Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Returning Officer was not obligated to examine the entire electoral roll to rectify the serial‑number error, the error was not a substantial defect, and the nomination papers were validly rejected, leading to the reversal of the High Court’s order.

Summary

In a 1983 by‑election for the Fatehabad Assembly constituency, Lila Krishan was declared elected, but two rival candidates, Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak, had their nomination papers rejected because the serial numbers of their proposers were shown as 126 and 177 instead of the correct 26 and 77. The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the election, holding that the Returning Officer had maliciously altered the papers and acted mala fide. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the Returning Officer was statutorily required to scour the entire electoral roll to correct such clerical errors and whether the error constituted a substantial defect under s.33(4) and s.36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court found no evidence that the Returning Officer caused the insertion of the extra digit and held that the duty to verify the entire roll was not imposed by law; the mistake was not a substantial defect. Consequently, the rejection of the nomination papers was deemed valid and the High Court’s decision was reversed, upholding Lila Krishan’s election.

Issues considered

The extent of the Returning Officer's duty under s.33(4) and s.36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to verify and correct serial‑number errors in nomination papers.
Whether the insertion of the digit ‘1’ in the serial numbers was attributable to the Returning Officer and whether there is sufficient evidence of mala fide conduct.
Whether the rejection of the two nomination papers on the ground of serial‑number mismatch constitutes a substantial defect rendering the rejection invalid.
Whether the High Court erred in setting aside the election of the appellant.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 7
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(c), s. 116A(1), s. 33(4), s. 36(1), s. 36(4)

Subjects

Representation of the People Actnomination papersscrutiny of nominationsserial number errorreturning officersubstantial complianceelectoral rollelection petitionby‑election

Judgment

S92
I LILA KRISHAN
.A
'·
MANI RAM GODARA & ORS
May8, 1985
B
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND
RANGANATH MISRA JJ.)

Representation of the People Act, 1951, u. 33 (4) and 36(4)-S;rutiny of
Nomination Papers-Scope of-Whether Returning Officer is under an obligation
c to rerlfy the entire Electoral Ro!/ to establish identity of proper.

Respondents challenged in the High Court the election of the appcl1ant
to Fatehbad Constituency of the Haryana Legislative Assembly under s.100(1)
(c) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 (Act, for short) on the ground
that the nomination papers of two candidates being Mani Ram Chhapola and
D Raj Tilak had been improperly rejected by the Returning Officer. The proi:>oscr
of Mani Ram Chhap.;:,la was one Brij Bhushan while the proposer of Raj Tilak
was one Upender Kumar. Brij Bbush3n's serial number in the electoral roll was
26 while Upender Kumar's was 77. In Form 3A, these numbers were correctly
indicated. But in the nomination papers the numbers had been shoWn as 126
and 177 respectively The Returning Officer rejectc-d these nomination papers
as the serial number or the proposers as disclosed in the nomination papers
E did not tally with reference to the electoral roll. The l{igh Court set aside the
election of the appellant holding that the Returning O_fficer acted mala fide
and had either directly or indirectly been respoilsihle for the alteration in the
nomination p'apers, sinCe the nomination papCrs when filed were in order and
while they were in the custody of the Returning Officer's Establishment, inter
polations had been made and on the basis thereof the nomination papers had
been rejected.
F
Allowing the appeal to this Court by the appellant,

HELD: 1. (i) When admittedly the nomination papers have been
G handled by the staff in the establishment of the Returning Officer and by the
candidates and _their agents before scrutiny began, it is difficult to ascribe the'
insertion of figure "1' to the Return-ing Officer. Therefore, the conclusion of
the High Court that the Returning Officer either by himself or through some·
body caused the interpolation to be done is totaUy unwarranted even if this
Court accepts as a fact that the figure a1• appearing before the rest of the
number in the column for serial number in the electoral roll was not there
when the nomination papers had been flied. Strictly speaking. the insertion
· in the instant case is a forgery and anlounts to a criminal etc. - To put that
· re!ponsibility on the Returning Officer without cosent evidence is hishly
improper. [597H; S98A; C.Dj
LILA KRISHAN V. M.R. GODARA 593

1. (ii) From the evidence it is clear th?t the nomination papers were
taken up for scrutiny one after the other and the Returning Officer has stated
that he used to pass orders either of acceptance or rejection of each of the
nomination papers after due scrutiny. That position has aJso been accepted
by witnesses on the sides of the election petitioners. The evidence on the
side of the election petitioners does indicate that the nomination papers were
first shown to the candidates and their agents and scrutiny followed thereafter.
The Returning OfHcer had denied, as already pointed out, that he had made
an open declaration that all the nomination papers were in order. Mani Ram B
Chhapola has admitted in his deposition that by 2 P.M. on the date of scrutiny
the fact that his nomination paper had been rejected on the ground indicated
had been notified to him by the Returning Officer. If the Returning Officer
wanted to play any mischief he could have avoided intimating the fact of
rejection or at any rate delayed the same. In the absence of cogent evidence
on the side of the election petitioners and accepting the evidence of the
Returning Officer that he had scrutinised the nomination papers one after the
c
other and contemporaneously accepted or rejected the same by providing
grounds of rejection, there is no doubt that contemporaneous order rejecting
the nomination papers had been made i.n the instant cases. [598 F-H; 599AJ

