~b rejectio11,
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985) 3 S.C,R.

A In tbe present case the proposer P.W.2 had mentioned the
names of himself and the candidate Dog Ram correctly in the nomi-
nation paper. He had also mentioned their serial numbers as I 77
and 3 J 3 which would tally with their names if the correct part
No. 39 of the electoral roll had been mentioned in the nomination
paper. But, unfortunately instead of entering that correct part No. 39
B in the nomination paper, P.W.2, who claims to have got the nomi-
nation paper filled in by an Advocate of Jind whose name he does
not know, had mentioned the part No. as 57 in regard to the candi-
date Dog Ram and as 6 in regard to himself which are really their
house numbers. The Returning Officer bas, therefore, passed the
order, Ex. P.W.1/R, extracted earlier in this judgment, rejecting the
c nomination paper. What happened before be passed that order is
established by the evidence which would be considered hereafter.

Before we proceed to consider the evidence we wish to state
that the. learned Single judge has been stayed by two things in
D reaching the conclusion that the rejection of the nomination paper
of Dog Ram was improper. They are: (I) that errors in regard to
electoral roll numbers of the candidate and the proposer in the
electoral rolls or the nomination papers do not constitute defects of
a substantial character as noted in the proviso to s. 33 (4) of the
Act and (2) that the Returning Officer had told the candidate Dog
E Ram and the proposer P.W.2 when the nomination paper was
presented, that it was alright and thus tripped them into an error,
for had he told them at that time that there were some discrepan-
cies in the nomination paper in regard to electoral roll numbers they
would have either made the corrections ther. and there or would
have gone more fully prepared to meet objections at the time of
scrutiny. The serial numbers and part numbers mentioned in the
nomination paper relate to Ami Lal of Jalalpura Khurd and Premo
wife of Satbir of Barsana village and not to the candidate Dog Ram
and the proposer P.W.2. It is not possible to say generally and in the
abstract that all errors in regard lo electoral roll numbers of the
candidate and the proposer in the electoral rolls or nomination
...
G paper do not constitute defects of a substantial charcter. They would
not be defects of a substantial character only if at the time of the
scrutiny the Returning Officer either by himself with the materials
placed before him during the scrutiny or with the assistance of the
candidate or his proposer or any other person is able to find out +
t.he correct serial number of tbe candidate and the proposer by
r~f~f~n~~ \g t\10 c()rre9\ p~rt nu!11\Jer 9f the ~le•tor~l f91!, If t~il\ i§
~b.1l MoiiAN v. SA1' !'At (Varadara)an, J)
!'lot the case, he \Vould be commiting a grave error by accepting the
nomination paper without verifying whether tlle candidate is a voter
in that or any other constituency of tlie ·State and whether the .
proposer is a voter in that comtituency. As regards the tripping by
the Returning Officer we find that there is no allegation in the
election petition that there was. any assurance by the Returning·
Officer at the time of receipt of the nomination paper that there was .B
nothing wrong in it. Even according to Mr. Kacker the enquiry by
the Returning Officer at the time of delivery of the nomination paper
is only a peripheral enquiry in which the Returning Officer in the
present case seems to have been satisfied by finding two numbers
each given in regard to the candidate and the proposer that they
were the serial number and part number of the electoral roll which
the proposer was hound to give correctly in regard to the candidate
and himself in the nomination paper. In the absence of any such
allegation of tripping in the election petition we think that the
evidence of the proposer P;W.2 which is not even corroborated by the'
evidence of any other witness that he and the candidate presented the
nomination paper to the Returning Officer and showed him the
voters' list and that he told them then that the nomination paper was
in order. This Court bas held ·over and over again that no amount
of evidence can be looked into upon a plea which was never put
forward in the pleadings. In these circumstances we think that the
learned Single Judge was· not justified in accepting the evidence of E
P.W.2 and holding that the Retunring Officer was guilty of tripping
the candidate and the proposer by any as<enion on his part into
any believing that there was nothing wrong in the nomination paper .
.)'the candidate and the proposer are always expected to go fully
prepared to meet any objection that may be raised by any candidate
o'r even by the Returning Officer himself suo motu at the time of the F
scrutiny and they cannot be expected .to go any the Jess prep~re\I
merely because the Returning Officer had received the nomination
paper without raising any objection. It is at the tirne of scrutiny
which is done in the presence of all concerned that the nomination
papers come up for more detailed consideration at the hands of the
Returning ·officer against whorn thereis no estoppel in regard to the G
statutory duty of scrutiny.

