Holding

The omission of the second name 'Lal' is a non‑substantial, technical error and does not invalidate the nomination; the election stands.

Summary

Harikrishna Lal and Babu Lal Marandi contested the 2001 Jharkhand Legislative Assembly election from Ramgarh. The respondent's nomination paper listed his name as "Babu Lal Marandi" while the electoral roll showed "Babu Marandi", omitting the middle name "Lal". No objection was raised at the scrutiny stage and the returning officer, after a suo‑moto enquiry, accepted the nomination and the respondent was elected. The appellant challenged the election, alleging that the name discrepancy meant the respondent was not an elector and that the nomination contained a substantial defect under Sections 33 and 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. No evidence was produced by either party. The High Court dismissed the petition and the Supreme Court affirmed that the omission of the middle name is a mere technical, non‑substantial defect; the returning officer acted correctly; the burden of proof lies on the challenger; and the appeal is dismissed.

Issues considered

The omission of the middle name 'Lal' from the electoral roll constitutes a substantial defect warranting rejection of the nomination.
Whether the respondent was a qualified elector despite the name discrepancy and the requirement to produce a certified copy of the electoral roll.
Who bears the burden of proof in an election petition challenging a candidate's election.
Whether failure to raise an objection at the time of scrutiny bars a later challenge to the nomination.

Legislation cited

Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 33, s. 36, s. 8, s. 87

Subjects

election lawnomination papersubstantial defectelectoral rollburden of prooftechnical errorelection petition

Judgment

A HARIKRISHNA LAL
v.
BABU LAL MARANDI

OCTOBER 30, 2003
B
[R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.]

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sections 33 and 36-
Nomination paper-Substantial Defect-Meaning of-Name of candidate
C incorrectly mentioned in the electoral roll-No objection rC'ised at the time·
ofscrutiny ofnominations-Held, the mistake was inadvertent or accidental
and only technical-No substantial defect-Ele<:tion Law.

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 87-Election
Petition-Challenge to election of a candidate-Burden of Proof-Held,
D burden lies on the person who challenges the election-No evidence led
by any party to the election petition-Held, election petition would fail-
Election Law.

Legal Maxims Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum be corrore
E constat-Me.aning of

The appellant as well as the respondent filed their nomination
papers for election to a legislative assembly. In the nomination paper
of the respondent, his name was mentioned as "Babu Lal Marandi".
F In the electoral roll of the constituency from where he was contesting,
his name was present but was mentioned as "Babu Marandi" instead
of "Babu Lal Marandi" though his father's name and village were
correctly mentioned. Against the names of his wife and his son, which
appeared immediately after the name of the respondent, the correct

G
name of the respondent, i.e. "Babu Lal Marandi" was mentioned. The
respondent filed an application supported with affidavit before the
'
returning officer pointing out the said mistake and seeking correction
thereof.

At the time of the scrutiny of the nomination paper, the electoral
H roll of the constituency was seen by the returning officer. No objection
1170
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI 1171

was raised by any of the candidates or the appellant at that time. The A
>
returning officer entered into a suo moto enquiry for his own satisfaction
and being satisfied accepted the nomination paper of the respondent.

The respondent was declared elected in the election. The appellant
filed an election petition before the High Court challenging the election B
of the respondent on the ground that in the nomination paper, the
name of the respondent was mentioned as "Babu Lal Marandi" which
did not appear in any of the electoral roll of any assembly constituency.
He further alleged that the respondent has not filed certified copy of
the electoral roll of any constituency reflecting his name therein and
therefore, the respondent was not competent to contest the election. C

No evidence was led either by the appellant or by the respondent
before the High Court.