2(i) Indisputably the insistence on disclosure of the serial nwnber in
the prescribed column against the proposer is for the purpose of identifying the
D
proposer and ascertaining that he is competent to propose. The scope of
scrutiny is obviously to verify the contents of the nomination paper with a
view to ascert~ining whether the form is in order and what is required to be
complied with by the election law has been duly complied with. This Court
has repeatedly held that election proceedings are &trict in nature and what is
required to be performed in a particular manner has to be done as required E
and substantial compliance has ordinarily no place while dealing with the Act
or the Rules made thereunder. That is why an exception has been made by
insersing sub-s. (4) of s.36 of the Act. Therefore, to cast the oJligation of the
Returning Officer to look through the entire electoral roll of a particular part
with a view to finding out the identity of the proposer is not the requiren1ent of
the law. To read that as an obligation is likely to lead to a unworkable
position. [601 C-FJ F

-· 2(ii) The contents of the proviso to S.33 sub-s. (4) aad the prom 1ons
of sub-s. (4) of s. 36 of the Act when read together make it clear that the
mistake with reference to the serial number was such an error in this case
which could be corrected. Under section 36(1) of the Act, on the date fixed
for scrutiny of nominations, election agents, one proposer of each candidate G
and one another person duly authorised in writing by each candidate are
entitled to appear before the Returning Officer, and such persons are entitled'
to reasonable facilhies for examining the nomination papers The purpose of
making such provision is to facilitate scrutiny. The presence of candidate
his election agent and another person acquainted with the Constituency would
certainly facilitate the process of scrutiny. Defects covered by the proviso H
to s. 33(4) could easily be resolved if people authorised under s. 36(1) of the
Act are present at the time of the scrutiny. (603 B-D]
594 SUPllEMll COUllT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL. S.C.R.
2(iii) In the ln!tant COie, no one wa1 avail•blo, for ln1tanco, when tht
A Returning Officer took up the nomination paper of tvfani Ram Chhapola, to
indicate to the Returning Officer that his serial number in the electoral roll
was 26 and not 126. If this had been pointed out and on summary enquirr
Returning Officer was satisfied that it was a mistake, clerical in nature, and
the identity ofBrij Bhushan was not in dispute, there would have been end of
the matter. If the correlation has not been made and the Returning Officer
has no assistance to fix up the identification it cannot be said to be a defect not
B of substantial character. Moreover, it could not be statutory obligation of tht
Returning Officer to scrutinise the electoral roll for finding out the identity o!
the proposer when the serial number turns out to be wrong But if interested
and competent persons point out to the Returning Officer that it is a mistake, it
would certainly be his obligation to look into the matter to find out whether
the mistake, is inconsequential and has, therefore, either to be pennittcd to be
c corrected or to be overlooked. When scrutiny was taken up Mani Ram
Chhapola and Raj Tilak on their own showing were not present before the
Returning Officer. Similarly, the proposers 1 Brij Bhushan and Upender
Kumar were also absent. Though there is evidence on the side of the
election petitioners that the Assistant Returning Officer was present at the time
of scrutiny, he as PW.4 has categorically denied that fact. The Returning
Officer, RW.3, has stated that the Assistant Returning Officer was not present
D when he took up scrutiny on the nomination papers. There is also evidence fron1
the side of the appe1lant that the Assistant Returning Officer was not present.
In the circumstances, if the nomination papers have been rejected for mistake
in the nomination papers it is the candidates themselves who have to thank
their lot and no mistake can be found with the Returning Officer. Therefore,
the nomination papers were validly rejected. Brij Mo/;an v. Sat Pa/1 C.A. No.
2650/84 disposed of on 13.3.85 followed. [603 E-H; 599 B·D; 604 B·C]
E
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4123 of
1984.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.84 of the Punjab and
F Haryana High Court in E.P. No. I of 1984.

H.L. Sibal, O.C. Mathur, S. Sukumaran and D.N. Misra for
the Appellant.

