Holding

A certified copy of an electoral‑roll entry, even without indicating the latest publication dates, fulfills the requirement of section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, making the Returning Officer’s rejection improper and rendering the election void.

Summary

Jagannath Ramchandra Nunekar, an elector from Shivaji Nagar, sought to contest a bye‑election in Jaoli and applied for a certified copy of his entry in the Shivaji Nagar electoral roll. He received a copy on 8 January 1986 showing the latest publication date as 31‑Jan‑1984 and filed his nomination on 9 January, but the Returning Officer rejected it, insisting a copy reflecting the later 29‑Jan‑1985 revision was required. Nunekar obtained a second copy on 10 January showing the 29‑Jan‑1985 date and presented it on the day of scrutiny, yet the Returning Officer still rejected the nomination and refused to review his order. The Supreme Court held that there is no statutory requirement for a certified copy to state all publication dates and that the copy produced on 8 January was sufficient compliance with section 33(5) of the 1951 Act. Consequently, the Returning Officer’s rejection was improper, and the election of the first respondent was declared void under section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act.

Issues considered

Whether a certified copy of an electoral‑roll entry that does not state the latest publication dates satisfies the requirement of section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the Returning Officer was justified in rejecting the nomination paper on the ground that the certified copy was not of the latest electoral roll.
Whether the Returning Officer possessed the power to review his order of rejection.
Whether the election should be declared void under section 100(1)(c) of the 1951 Act due to the improper rejection of the nomination.

Legislation cited

Registration of Electors Rules, 1960s. 18, s. 20, s. 21, s. 21A, s. 22
Representation of the People Act, 1950s. 14, s. 15, s. 16, s. 21, s. 22, s. 23
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(c), s. 116A, s. 33(5), s. 36(5), s. 36(7)

Subjects

Election lawNomination paperCertified copyElectoral rollReturning OfficerSection 33(5)Section 36(7)Section 100(1)(c)Procedural complianceElection void

Judgment

JAGANNATH RAMCHANDRA NUNEKAR
v. A
GENU GOVIND KADAM & OTHERS

SEPTEMBER 14, 1988

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.] B

Representation of the People Act, 1950/Representation of the
People Act 1951/Registration of Electors Rules, 1960-Sections 33, 32,
JOO(l)(c) and 116A/Section 36(7)/Rules 18, 20, 21, 21A and 22-
Nomination Paper rejection of by Returning Officer-Ground that
certified copy of relevant entry was from electoral roll that was not the
latest-No prescription requiring certified copy to state dates on which C
basic roll or supplement had been published.

The appellant, who was an elector in the Shivaji Nagar Assembly
Constituency in Pune, intended to contest the bye-election to fill a seat
in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Jaoli Assembly Con- D
_stituency in Satara district. He applied to the Electoral Registration
Officer of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency for a certified copy
of the relevant entry in the electoral roll containing his name, specifi·
cally mentioning that he required it for the purpose of producing it
before the Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency under section 33(5) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to enable him to file his E
nomination paper.

In the Shivaji Nagar Assembly constituency a basic roll of electors
had been prepared prior to 31.I.1984. The name of the _appellant was
.• entered at SI. No. 16 of a supplement which was published on
31.l.1984. Two more supplements were issued subsequently. The basic F
roll and the supplements together constituted one integrated electoral
roll which was published again on 29.1.1985. The certified copy, which
was furnished to the appelfant on 8.l.1986, i.e., one day before the date
on which he filed his nomination paper, was a copy made from the said
integrated roll.
G
The Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency noted that ill the
certified copy produced the latest date of publication was given
as 31.1.1984. The Returning Officer told the appellant that since there
were revisions subsequent to 31. 1.1984, he had to produce another
certified copy of the latest electoral roll at the time of secrutiny i.e. 11
O'Clock on ll .J .1986. The appellant rushed back to Pune and obtained H
1063
1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