The High Court rejected the election petition filed by the appellant. D
Against the said order, the appellant preferred appeal under Section
116 A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD : 1.1. The omission of the second name 'Lal' from the E
voters' list is inadvertent or accidental and in any case merely
technical. In the voters' list as well as the nomination paper the
respondent was correctly described. There is no doubt about the
identity of the respondent. (1183-C, 1181-F-G, 1183-DJ

1.2. Acceptance or rejection of the nomination paper by F
the returning officer shall depend on his forming an opinion as
to whether the defect is of a non-substantial character or of a
substantial character. A bare reading of the provisions of Section 33
of the Representation of the People. Act, 1951 shows that so far as sub-
section (4) is concerned the effect of non-compliance may be merely G
an irregularity which would not necessarily entail the rejection of
nomination paper. (1180-F, E-F]

Harcharan Singh v. S. Mohinder Singh and Ors., AIR (1968) SC
1500; Viveka Nand Giri v. Nawal Kishore Sahi, (1984] 3 sec 10 and H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar and Ors., IO ELR 189,
referred to.

2.1. If the want of qualification does not appear on the face of the
nomination paper or the electoral roll but is a matter which could be
B established only by evidence, an inquiry at the stage of the scrutiny of
nomination papers is required under the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 only if there is an objection to the nomination. The returning
officer is then bound to make such inquiry as he thinks proper on the
result of which he can either accept or reject the nomination. But when
C the candidate appears to be properly qualified on the face of the .
electoral roll and the nomination paper and no objection is raised to
the nomination, the Returning Officer has no other alternative but to
accept the nomination. (1183-G-H, 1184-A]

Dw ;a Shankar Mehta v. Raghurai Singh and Ors., AIR (1954) SC
D 250, relied on.

2.2. On the face of the nomination paper the respondent was not
disqualified in any manner. The returning officer satisfied himself as to
the identity of the respondent and, the electoral roll of the constituency,
E which was available with him to be seen, pointed out only an
inconsequential technical variation in description. If the contention of
the appellant is that the respondent was not an elector of the constituency
and his nomination paper was therefore liable to be rejected for failure
to file a certified copy of entries of the relevant electoral roll, then it was
F for the appellant to raise that objection so as to put the returning officer
on notice, who in his turn would have afforded the respondent an
opportunity of meeting the objection. (1184-B-D]

2.3. In the present case, the appellant did not raise any objection
to the validity of the nomination filed by the respondent. He never
G submitted the name of the respondent as appearing in the nomination
did not agree with the name as appearing in the voters' list and
therefore the nomination was not valid. Nor did he object that the
respondent was not an elector registered in the voters' list of that
constituency. The identity of the respondent was never called in
H question. (1181-B-C]
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI 1173

3.1. It is true that mere failure of the appellant in raising objection A
to the validity of the nomination paper filed by the respondent before
the returning officer does not stop or exclude him from raising a plea
before the High Court that the nomination paper filed by the respondent
was liable to be rejected or could not have been accepted. But the fact
remains that it will be for the election petitioner to raise necessary B
pleadings and, if traversed, to substantiate the same by adducing the
necessary evidence. (1184-E-G)

N. T Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar & Ors., AIR (1959) SC
422, referred to.
c
3.2. The success of a winning candidate is not to be lightly
interfered with. The burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the
election to raise necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such
averments as would enable the result of the election being set aside on
any of the grounds available in law. In an election petition if nobody D
adduces evidence it is the election petitioner who fails. (1185-B-C)

3.3. Before the High Court, the appellant has chosen not to
adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the returning officer was
not right in arriving at the satisfaction which he did or that the E
respondent was not enrolled in the electoral list of that constituency
or was the one enrolled in some other constituency. The High Court
has not erred in holding that the election of the respondent is not liable
to be set aside. [1183-E-F]

4. Maxim "Falsa demonstratio non nocet cum de corrore constat" F
means mere false description does not vitiate, if there be sufficient
certainty as to the object. "Falsa demonstratio" means an erroneous
description of a person or a thing in the written instrument; and the
above rule respecting it signifies that where the description is made up
of more than one part, and one part is true, but the other false, there, G
if the part which is true describes the subject with sufficient legal
certainty, the untrue part will be rejected and will not vitiate the
device: the characteristic of cases within the rule being that the
descriptioJI, so far as it is false, applies to no subject at all, and, so far
as it is true, applies to one only. [1182-G-H, 1183-AJ
>·
H
I I 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Broom's Legal Maxims I 0th Edition, referred to.

