KESHAVversusSHIVAJIRAO & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 249
- Decided
- 24 February 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and directed that the nomination form be scrutinised, leaving any question of validity to be decided through the appropriate statutory remedy.
Summary
The appellant challenged a Bombay High Court order that deleted his name from the electoral roll on the ground that the election programme had not yet been declared. The High Court had relied on the fact that the election programme was pending, while the appellant argued that the programme was published on 17‑18 February 2009, before the High Court reserved the matter. The respondents contended that the appellant’s enrollment on 14 July 2007 was after the statutory cut‑off date of 30 June 2007, rendering him ineligible. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court could pre‑emptively strike the name from the voters list without first scrutinising the nomination paper. It held that the nomination form must be examined and any objection to its validity should be dealt with through the appropriate statutory remedy, not by the High Court’s summary deletion. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and disposed of the appeal, leaving the matter to be decided in the normal electoral process.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing deletion of the appellant’s name from the voters list on the ground that the election programme was not declared.
- Whether the nomination form should be scrutinised before any deletion from the electoral roll.
- Whether enrollment after the statutory cut‑off date disqualifies the appellant.
- What statutory remedy is available for determining the validity of a nomination form.
Subjects
Judgment
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 621
KESHAV A
v.
SHIVAJIRAO & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1178 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 24, 2009
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
GANGULY, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 226 - Writ petition -
Issue as regard of validity of nomination form - Direction by c
High Court that name of appellant be deleted from voters list
as election programme not declared yet - Case of appellant
that election programme was published before order of High
• Court - Respondent's case that appellant's enrollment was
after cut off date - On appeal held: Appellant's nomination form D
to be scrutinized - As regard determination of validity of the
nomination form, the available statutory remedy to be availed
- Order of High Court set aside.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
E
1178 of 2009.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.02.09 of the
High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 74 of 2009.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.2.09 of the F
High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad in W.P. No. 74 of 2009.
U.U. Lalit, Sudhanshu, S. Choudhari, Laxmikanth Patel and
Arundhati Sukhntar for the Appellant.
Uday B. Dube, Kuldip Singh, Chinmoy S. Khaladkar and G
Chandan Ramamurthi for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
621 H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 3 S.C.R.
A DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Taken on Board.
2. Heard Learned counsel for the parties.
3. Leave granted.
B 4. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court Aurangabad
Bench. By the impugned order, the High Court directed that the
present appellant's name be deleted from the voters list. The
High Court entertained the writ petition primarily on the ground
c that the election programme was not declared yet.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
election programme was published on 171h February, 2009. It
appears from the order of the High Court that the matter was
reserved for orders on 11.2.2009 and the judgment was
0 delivered on 20.2.2009.
•
6. From the details of the election programme it appears
that the last date for getting the nomination form is 24.2.2009
and the last date for scrutiny of the nomination form is
E 25.2.2009 and date of the publication of the nomination form
is 26.2.2009. The date of the election is 29.3.2009 and the date
of counting is 30.3.2009.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
apparently the name of the appellant is not entitled to be
F included in the voter list because the cut-off date is 30.6.2007
and the appellant was enrolled on 14.7.2007 i.e. after the cut-
off date.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the
G interpretation put by the High Court is not correct.
9. We need go into this question in view of the order we
propose to pass. Let the petitioner's nomination form be
scrutinized. It is open to the respondent to raise objection about
H the entertainability of the nomination paper. We make it clear
KESHAV v. SHIVAJIRAO & ORS. 623
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
that we have not expressed any opinion about the validity of A
the nomination form or otherwise. Needless to say the objection,
if any, filed by the respondent shall be considered in its proper
perspective uninfluenced by any observations made by the
High Court. Further, if any person has any grievance regarding
the determination of validity, or otherwise of the nomination form B
available statutory remedy can be availed. The order of the High
Court is set aside.
10. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
N.J. Appeal disposed of. · C
--
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.