another certified copy showing the latest date of publication
A
as 29.1.1985, but reached the office of the Returning Officer of Jaoli
constituency at about l P.M. on 11.1.1986. In the meantime, the
Returning Officer had already passed an order rejecting the nomination
paper of the appellant on the ground of non-compliance with the pro-
visions of sub-section (5) of section 33 and sub-section (7) of section 36 of
B the 1951 Act. The appellant requested review of the order but the
Returning Officer declined stating that he had no power of review.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's election petition hold-
ing: (I) that the appellant had not complied with section 33(5) of the
1951 Act as the certified copy produced by him was not a certified copy
of the electoral roll in force at the time of election; (2) the certified copy
c produced on 11.1.1986 had been produced after the order of rejection
of the appellant's nomination paper had been passed, and (3) the
Returning Officer had no power to review.

Allowing the appeal it was,
D
HELD: (I) There is no prescription requiring the certified copy
to state the several dates on which the basic roll or the supplement from
which the copy is prepared had been published. [1076F]

(2) The Returning Officer had acted on his own information in
E rejecting the nomination paper of the appellant, namely, that there was
a revision in 1985 and that the certified copy which had been produced
was from an electoral roll which had become defunct If that was so, he
should have secured the necessary material from the concerned
Electoral Registration Officer and placed it before the appellant before
rejecting his nomination paper. [10770-E] ••
F
(3) Unless the certified copy produced before the Returning
Officer itself on the face of it showed that the electoral roll from which a
certified copy had been prepared had been substituted by another
electoral roll, the Returning Officer was not justified in not treating the
production of the certified copy prepared on 8.1.1986 as sufficient com-
G pliance under section 33(5) of the 1951 Act, particularly having regard
to the close proximity between the date of preparation and the date of
the production of the certified copy. [1077F -HI

(4) Under the proviso to section 36(5) of the 1951 Act, it is pro- •
vided that in case an objection is raised by the Returning Officer or is
H made by any other person the candidate concerned may be allowed time
J.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM 1065

to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed A
for scrutiny, and the Returning Officer shall record bis decision on the
date. to which the proceedings bad been adjourned, The Returning
Officer did not choose to wait even for a few hours on 11.1.1986 to give
a chance to the appellant to make bis plea that what had been produced
along with the nomination paper was a certified copy which could be
acted upon or to produce another certified copy which in fact he did B
produce at I P.M. on 11.1.1986 before the Returning Officer, even
before the final list of candidates who had filed valid nomination
papers, was published. [1077B-D]

(5) Both the first certified copy and the second certified copy were
copies of the same original. Sub-section (7) of section 36 of the 1951 Act C
lays down a rule of evidence. It says that a certified copy of an entry in
the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency shall be
conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in that entry
is an elector for-that constituency, unless ft is proved that ho is subject to
a disqualification mentioned in section_l6 of the 1950 Act. [I078B-C]
D
(6) It is no doubt true that the electoral right is a statutory right
and a person who wishes to contest an election should comply with the
law applicable. to elections strictly. But in the instant case there is no
default at all on the part of the appellant. He had actually produced
before the Returning Officer a certified -copy which he had obtained
within less than 24 hours from the Electoral Registration Officer of the E
constituency where he was residing and that he had not done anything
to mislead the Returning Officer. -[I077E-F]

(7) The certified copy produced alongwitb the nomination paper
satlsfied the requirement ofsection 33(5) of 1951 Act. [1078D]
F
(8) The appellant who was an innocent person had hem denied
the right to contest the election unreasonably. The rejection of the
nomination paper of the appellant was improper. It follows that the
election of the 1st respondent should be declared void in view of the
provisions contained in section IOO(l)(c) of the 1951 Act. [1078E-F]
G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Election Appeal No.
232 (NCE) of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .12. 1986 of the Bombay
High Court in Election Petition No. 1of1985.
H
!066 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