Shaligram Shrivastava v. Naresh Singh Patel, {20031 2 SCC 176,
referred to.

B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5841 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.2002 of the Jharkhand High
Court at Ranchi in E.P. No. 1 of 2001.

c Appellant-in-Person

S.B. Sanyal and Ms. S. Janani for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
R.C. LAHOTI, J. : An election, to choose one member to the
Jharkhand Legislative Assembly from 23-Ramgarh Assembly Constituency,
was held in the month of January-February 2001 to fill up the vacancy
caused by the death of the then sitting member. Though there were more
E than two candidates in the election fray, the legal battle in the Court arena
has continued only between the appellant and the respondent, the two out
of the several candidates, in the backdrop of the controversy arising for
decision. The nomination paper filed by the appellant was rejected by the
returning officer. He could not participate in the elections. The respondent
F was declared elected on 23.2.2001. An election petition, laying challenge
to the election of the respondent and seeking setting aside of his election,
was filed in the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi. The facts relevant
for the purpose of appreciating the issues arising for decision in this appeal,
are briefly set out hereunder.

G As per the· election programme notified by the Election Commission
oflndia, the nomination papers could be filed on January 25, 2001 through
January 31, 2001 between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m. before the returning officer
who was the Sub-Divisional Officer of Ramgarh. The scrutiny of the
nominations took place on February 1, 2001. February 3, 2001 was the
H date for withdrawal of nomination, if any. The nomination paper filed by
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI [LAHOTI, J.) 1175
)
the appellant was rejected by reference to Section 8 of the Representation A
of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act', for short) for failure of the
appellant to furnish certain information in a prescribed proforma supported
by an affidavit, stating as to whether the petitioner was not disqualified to
contest the election due to any conviction for committing any offence as
required under Section 8" of the Act. The prescribed proforma for B
furnishing the infonnation and the form of affidavit, though supplied to
the petitioner by the returning officer, were not filed up to the date and
time appointed for scrutiny of nominations. So far as this aspect of the
case is concerned, the controversy stands resolved by a recent decision of
this Court in Shaligram Shrivastava v. Naresh Singh Patel, [2003) 2 SCC C
176. The appellant appearing in-person has very fairly stated that he does
not want to pursue any further this plea, disputing the rejection of his
nomination paper, in view of the abovesaid decision of this Court.

The next controversy, and now the only one surviving for decision,
is as to whether the nomination paper filed by the respondent suffered from D
any defect of a substantial character. Inasmuch as this issue has been
highlighted by the appellant from very many angles, it would be useful to
reproduce and set out from the averments made in the election petition
itself as to what the appellant's case is. According to the appellant-
E
"The returning officer ought to have rejected the nomination
papers of the respondent on the following grounds:-

(a) That the respondent's name is 'Babula!'. His surname is
Marandi. He is known, recognized, addressed and identified F
every where by this name 'Babulal Marandi' alone and not
by any other name or surname whatsoever.

The name of the respondent Babu Lal Marandi has not been
enrolled as an elector in the electoral roll of any Assembly
constituency of Legislative Assembly of Jharkhand State. G

He has not filed certified copy of any Assembly constituency
of Jharkhand Legislature to the Returning Officer either at
the time of filing his nomination papers or at the time of
scrutiny showing therein that his name 'Babu Lal Marandi' H
l 176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
(
A has been registered as an elector in that Assembly
Constituency. Thus, the respondent is not competent to
contest the said election. His nomination papers filed to the
returning officer suffer from a defect of substantial character
under Section 36(4) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and they ought
to have been rejected by the Returning Officer."
B
The respondent has in his written statement denied the averment made
by the election petitioner and submitted -