P. W. I has deposed merely about the concerned serial 'num-
+ bers 177 and 313 and part numbers 6, 39 .and 57 of the electoral
roll. The proposer P.W.2 has stated in bis evidence that when the
Returning Officer told him and his candidate Do,g Ram at the time H
t19851 3s.c ft,
A of· the scrutiny that there was some mistake in filling the nomina-
tion paper, both of them volunteered to show the actual entry in
the electoral roll of Amar Heri village but he declined to have a
look at it and insisted that the particulars mentioned in the nomina-
tion paper alone· could be seen by him. The Returning Officer who
had to verify the serial numbers and part numbers etc. given in
B the nomination paper with reference to the entries in the electoral
roll could have said that there were mistakes in the nomination
paper only after having looked into the electoral roll and he would.
not have stated that he would see only the numbers mentioned in
the nomination paper. In his cross-examination P.W.2 has admitted
that the Returning Officer told them at the time of the scrutiny
c that they should show him their names in the electoral roll. But
he has denied that Dog Ram replied that he was not in a position
to point out his name or bis own name in the electoral roll. He
bas stated that on the other hand they asked the Returning Officer
to give them the electoral roll relating to Amar Heri village and be
declined to do so and that they did not protest against that high-
D
handedness of the Returning Officer .. The Returning Officer must
have bad the electoral rolls before him at the time of the scrutiny
which could not be done without the electroal rolls before him.
R.W.I, an Advocate who was himself a candidate and had retired
at a later stage, has stated in bis evidence that the electorat rolls
E were lying on the table of the Returning Officer at the time. of the
scrntiny. There is no reason for not accepting this evidenee of
R.W.J. The electoral rolls were lying on the Returning Officer's
table at the time of the scrutiny and, therefore, there would have
been no necessity for the candidate ·Dog Ram and P. W. 2 to ask
the Returning Officer to give them the electoral roll relating to Amar
F Heri village for clearing his doubt. Therefore, we are unable to
accept this evidence of P.W.2. P.W. 3. also has stated in his evidence
that both Dog Ram and P.W.2 told the Returning Officer when he
raised obj"'tion sue motu at the time of the scrutiny that they
filled in the nomination papers after looking at the particulars in
the electoral rolls relating to Amar Heri village and that if the
electoral roll of th;t village was given to them they wou IJ be in a
position to show him . the correct particulars, but he declined to
oblige them and insisted that. they should .show that the serial num-
ber and part number mentioned in the nomination paper tally. He
bas stated that he too told the Returning Officer that he should +
give them the facility of showing the particulars in the electoral
H roll of Amer Heri village but he declined to comply with hi•
ilru1 MOHAN v SAt PAL (Varadara}an, J)
-.
request ~nd stated that he would see only the serial nu:i;b~r.aild
the part mentioned in the nomination p~per. He has stated ,that he
was interested in the acceptance of the nomination paper· of Dog
Ram becauce he belongi to ruul p~ri and was the Lambardar <?f
his village. However, he has almittedly not made any report to
anyone. about the alleged high-handedness _of th~ Returning iOflicer
though ·he was a Minister of the State Government at. that tiri:ie a~d
Dog Ram is stated to have told him that the Returning Officer was not
acting fairly. What is more he has not made this alleged· improper
rejection of the nomination paper of Dog Ram as a ground in Elec~
tion Petition No. 8 of 1982 which he had filed for setting asidi;ithe
election of the appellant on the ground of corrupt practice etc. c
and claiming· the seat for himself. P.Ws. 2 and 3 have, no doubt,
denied that P W.2 was not present during the scrutiny on 26.4. 1982
whereas R.W. 1 has stated that Dog Ram alone·was preserit and
P.W. 2 wJs not present at that time. R.W. 1 has stated in his
evidence that though nobo<ly objected to the nomination paper of
Dog Ram, the Returning Officer asked Dog Ram during the' scrutiny D
in his presence to show the serial number and part number where
his name is entered in the electoral roll, that Dog Ram could not
do so though the electoral roll was lying on the table of the Return-
ing Officer and Dog Ram was given the opportunity of seeing the
same and that thereupon the Returning Officer wrote out his order
Ex. P.W.l/B rejecting the nomination paper of Dog Ram then and E
there and read it out. The evidence of R.W.I is largely corrobo-
rated by the Returning Officer's order Ex.P.W.l/B which has been
set out in the earlier part of this judgment. There is no reference
to the presence of P. W.2 during the scrutiny in that order. ·There-
fore, it is 'probable that P.W.2 was not present during the scrutiny F
as stated by R.W.1. The evidenc~ of P.W.3 that the Returning
Officer did not ask Dog Ram to show the names of himself and his
proposer in the electoral roll is inconsistent with the allegation in the
election petition as also the evidence of P. W. 2 that the Returning
Officer said so. Therefore, we are unable to accept the evidence
of P.W.3. But we accept the evidence of R.W. I and find that that G
the Returning Officer found the discrepancy in the names serial num-
ber and part number mentioned in the nomination paper on the
one hand and those found in the electoral roll with reference to
those numbers on the othe~ and that on account of his inability to
ascertain with the particulars made available before him whether
the candidate DJg Ram and his proposer P. W. 2 were electors i11
ti 9ssl 3s.d.it
A the constituency he asked the candidate Dog Ram to point out the
na·mes of him'self aod his proposer in the electoral roll to satisfy
0
him that they are electors in the co1btituency and that as he was
unable to do so he rejected the nomination paper by his order
Ex.P.W.l/B.