Appellant-in-person.
A
A.M. Khanwilkar and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B " VENKATARAMIAH, J. .• The appellant is a person residing at
Pune in the State of Maharashtra. A bye-election was proposed to be
held on the 2nd February, 1986 to fill a seat in the Maharashtra
Legislative Assembly which had become vacant on account of the
death of the sitting member who was representing 263 Jaoli Legislative
{\.ssembly constituency in Satara district in the State of Maharashtra.
The last date for making nominations at the said election was the 10th
c January, 1986 and the scrutiny of nomination papers was fixed to take
place on January 11, 1986. The appellant filed his nomination paper on
January 9, 1986. Since he was not registered as an elector in the Jaoli
constituency but was an elector of the Shivaji Nagar Assembly consti-
tuency in Pune, a certified copy of the relevant entry in the electoral
D roll of the Shivaji Nagar constituency in which his name appeared had
to be filed along with his nomination paper or had to be produced
before the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny as provided in
sub-section (5) of section 33 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 (hereinafter referred to as the '1951 Act'). Accordingly the
appellant applied to the Tahsildar, Pune city (who was also the
Assistant Electoral Registration Officer, Shivajinagar Assembly con-
stituency) who was the custodian of the electoral roll in force of that
constituency to furnish )lim with a certified copy of the entry pertain-
ing to him in the eleclllral roll on 6th January, 1986. In that application
he specifically mentioned that he required the certified copy for the
purpose of producing it before the Returning Officer of the J aoli con-
F stituency for enabling him to file his nomination paper. The certified
copy was made ready on 8th January, 1986 and delivered to the appel-
lant on the same day by the Tahsildar, Pune city (Assistant Electoral
Registration Officer, Shivajinagar Assembly constituency). The
certified copy was in Marathi language. The material part of the Eng-
lish translation of the said certified copy read thus:
G
"247. Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency
List of Voters-1984

Name of village: Hutatma Rajguru Health Camp.
H
l.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM [VENKATARAMIAH, l.l 1067

Taluka~ Pune City Distt. Pune
A
Mahanagar Palika Part No./Polling Centre
Ward No. 9 No. 47 .

SL House No. Name of the voter M/F Approximate
No. with the name of Age on
father mother or 1.1.84 B
husband.

16. Wadar Kuilekar Jagannath M 3S
Housing Ramchandra
Society
Block No. l
c
Latest date of publication
31.1.1984
Sdl-
Electoral Registration
Offi¢er 247, Shivajinagar, D
Assembly Constituency,
Pune.

Copying Applied on 6.1.1986
Fee Ready on 8.1.1986 •
delivered on 8. l.1986 E
Copied by kale."

After obtaining the above said copy on January 8, 1986 the
appellant filed his nomination paper as stated above on the next day,
• i.e. on 9th January, 1986 and along with his nomination paper he
produced the certified copy obtained by him as required by sub-section F
(5) of section.33
/
of the ·1951 Act. On seeing the said_certified copy the
Returning Officer of Jaoli constituency told the appellant that since it
had been noted in the certified copy that the latest day of publication
of the electoral roll in which the name of the appellant was appearing
was 31st January, 1984'he had to bring another certified copy as th'ere
were revisions subsequent to January 31, 1984. Acting on the sugges- G
tion made . b;y the Returning Officer the appellant returned to Pune
again and aj)j:>lied for another certified copy on the 10th January, i986
after the office of the Tahsildar was opened in :::e forenoon. The
Tahsildar told him that the certified copy would be ready by 4.30 in the
afternoon, Ultimately the appellant was able to get that copy at 5 P.M.
on 10th January, 1986. The earliest bus available to the appellant to H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

leave Pune for going to the place where the Returning Officer was
taking up the work of scrutiny of nomination papers was to start at 9
A.M. on i 1th January, 1986. The appellant reached the office of the
Returning Officer at about 1 P.M. in the afternoon on 11th January,
1986, i.e., the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers and
produced the second certified copy obtained by him before the
B Returning Officer. The second certified copy was also in the Marathi
language. The English translation of the material part of the second
certified copy reads thus:

"247. Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency •
List ofVoters-1984
c
Name of village: Hutatma Rajguru Health Camp.