"that the name printed in the Electoral Roll is Babu Marandi
c instead of Babu Lal Marandi and his father's name is correct,
village is correct and in between 'Babu' and 'Marandi', 'Lal' is
not printed. In this regard, it is submitted that answering
respondent filed an application before the Returning Officer,
Ramgarh on 29 .1.200 l mentioning there that the correct name of
D the respondent is Babu Lal Marandi son of Sri Chhotu Marandi,
Village Kodaibank, P.O. Chandauri, P.S. Tisri, District Giridih but
by mistake in the Voter List, his name is printed as Babu Marandi
son of Sri Chhotu Marandi and requested him to correct his
name."
E
It is further submitted in the written statement that the respondent is known
as Babu Marandi and also as Babu Lal Marandi. Apparently, in the Voters
List, the word 'Lal' in between 'Babu' and 'Marandi' has been left out due
to mistake. It is clear from the fact that below the respondent's name, the
F name of his wife Shanti Marandi, wife of Babu Lal Marandi (the
respondent) is mentioned. In continuity the name of the respondent's son
Sanstan Marandi, son of Babu Lal Marandi (the respondent) is mentioned.
A photocopy of the Voters List supporting the above said plea was annexed
with the written statement. The respondent had also moved an application
duly supported by an affidavit seeking rectificatiOJ! of the above said error
G in the Voters List. Copies of the application, the affidavit, and the receipt
showing the deposit of fee for correction were also filed with the written
statement. The respondent has then submitted that such a printing mistake
in the Voters List did not affect the identity of' the respondent and is
certainly not a ground on which his nomination paper could have been
H rejected. The electoral roll of the constituency was seen by the returning
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI [LAHOTI, J.] 1177
• officer at the time of scrutiny and the nomination paper, having been found A
in order, was accepted. There was no objection raised by anyone or the
election petitioner at the time of the scrutiny. The returning officer rightly
accepted the nomination paper of the respondent.

On the pleadings of the parties, one of the issues framed by the B
learned designated Election Judge was:-

"Whether the real name of the respondent Babula! Marandi is not
registered in the electoral roll of any of the Assembly Constituencies
of the Jharkhar.d Legislative. Assembly and, as such, he is not
qualified to contest the election from 23-Ramgarh Assembly C
Constituency?"

The case was posted for trial. The election petitioner declared that
he was not adducing any evidence. The respondent too chose not to adduce
any evidence. The arguments were heard. The High Court has found the D
averment made in the election petition not substantiated. In the opinion
of the High Court the returning officer has not erred in accepting the
nomination paper of the respondent. The election petition has been
directed to be dismissed.

The election petitioner has filed this appeal under Section l 16A of E
the Act.

We have heard the appellant, appearing in-person, who argued the
case from all possible angles and Shri Sanyal, the learned senior counsel
for the respondent. We are satisfied that no fault can be found with the F
view taken by the High Court in dismissing the election petition and
consequently this appeal too is liable to be dismissed.

The relevant statutory provisions which would clinch the singular
issue surviving for decision in this appeal are extracted from the Act and G
reproduced hereunder:

33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a
valid nomination. -

(I) to (3) xxx xxx xxx H
1178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (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: [Provided that no misnomer or inaccurate description or
clerical, technical or printing error in regard to the name of the
B
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 full operation of the electoral
c 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 understood; and the
returning officer shall permit any such misnomer or inaccurate
description or clerical, technical or printing error to be corrected
D and where necessary, direct that any such misnomer, inaccurate
description, clerical, technical or printing error in the electoral
roll or in the nomination paper shall be overlooked.]

(5) Where the candidate is an elector ofa different constituency,
E a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency or of the relevant
part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries in such roll
shall, unless it has been filed along with the nomination paper, be
produced before the returning officer at the time of scrutiny.

36. Scrutiny of nominations. - (I )On the date fixed for the
F scrutiny of nominations under section 30, the candidates, their
election agents, one proposer of each candidate, and one other
person duly authorized in writing by each candidate but no other
person, may attend at such time and place as the returning officer
may appoint; and the returning officer shall give them all reasonable
G facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candidates
which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid
down in section 33.