B Learndd counsel for the parties invited our attention to certain
decisions. We think it necessary to rder to only three of them. In
Hira Singh 'Pal v. Madan Lal(') a candidate had filed t\vo nomina-
tion papers and both of them were rejected by the Returning
Officer: In rejecting the nomination papers the Returning Officer
observed as follows ;

"Shri Madan Lal, resident of village Parchcch, P.O. __..
Ghanahatti, District Mahasu filed two nomination papers
before me on 20th January, 1967 which bear serial Nos. 5
& 6. According to the entry in · the nomination paper
serial No. 5 Shri Anant Ram proposer has been shown to
D
be entered at serial No. 383 of part 13 of the electoral rolls
for 9-Arki Assembly Constituency. From the comparison
with the final copy of electoral roll for this constituency,
at serial No. 383 of part 13 the name of Shrimati Phullu
wife of Shri Nirjal Singh has been entered. As such this
entry in this nomination paper is wrong.
E
As regards nomination paper bearing serial No 6 the
candidate has shown his name to be entered at serial No.
504 of part 2 of the electoral rolls for 9-Arki Assembly
Constituency. From the comparison with the •aforesaid
F entry in the final copy of the electoral rolls of the aforesaid
serial No. of the aforesaid part one Shrimati Darshnoo wife
of Shri Ghanaya Ram has been entered. Hence this entry •
in the nomination paper bearing serial No. 6 is incorrect.

At the time of scrutiny neither chri Madan Lal nor
G
his proposer or election agent nor any one authorised on
his behalf was present s.o that he could be given an oppor-
tunity for correcting these entries. This candidate while

______ _______
presenting his nomination papers claimed to be the substitute
__...

Jl (I) [19681 2 S.C.R. 778.
ilP.1i MOHAN v. SAT PA~ (Varadara/an, ).)
' candidate of the Indian National Congress who have put A
up Shri Hari Dass as their only candidate.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances it ~ann0t b<
ascertained whether Shri Madan. Lal is an elector in any
Assembly Constituency of Hima.;bal Pradesh or that his
proposer Shri Anand Ram is an elector. in the 9-Arki B
Assembly Constituency. Shri M.R. Gupta, Advocate the.
person authorised on behalf of Sbri Hari Dass wa~ informed
to convey to Shri Madan Lal that he can approach. ~e
any time upto 3.00 pm. today for correcting these entries.
Shri Madan Lal has not turned up as yet. It is now 15
minutes past 3.00 p.m. c'
In these circumstances there is no-alternative but to
reject both these nomination papers as the candidate does
not seem to be interested in ·correcting these entries and
filing proper and valid nomination papers. These orders
are passed ex-parte since Sbri Madan Lal has not cared to D
tum up.''

This Court has observed in that decision :
• " ......... As mentioned earlier, the errors found in the
nomination papers are purely clerical errors. The Return-
E
ing Officer had the duty to scrutinise the nomination papers
when they were presented. for finding out whether there
were any clerical mistake~ in the same. Under that pro-
vision he was required to find out whether the names of
the candidates as well as th~ir proposers·and seconders were·
correctly mentioned in the nomination papers He was
F
also required to see whether their·place in the electoral·
• roll was correctly mentioned in the nomination papers .
Evidently the Returning Officer failed in bis duty. Further,
:when he scrutinised the nomination papers on January 21,
1967, he had before him all the required information. It
may be that while scrutinising the first nomination paper G
(marked as No. 5) he had no material. before him to find
out whether the proposer of· the candidate was really an ·
elector in the constituency or not; but when he came io the
second nomination paper where the proposer's name as
well as his place in the electoral roll is correctly mentioned .
. '
it was improper on his part to have rejected that noinina- - H
J