Taluka-Pune City Distt. Pune
Mahanagar Palika Part Nu./Polling Centre
D Ward No. 9 No.47

SI. House No. Name of the voter M/F Approximate
No. with the name of Age on
father mother of 1. 1.1984
husband.
E
16. Wadar Munekar ~agannath M/35
Housing Ramchandra
Society
Block No. 1

F Latest date of publication
29.1.1985
Sd/-
Electoral Registration
Officer 247, Shivajinagar,
Assembly Con~tituency,
G Pune.

Copying Applied on 10-1-86
Paper Ready on 10-1-86
delivered on 10-1-86
-10 Copieµ by Kale.
H 2-10
J.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1069

TRUECOPY A

Sd/-
Tehsildar-Poona City
Asstt. Electoral Registration Officer
Shivajinagar Assembly Constituency
Tai. Poona City. B
Sd/- 10.1.86"

It is stated by the Returning Officer that before the appellant
appeared before him on 11th January, 1986 he had already passed an
order rejecting the nomination paper of the appellant on the ground of
non-compliance with the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 33 and c
sub-section (7) of the section 36 of the 1951 Act. The English transla-
tion of the order (which was in the Marathi language) passed by the
Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper of the appellant is as
follows:

"I have examined this nomination paper in accor- D

.. dance with section 36 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 and my decision is as follows:

In his nomination paper the candidate Shri Jagannath
. Ramchandr'! Nunekar, resident of Pune has mentioned his
name as being at Sl. No. 16 in part No. 47 of the electoral E
wll for the 247 Shivajinagar Legislative Assembly Consti-
tuency. As evidence thereof he has ·submitted a certified
relevant extract from the said electoral roll published on
the date 31.1.1984. Under the provisions of Sections 33(5)
and 36(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 it
was essential for him to submit either the latest electoral F
roll (in force as on the date 31. 1.85) or the necessary part of
the roll or a certified relevant extract thereof. Shri Nunekar
was given instructions to that effect at the time of filing of
the nomination paper and requested to comply with the
requirements regarding the said legal documents by the
time of scrutiny of the nomination paper' that is to say by G
11 O'Clock on the date 11.1.1986. However, the said
requirement was not complied with even till the time of the
scrutiny was over, nor did he remain present at the time of
the scrutiny. The said nomination paper is .therefore
rejected.
H
...
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

Sd/-
A
Returning Officer
263, Jaoli, Vidhan Sabha
Constituency.
(Medha)

B Dated: 11-1-1986"

(This translation is done by the
Chief Translator at the High Court.)

Aggrieved by the order rejecting his nomination paper the appel-
lant requested the Returning Officer to review his order since he had
c produced another certified copy in which the latest date of publication
had been shown as 29.1.1985. The Returning Officer declined to re-
view his order stating that he had no power of review and thereafter
published the final list of candidates containing the names of four
·condidates who had, according to him, filed valid nomination papers.
D The appellant's name was not included in the said final list as his
nomination paper had been rejected. Thereafter the election was held
and respondent No. 1 was declared elected. After the declaration of
the result the appellant filed Election Petition No. 1 of 1986 on the file
of the High Court of Bombay calling in question the election of the
respondent No. 1, alleging that the Returning Officer had improperly
E rejected the nomination paper filed by him and therefore the. election
of respondent No. 1 was liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned
in section lOO(l)(c) of the 1951 Act. Respondents No. 1 io 4 in the
election petition were the four other candidates who h.ad filed nomina-
tion papers at the election and respondent No. 5 was the Returning ,..
Officer. Respondents No. 1 and 5 contested the election Petition by
F filing separate written statements. They pleaded inter alia that since
the certified copy of the relevant entry of the electoral roll of the
Shivajinagar constituency in which the name of the appellant appeared
was not one prepared from the current electoral roll the Returning
Officer had rightly rejected the nomination paper of the appellant and
there was no ground to interfere with the election of respondent No. 1.
G At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Judge of the High Court who
tried the election petition dismissed the election petition filed by the
appellant holding that he had not complied with section 33(5) of the
1951 Act as the certified copy produced by him on the 9th January,
1986 was not a certified copy of the'electoral roll ih force..at the time of
the election, the certified copy produced on the 11th January, 1986
H had been produced after the order of rejection of nomination paper
J.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM IVENKATARAM!AH, J.I 1071

had been passed by the Returning Officer and the Returning Officer
A
had no power to review. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned
Judge of the High Court the appellant has filed this appeal under
section 116A of the 1951 Act.