(2) The returning officer shall then examine the nomination
H papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any
HARIKRISHNA LAL r. B.L. MARANDI [LAHOTI, J.] 1179

nomination and may, either on such objection or on his own A
motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,
reject any nomination on any of the following grounds :-

[(a) [that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations the
candidate] either is not qualified for being chosen to fill the seat B
under any of the following provisions that may be applicable,
namely:-

Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191,]

[Part II of this Act and sections 4 and 14 of the Government of
c
Union Territories Act, 1963 (20 of 1963); or

(b) that there has been a failure to comply with any of the
provisions of section 33 or section 34; or
D
( c) that the signature of the candidate or the proposer on
the nomination paper is not genuine.]

(3) xxx xxx xxx
E
(4) The returning officer shall not reject any nomination paper
on the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character.

(5) The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date
appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 30 and shall F
not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such
proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence
or by causes beyond his control :

- Provided that in case [an objection is raised by the returning G
officer or is made by any other person] the candidate concerned
may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but
one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer
shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have
been adjourned. H
1180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. ...
~
A (6) The returning officer shall endorse on each nomination paper
his decision accepting or rejecting the same and, ifthe nomination
paper is rejected, shall record in writing a brief statement of his
reasons for such rejection.
[emphasis supplied]
B
It is pertinent to point out that the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section
33 was not to be found in the Act as originally enacted; the same was
inserted by Amending Act 47 of 1966 with effect from 14.12.1966. Notes
on Clauses of the Bill proposing the amendments speak of the abovesaid

c
proviso as under: "·
" .......... The new proviso to sub-section (4) is comprehensive
in nature and it is on the lines of sub-section (5) of section 39 of
the U.K. Representation of the People Act, 1949. This has been
,
done to remove all possible doubts about the power of the
D returning officer to correct any misnomer or inaccurate description
in regard to the name of a candidate or his proposer or any other
person or in regard to any place mentioned in the electoral roll
or in the nomination paper."

(See Gazette oflndia, Extraordinary, dated August 29, 1966, Part 2 Section
E 2 page 667, 699).
Abare reading of the provisions shows that so far as sub-section (4)
of Section 33 is concerned the effect of non-compliance may be merely
an irregularity which would not necessarily entail the rejection of nomination
paper. Acceptance or rejection of the nomination paper by the returning
F
officer shall depend on his forming an opinion as to whether the defect is
of a non-substantial character or of a substantial character. A statutory duty
is cast on the returning officer to scrutinize the nomination papers on the
appointed date without adjourning the proceedings. If the returning officer
finds any irregularity or defect in the nomination paper he may hold an
G enquiry suo motu affording the candidate, whose nomination is under ~

scrutiny, an opportunity to satisfy the returning officer that no such defect
or irregularity exists. An objection may be raised by any other person and
in that case also the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut the
objection. Within the meaning of proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 36
~
H the returning officer has to record his decision by way of acceptance or
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI [LAHOTI, J.) 1181

rejection of the nomination paper. If the nomination paper is rejected a A
brief statement of his reasons for such rejection has to be recorded in
writing.

In the present case, the appellant did not raise any objection to the
validity of the nomination filed by the respondent. He never submitted that
the name of the respondent as appearing in the nomination did not agree B
with the name as appearing in the voters' list and therefore the nomination
was not valid. Nor did he object that the respondent was not an elector
registered in the voters' list of that constituency. The identity of the
respondent was never called in question. It seems from the plea taken in
the written statement and the annexures filed with the written statement that C
the returning officer suo motu asked the respondent to satisfy him on the
minor discrepancy which appeared in the voters' list and the nomination
paper, i.e., while the voters' list of the constituency contained the entry
"Babu Marandi, father's name - Chotu Marandi, sex - Male, age - 37 years,
resident of village Kodaibank, P.S. Tisri, Distt. Giridih", the nomination D
paper mentioned the name of the respondent as 'Babula! Marandi', with
all other particulars remaining the same as entered in the voters' list. Thus,
the only variation in the name of the respondent was that of 'Babu Marandi'
and 'Babula! Marandi'. The respondent contended before the returning
officer by filing an· affidavit that he was known both as 'Babu Marandi'
and 'Babula! Marandi', and that the omission of 'Lal' in the voters' list E
was inadvertent, erroneous and in any case technical. It is well-known that
in Indian society the name of a person consists of the first name, the second
name and the surname or the family name. The first name and the family
name of the respondent tallied; the second name was mentioned in the
nomination. paper but was not found to be mentioned in the voters' list. F
According to the plea taken in the written statement all other descriptions
such as father's name, age, sex and residence etc. of the respondent as
given in the voters' list and as appearing in the nomination paper tallied.
There was thus no defect in the nomination paper. The respondent
being a candidate from that very constituency wherein he was enrolled as G
an elector, it was not necessary for him to file a certifad copy of the
relevant entries in electoral roll or to produce the same at the time of
scrutiny.