340 i19ssj 3s.c.il..
A' tion paper. It is true that in that nomination paper, it
had been mentioned that the candidate's name is found at
serial No. 504 of part 2 of 9-Arki Assembiy Constituency,
though in fact is found at serial No. 504 in part 12 of that,
constituency; but from the first nomination paper, the
Returning . Officer could have easily found out the correct
B
part of the· electoral roll. All the required information
was before him. Obviously he rejected the nomination
papers for the reason that the respondent was .only a
dummy candidate but that was not a matter for him to
decide. If he was a dummy candidature there was occassicm
c. for him to withdraw his candidate after the scrutiny of
the nomination papers. Therefore, it is quite dear that
the respondent's nomination papers were improperly
rejected. Such a rejection was impermissible under s.
36 and the same is a ground for setting aside the election
under s. 100 of the Representation of the People Act."
D
That was a case where from a mere look at th• two nomina-
tion papers and the electoral, rolls the Returniog Officer could have
found out the correct part of the electoral roll and all the required
materials were before him and, therefore, it has been held that the
rejection of the nomination papers was improper. But that is not
the case here. There was no such prima facie material before the
E
Returning Officer in the present case to find out the correct part
number of the electoral roll in which the candidate Dog Ram and
the proposer P.W. 2 were registered as electors. There were as many
as 77,000 voters in the 97 parts of the electoral roll in Jind consti-
tuency and even Amar Heri village had two part numbers in the
electoral roll. The postal address of the candidate Dog Ram given
~·.
F
in the nomination paper was not a sure guide for the Returning
Officer to trace the correct part number of the electoral roll in
regard to the candidate Dog Ram and his proposer P.W. 2. The
Returning Officer who is ·expected to hold only such summary
enquiry as he thinks fit is not expected to himself find out the correct
G part number of the electoral roll by making a roving enquiry and
questioning the candidate or his proposer. In the circumstances, he
asked the candidate, who was present before him, to point out the
entries in the electoral roll where the names of himself and his pro-
poser are found as electors and as he was not in a position to do so
he rejected the nomination paper. Therefore, the observations made
H in that decision do not help the respoodent.
l!lut MOHAN v. !iAt PAL (l'aradaro}an, ),\

1n Ram Awadesh Singh v. Sumitra Devi & Ors.(1) the High Court A
set aside the election of the appellant before· this Court on the
ground that his nomination paper had been improperly accepted and.
the election had been materially affected thereby. It was proved
that the Returning Officer did . look into the nomination paper, but
unfortunately he did not notice that the appellant's name had been
removed from the Arrah constituency. The appellant bad with him B
a certified copy of the electoral .roll of Sandesb constituency where
his name was enrolled and he showed it to the Returning Officers.
The mistake complained of occurred because both the appellant as
~well as the Returning Officer looked into the main voters' list of the
.A_ Arrah constituency but overlooked the deletion noted in a separate
list. In these circumstances, it has been held by this Court that the
High Court was not justified in allowing the election petition on .the
ground that the nomination paper of the appellant was improperly
accepted. This decision will not apply to the facts of the present ·
case where with the serial numbers and the numbers given as part
1 numbers of the candidate and the !proposer in the nomination paper
(i
D
their names could not be traced in the concerned parts as registered
voters. The Returning Officer, therefore, felt helpless and asked the
candidate to point out the names of himself and his proposer in the
electoral roll which he ·did not do.

The decision in Viveka Nand Giri v. Nawal. Kishore Sahi(') also
..
E
would not apply to the facts of the present case as the defect in the ·
nomination paper in that case was only the difference in the age in
the electoral roll and the nomination paper. It has been held by this
Court that it was a case of inaccurate description mentioned in
s.
.;i::_ 33(4) of the Act which ought to have been got corrected or over- .,'
looked by the Returning Officer haviv·· regard to the language of the F
proviso to that sub-section.

For th~ reasons mentioned above we are of the opinion that
the Returning Officer in the present case could not be said to have
impropertly rejected the nomination paper Dog Ram. The appeal
is accordingly allowed with costs here as well as in the Higli Court. G

A.P.J. Appeal allowed
-----------.---· -- l .
(I) {1972] 2 S.C.R. 674.
H
(2) A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 856.