There is no dispute that a candidate whose name is found in tile
electoral roll of a constituency other than the constituency from which B
he is seeking election should produce a certified copy of the electoral
roll of the constituency in force in which his name appears or the
relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entry in such
electoral roll before the Returning, Officer either along with the nomi-
nation paper or at the time of the scrutiny. That is the mandatory
requirement of sub-section (5) of section 33 of the 1951 Act. Sub-
section (2) of section 36 of the 1951 Act provides that the Returning
c
Officer shall examine the nomination papers and shall decide all objec-
tions which may be made to any nomination and may, either on such
objection or on his own motion, after such summary inquiry, if any, as
he thinks necessary, reject any nomination on any of the grounds
mentioned therein. One of the grounds mentioned in that sub-section D
is that there has been a failure to comply with any of the provisions of
section 33 which includes the provisions contained in sub-section (5)
thereof. Sub-section (7) of section 86 provides that for the purpose of
that section, a certified copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the
time being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive evidence of
the fact that the person referred to in that entry is an elector for that E
constituency, unless it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification
mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Act'). Sections 14 to 25A of the
1950 Act, which are in Part III thereof, provide for the preparation,
revision and maintenance of electoral rolls for assembly constitu-
encies. Section 15 of the 1950 Act provides that for every constituency F
there shall be an electoral roll which shall be prepared in accordance
with the provisions of the 1950 Act under the superintendence, direc-
tion and control of the Election Commission. A person shall be dis-
qualified for registration in an electoral roll as provided~-: section 16
of the 1950 Act if he is not a citizen oflndia, or is of lllb,>tind mind and
stands so declared by a competent court or is for the time being G
disqualified from voting under the provisions of any law relating to
corrupt practices and other offences in connection with elections. The
name of any person who becomes so disqualified after registration is
liable to be forthwith struck off the electoral roll in which it is
included. If the name of any person is struck off the electoral roll of a
constituency by reason of a disqualification under clause (c) of sub- H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

section ( 1) of section 16 of the 1950 Act it shall forthwith be reinstated
A
in that roll if such disqualification is, during the period such roll is in
force, removed under any law authorizing such removal. Subject to the
provisions of Part III of the 1950 Act every person who is not less that
21 years oi age on the qualifying date and is ordinarily resident in a
constituency is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll for that
B constituency. The expression 'qualifying date' is defined in clause (b)
of section 14 of the 1950 Act as the first day of January of the year in
which the electoral roll is prepared or revised. Sections 21 to 23 of the
1950 Act provide for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls,
correction of entries in electoral rolls and inclusion of names in
electoral rolls. The electoral roll for each constituency has to be pre-
pared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and
c shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accord-
ance with the rules made under the 1950 Act. The said electoral roll
shall unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission for reasons
to be recorded in writing, be revised in the prescribed manner by
reference to the qualifying date before each general election to the
b House of People or to the Legislative Assembly of a State; and before
eaeh bye-election to fill a casual vacancy in a seat allotted to the
constituency; and shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner
by reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by
the Election Comclission, provided that if the/electoral roll is not
revised as aforesaid, the validity or continued operation of the said
E electoral roll shall not thereby be affected. The Election Commission
may at any time, for reasons to be recorded, direct a special revision of
the electoral roll for any constituency or part of a constituency in such
manner as it may think fit. These provisions relating to the preparation
and revision of electoral rolls are contained in section 21 of the 195()
Act. It is not necessary to refer in detail for purposes of this case to
section 22 of the 1950 Act which deals with the correction of entries in
electoral ro!ls and the provisions contained in section 23 of the 1950
Act regarding the procedure to be followed if any person whose name
is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency wishes to get his
name included in it. What are, however, to be emphasised at this stage
are section 21 of the 1950 Act which provides that on the preparation
f,; of an electoral roll in the prescribed manner it will come into force
immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules
made under the 1950 Act (vide sub-section (1) of section 21 of the 1950
Act) and the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 21 of the 1950 Act
which provides that if the electoral roll is not revised as provided in
clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) of section 21 of the 1950 Act the
H validity or continued operation of the said electoral roll shall .not
J.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1073