In Harcharan Singh v. S. Mohinder Singh and Ors., AIR (1968) SC
1500 the purpose of the provisions contained in Sections 33 and 36 of the H
1182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Act was stated by their Lordships in these words - "The primary purpose
of the diverse provisions of the election law which may appear to be
<
technical is to safeguard the purity of the election process and the Courts
will not ordinarily minimize their operation." Their Lordships further
observed that "the statutory requirements of election law must be strictly
B observed. An election dispute is a statutory proceeding unknown to the
common law: it is not an action at law or in equity. But under S.36(4)
the Returning Officer is entitled to accept the nomination paper even if it
be defective, if the defect is not of a substantial character. He is enjoined
not to reject the nomination paper unless the defect is of a substantial
C character." Harcharan Singh 's case (supra) was one where the details for
identifying the appellant as an elector were duly furnished and his age
though mentioned in the nomination paper· was not to be found in the
certified copy produced by him and no objection was raised to the
acceptance of the nomination paper on behalf of the contesting candidate.
The returning officer satisfied himself by personal enquiry that the
D appellant was above the age of 25 and therefore competent to stand for
election. It was held that even though the copy produced was defective
because of the absence therefrom of the house number entered in the
electoral register, yet the defect was not of a substantial character and hence
the returning officer was justified in not rejecting the nomination paper.
E In Viveka Nand Giri v. Nawal Kishore Sahi, [1984] 3 SCC 10 there was
a difference in the age as recorded in the electoral roll and as stated in the
nomination paper. It was held that the nomination paper would fall in the
category of an inaccurate description and the returning officer could not
have rejected the nomination. In Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar
F and Ors., 10 ELR 189 the name of the Sub-Division was not stated in the
nomination paper. However, it was quite clear that there was no difficulty
in identifying the candidate. The defect was held to be a technical one and
not of substantial character.

A reference may usefully be made to the maxim "Falsa demonstratio
G non nocet cum de corrore constat" which means mere false description
does not vitiate, if there be sufficient certainty as to the object. 'Falsa
demonstratio' means an erroneous description of a person or a thing in a.
written instrument; and the above rule respecting it signifies that where the
description is made up of more than one part, and one part is true, but the
H other false, there, if the part which is true describes the subject with
HARIKRISHNA LAL v. B.L. MARANDI [LAHOTI, J.] I 183

sufficient legal certainty, the untrue part will be rejected and will not vitiate A
the devise: the characteristic of cases within the rule being that the
description, so far as it is false, applies to no subject at all, and, so far as
it is true, applies to one only. (See Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edition,
pp. 426-427). Broom quotes (at page 438) an example that an error in the
proper name or in the surname of the legatee should not make the legacy B
void, provided it could be understood from the will what person was
intended to be benefited thereby.