,. thereby be affected. In order to implement the provisions contai1<ed in
A
Part III of the 1950 Act relating to the preparation and revision of
electoraf tolls rules have been made under the 1950 Act and they are
the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Rules'). The rules prescribing the procedure for preparation and
revision of electoral rolls are contained in Part II of the Rules. The
electoral registration officer of a constituency which expression B
includes an assistant electoral registration officer thereof also is
charged with the duties of the preparation, revision and maintenance
of an electoral roll. After the electoral roll is prepared under the Rules
and published it can be amended in accordance with the decisions of
the electoral registration officer under rules 18, 20, 21and21-A of the
rules. Rule 22 of the Rules provides thus:
c
"22. Final publication of roll.-(1) The registration officer
shall thereafter-

(a) Prepare a list of amendments to carry. out his
decisions under rules 18, 20, 21and21A and to correct any D
clerical or printing errors or other inaccuracies sub-
sequently discovered in the roll;

(b) publish the roll, together with the list of amend-
ments, by making a complete copy thereof available for
inspeGtion and displaying a notice in Forrn 16 at his office; E
and

(c) subject to such general or special directions as
may be given by the Election Commission supply, free of
cost, two copies of the roll as finally published, with the list
of amendments, if any, to every political party for which a F
symbol has been exclusively reserved by the Election
Commission.

· (Z) On such publication, the roll together with the list of
amendments shall be the electoral roll of the constituency.
G
(3) Where the rpll (herea~ter .in this sub-rule referred to as
the basic roll), together with the list of amendments,
becomes the electoral roll for a constituency under sub-rule
(2), the registration officer may; for the convenience of all
concerned, integrate, sub,iect to any general or special
directions issued by the Election Commission in this behalf,. If
!074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988i Supp. 2 S.C.R.

the list into the basic roll by including the names of electors
A
in the list together with all particulars relating to such
electors in the relevant parts of the basic roll itself, so how-
ever tl\at no change shall be made in the process of such
integration in the name of any elector or in any particulars
relating to any elector as given in the list of amendments."
.B
In the present case there was a basic roll prepared prior to
31. !: 1984 in the Shivaji Nagar Assembly Constituency. The name of
the. appellant was entered at SI. No. 16 of a supplement which was
published on 31.1.1984. It appears there were two more supplements
issued subsequently, i.e., one on 27.11.1984 and the other on
29. I. 1985. The basic roll and the supplement in which the name of the
c appellant was found was again published on 29.1.1985. The basic roll
and supplements together constituted one integrated electoral roll.
The certified copy, which was furnished to the appellant on 8.1.1986,
i.e., one day before the date on which he filed his nomination paper
was a copy made from the said integrated electoral roll. The said
D certified copy was marked as Ex. 8-1 in the case and the certified copy
which was furnished to him on 10.1.1986 was marked as Ex. B. The
Electoral Registration Officer who was responsible for preparation
and maintenance of the rolls, as already stated, was the Tahsildar,
Pune. He was examined by the appellant as one of his witnesses in the
case. We feel that it is necessary to refer· to some portions of the
E deposition of the Tahsildar, i.e., the Electoral Registration Officer.
He stated:

"The petitioner was furnished the extract (Exh. B-1).
Exh. B-1 is the extract from the electoral list as was current
on the date this extract was given to him. I see Exh. D which
F is the certified copy of extract furnished to the petitioner on
10.1.86. These two extracts are identical except that the
final publication date as stated in Exh. B-1 is 31.1.84 and
19.1.85 in Exh. D.

In 1985 the entire list of voters was not again got
G printed.

The date of final publication (29 .1.85) as finding
place in Exh. Dis brought to my notice. On 29.1.85 it was
the supplement along with the original list that was pub-
lished.
H

•
J.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM (VENKATARAMIAH, I.) 1075

Three suplements were published on the following A
dates first on 31.1.84 the second on 27 .11.1984 and the third ·
on 29.1.1985. Exh. B-1 was furnished to the petitioner by
me on 8.1.86 after taking into consideration the publication
of these supplements also. So also Exh. D.

Cross-examination by R-3 and 4 declined. B

Cross-examination by Shri Vyas for R. 5:

It is correct that the voters list was finally published
ou 29.1.85, I am referring to Shivaji Nagar Constituency
voters li~t. It is not true that on the extract Exh. B-1 I put
the date' of final publication on 31.1.84, because I did not c
take into consideration the later publication of 27.11.84
and 29 .1.85 ................ "
(emphasis added)

From the deposition of the Tahsildar (Electoral Registration D
Officer) the following points emerge:

(i) Ex. B-J, the certified copy, which was produced along
with the nomination paper was the extract from the electoral roll -
as was current on the date the said extract was given to him.
E
(ii) In 1985 the entire electoral roll was not again got
printed.

(iii) The certified copy which was produced along with the
nomination paper was furnished to the appellant on 8.1.1986
after taking into consideration the publication of the supple- F
ments on 31.1.1984, 27 ..11.1984 and 29.1.1985.

(iv) The basic roll along with the supplement or supple-
ments was published on 31.1.1984 and also on 29.1.1985.

Jn answer to a question put in the crqss-examination by the G
learned counsel for the Returning Officer, the Electoral Registration
Officer stated that it was correct that the voters list was finally
published on 29 .1.1985. He also stated that it was not true that on il!e
1 extract Ex. B-1 he put the date of final publication as 31. 1. 1984
because he did not take into consideration the later publications of
27 .11, 1984 and of 29 .1.1985. H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A The appellant, who was a citizen of India and was registered as a
voter applied to the.Electoral Registration Officer of the Shivaji Nagar
Assembly Constituency bona fide for a certified copy of the relevant
entry in the electoral roll containing his name for purposes of produc-
ing it before the Returning Officer under section 33(5) of the 1951 Act.
B A certified copy was accordingly prepared by the officer concerned
and it no doubt stated that the supplement in which the appellant's
name appeared had been last published on 31. 1.1984. It did not say
that it was not published subsequently. But, on the other hand in the
evidence of the Electoral Registration Officer it is stated that even on
29. l.1985 both the original electoral roll and the supplements had
been published. It is not the case of any party that there was another
C electoral roll which was defunct from which the certified copy pro-
duced by the appellant along with the nomination paper had been
prepared. There was only one electoral roll in the office of the
Electoral Registration Officer of the Shivaji N agar Assembly Consti-
tuency. It consisted of the basic roll and the three supplements. The
name of the appellant, as already stated, was in the first supplement
D
which had been published on 31.1.1984 for the first time. There is also
no evidence in this case showing that the name of the appellant had
been deleted from the electoral roll subsequently on account of any
disqualification incurred by him as provided by section 16 of tl;ie 1950
Act.
E We have not been informed that there is any prescribed form in
which a certified copy of the entries in the electoral roll should be
furnished when an application is made for such certified copy for
purposes of section 33(5) of the 1951 Act. There is no prescription
requiring the copy to state the several dates on which the basic roll or
the supplement from which the copy is prepared had been published.
F The certified copy that was produced before the Returning Officer
along with the nomination paper wros less than 24 hours old when it was
presented before the Returning Officer. It was not a certified copy
obtained in 1984 that was being produced in 1986 before the Returning
Officer. No candidate had raised any objection to the nomination
paper of the appellant. The objection, however, had been raised by
G the Returning Officer himself on the 9th January, 1986 when the
appellant filed his nomination paper along with the certified copy
which he had obtained on 8.1.1986. As a consequence of the said
objection he had to rush back to Pune again to obtain another certified
copy. He appeared before the Returning Officer again by abou.t 1.00
H P.M. on the date of the scrutiny and produced the other certified copy.
J.R. NUNEKAR v. G.G. KADAM [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 1077