There is no manner of doubt that the respondent is a duly enrolled
elector in the voters list ofNo.23 Ramgarh Assembly Constituency. In the C
voters list as well as in the nomination paper the respondent was correctly
described. The omission of his second name 'Lal' from the voters list is
inadvertent or accidental and in any case merely technical. There is no
doubt about the identity of the respondent. Apparently that is why none
of the candidates including the writ petitioner and no one else raised any
objection to the acceptance of the nomination paper by submitting that the D
respondent was not a registered elector of the constituency. The returning
officer entered into suo r.wto enquiry for his own satisfaction, and felt
satisfied by looking into the electoral list of the constituency available with
him, that the respondent Babu Lal Marandi was the same person who was
mentioned as Babu Marandi in the electoral list. Being an elector in the E
same constituency wherefrom he was contesting election it was not
necessary for him to have filed a certified copy of the relevant entry from
the voters list. Before the High Court, the writ petitioner has chosen not
to adduce any evidence to demonstrate that the returning officer was not
right in arriving at the satisfaction which he did or that the respondent was F
not enrolled in the electoral list of that constituency or was the one enrolled
in some other constituency. The High Court has not erred in holding the
election of the respondent not liable to be set aside.

In Durga Shankar Mehta v. Raghuraj Singh and Ors., AIR (1954)
SC 250 the Constitution Bench has held that if the want of qual)fication G
does not appear on the face of the nomination paper or of the electoral roll
but is a matter·which could be established only by evidence, an enquiry
at the stage of the scrutiny of the nomination papers is required under the
Act only ifthere is any objection to the nomination. The Returning Officer
is then bound to make such enquiry as he thinks proper on the result of H
1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A which he can either accept or reject the nomination. But when the
candidate appears to be properly qualified on the face of the electoral roll
and the nomination paper and no objection is raised to the nomination, the
Returning Officer has no other alternative but to accept the nomination.

B The law so laid down by the Constitution Bench squarely applies to
the present case. On the face of the nomination paper the respondent was
not disqualified in any manner. The returning officer satisfied himself as
to the identity of the respondent and, the electoral roll of the constituency,
which was available with him to be seen, pointed out only an inconsequential
technical variation in description, as already stated hereinabove. If the
c contention of the appellant is that the respondent was not an elector of the
constituency and his nomination paper was therefore liable to be rejected
for failure to file a certified copy of entries of the relevant electoral roll,
then it was for the appellant to raise that objection so as to put the returning
officer on notice, who in his tum could have afforded the respondent an
D opportunity of meeting the objection. Clearly there is no merit in the plea
raised by the appellant.

It is true that mere failure of the appellant in raising objection to the
validity of the nomination paper filed by the respondent before the
E returning officer does not stop or exclude the election petitioner from
raising a plea before the High Court that the nomination paper filed by the
respondent was liable to be rejected or could not have been accepted. The
enquiry which the returning officer has to make under Section 36 of the
Act is summary in character, which he may make as he thinks necessary
F either suo moto or on an objection being raised. Whether such an enquiry
was held or not and if held whatever may have been the result, the propriety
of rejection or acceptance of a nomination paper can always be raised by
way of election petition. (See N. T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar
& Ors., AIR (1959) SC 422. But the fact remains that it will be for the
election petitioner to raise necessary pleadings and, if traversed, to
G substantiate the same by adducing the necessary evidence. This the
election petitioner has failed to do before the High Court. The inevitable '
consequence of the election petition being dismissed has rightly followed.

Even otherwise we find no substance in the plea taised by the election
H petitioner.
HARIKRISHNA LAL r. B.L. MARANDI [LAHOTI, J.] I I 85

The appellant submitted that in the election petition it was specifically A
alleged that the respondent was not an elector belonging to the constituency
and that it was further obligatory for the respondent to adduce evidence
to show that he was qualified to be a candidate without the need of filing
the certified copies of entries in the electoral roll before the returning
officer. Such a submission runs counter to basics of election law. The B
success of a winning candidate is not to be lighdy interfered with. The
burden of proof lies on the one who challenges the election to raise
necessary pleadings and adduce evidence to prove such averments as
would enable the result of the election being set aside on any of the
grounds available in the law. In an election petition if nobody adduces
evidence it is the election-petitioner who fails. The High Court rightly C
framed the issue placing the burden of proof on the election-petitioner. As
no evidence was adduced by the election-petitioner, the High Court rightly
dismissed the election petition.

The appeal is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. It is D
dismissed though without any order as to the costs.

B.K.M. Appeal dismissed.