The Returning Officer, who commenced the, scrutiny of the
A
nomination paper at 11 A.M. on 11.1.1986 proceeded to reject the
nomination paper of the appellant on the ground that the certified
copy of the relevant entry in the electoral roll could not be treated as a
certified copy of an electoral roll which was in force at that time.
Under the proviso to section 36(5) of the 1951 Act it is provided that in
case an objection is raised by the Returning Officer or is made by any B
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. The Returning
'· Officer did not choose to wait even for a few hours on 11.1.1986 to give
a chance to the appellant to make his plea that what had been pro-
duced before him along with the nomination paper was a certified copy c
which could be acted upon or to produce another certified copy which
in fact he did produce at 1 P.M. on 11.1.1986 before the Returning
Officer, even before the final list of candidates, who had filed valid
nomination papers, was published on the notice board. The Returning
Officer had acted on his own information in rejecting the nomination D
paper of the appellant, namely, that there was a revision in 1985 and
' that the certified copy which had been produced was from an ele!'toral
roll which had become defunct. If that was so, he should have secured
the necessary material from the concerned Electoral Registration
Officer and placed it before the appellant before rejecting the nomina-
tion paper. E

It is no doubt true that the .electoral right is a statutory right and
a person who wishes to contest an election should comply with the law
applicable to elections strictly. But in the instant case we find that
there is no default at all on the part of the appellant._He had actually
produced before the Returning Officer a certified copy which he had F
obtained within less than 24 hourse from the Electoral Registration
Officer of the constituency where he was residing and that he had not
done anything to mislead· the Returning Officer. Unless the certified
copy produced before the Returning Officer itself on the face of it
showed that the electoral roll from which a certified copy had been
prepared had been substituted by another electoral roll, the Returning .G
Officer was not justified in not~reating the production of the certified
copy prepared on 8.1.1986 as sufficient compliance under section 33(5)
of the 1951 Act particularly having regard to the close proximity bet-
ween the date of preparation of the certified copy and the date of the
pro,duction of the certified copy. In the circumstances unless there was
any evidence to the contrary the Returning Officer . should have H
[!988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. I-
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

treated the certified copy produced before him as a certified copy of
A the electoral roll for the time being in force of the constituency to
which it related. It is clear from the evidence of the Tahsildar that
there was no other roll which had taken the place of the supplement in
which the name of the appellant had been entered. Even the second
copy supplied on 10.1.1986 had been prepared from the same supple-
B ment. Both the first certified copy and the second certified copy were
copies of the same original. Sub-section (7) of section 36 of the 1951
Act lays down a rule of evidence. It says that a certified copy of an
entry in the electoral roll for the time being in force of a constituency
shall be conclusive evidence of the fact that the person referred to in
that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless it is proved that he r
is subject to a disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the 1950 Act.
c In the absence of any· such objection on the part of any other candidate
or any information which the Returning Officer'may have had with
regard to the disqualification of the appellant, the Returning Officer
should have in the circumstances of this case proceeded to accept the
certified copy produced along with the nomination paper and acted
D upon it. We hold that the certified copy produced along with. the
nomination paper satisfied the requirement of section 33(5) of 1951
Act.

We are of the view that in the circumstances the appellant who
was an innocent person has been denied the right to contest the elec-
E tion unreasonably. We hold that the rejection of the nomination paper
of the appellant was improper. It follows that the election of the !st
respondent should be declared void in view of the provisions contained
in section 100( l)(c) of the 1951 Act. We, therefore, allow this appeal,
set aside the judgment of the High Court and declare the election of the
!st respondent"to tile Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Jaoli (
F constituency void.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel
that the parties must be directed to bear their own costs both in the
High Court and in t?is Court.

G R.S.S. Appeal allowed.

.