G S.N. Kacker, Mahabir Singh, L.K. Pandey, N. S. Bishnoi, P.K.
Sandhir and D.K. Garg for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under Section 1!6A(l) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act' for short) is direc-
ted against the jud(lmen,t of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
,.
LILA KRISHAN v. M,R, GODARA (Ragganath Misaa, J.) 595

setting aside the election of the appellant to Fatehabad Constituency
of the Haryana Legislative Assembly. By Notification dated A
November 23, 1983, the Constituency was called upon to elect a
member at the by-election. November 30, 1983, was appointed as
the last date for receipt of nomination papers. Scrutiny was scheduled
for December l, 1983. Poll was held on December 23, 1983 and
appellant was declared as the returned candidate by securing 1339
B
votes in excess of votes polled by respondent I who had been
fielded as the common opposition candidate. On February 2, 1984,
the respondents filed an Election Petition asking the election of the
appellant to be set aside on the ground provided under s.lOO(l)(c) of
the Act by the pleading that the nomination pappers of two candi-
dates being Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak had been improperly c
rejected by the Returning Officer.

The appellant pleaded that the nomination papers were defec-
tive and, therefore, liable to be rejected and the Returning Officer
had acted properly in rejecting them. It was further pleaded that
defective nomination papers had been intentionally filed with a view D
to challenging the election in case it went in favour of the appellant.

Both sides led oral evidence. On the side of the election
petitioners, the Assistant Returning Officer among others was examined
as PW.4 while for the returned candidate (respondent before the High E
Court), the Returing Officer was examined as R. W.3. The nomina-
tion papers as also the orders of rejection were produced and duly
exhibited. The High Court came to hold that the nomination papers
when filed were in order and while they were in the custody of the
Returning Officer's establishment, interpolations had been made and
on the basis thereof the nomination papers had been rejected. Though F
the election petitioners failed to establish their plea contained in
paragraph 16 of the election petition that the Returning Officer acted
ma/a fide at the behest of the Chief Minister of the State, the Court

-- took the view that the Returning Officer acted ma/a fide and had
either directly or indirectly been responsible for the alteration in the
nomination papers. Accordingly the election has been set aside
and the Returning Officer's codduct has been criticised and he has
been directed by the High Court to share the liability of half the costs
G

of the election petition. The Returing Officer had filed a separate
appeal which is being disposed of today by a separate judgment.
H
There is no dispute before us that if the nominations of the
two candidates-Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak are found to
596 SUPRBMB COURT RBPDRTS (1985] SUPPL, s.c.R.

have been improperly rejected the election of the appellant must be
A held to have been rightly set aside. That is the effect of s.100(1) (c)
of the Act. The only question relevant for the disposal of this
appeal is, therefore, to examine and decide whether the High Court
was right in its conclusion that the two nomination papers had been
improperly rejected. The relevant nomination papers relating to
Mani Ram Chapola and Raj Tilak have been produced and proved
B as Exhibits P-1 and P-6 respectively. The orders made by the
Returning Officers rejecting the two nomination papers have also been
produced and marked as Exhibits. Similarly, the notice in statutory
form 3A as required under rule 7 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
1961, to be published in the notice board of the Returning Officer
c has been produced and exhibited.

The Returing officer's order of rejection in respect of both the
nomination papers is almost in similar terms. We, therefore, propose
to extract one of them for convenience. The order of rejection reads
thus:
D
"S.No. of the vote of proposer does not tally with
S. No. mentioned in voter list. Hence rejected."

The order is cryptic and there is force in the submission of Mr.
E Kacker appearing for the respondents that the order has to be inter•
preted; otherwise it makes no meaning. All parties have agreed
before us that the true import of the order is that the serial
number of the proposer disclosed in the nomination paper did not
tally with the serial number given in the electoral roll. On that
F ground each of the nomination papers has been rejected.

It is the case of the election petitioners and the High Court has
accepted that stand that the nomination papers were received by
the Assistant Returning Officer, PW.4, and he caused the
notice in form 3A to be prepared for being put in the notice board.
G The proposer of Mani Ram Chapola was one Brij Bhushan while tbe
proposer of Raj Tilak was one Upender Kumar. Brij Bhushan's serial
in the electoral roll was 26 while Upender Kumar's was 77. In form
3A these numbers have been correctly indicated. But in the nomina·
H tion papers the number have been shown as 126 and 177 respectively.
The discrepancy has arisen on account of the appearance of the
figure '1' before tlte correct number in the e\e~troal roll. The Assisant
Returning Officer P. W.4 b,as stated ;
LILA ICRI~HAN Y. M.R· GODARA (Ranganath Misra, J.) 597

"I had received the nomination papers from the
candidates who wanted to contest election to the Fateha- A
bad constituency in the by-election between 26.11. 1983 to
30.11.1983 in my capacity as Assistant Returning Officer
of that constituency. l have seen Ex P.I"I, the nomina-
tion paper of Shri Mani Ram Cbapola and Ex.P6, the
nomination paper of Shri Raj Tilak when I received B
these two nomination papers. I had compared the vote
number of the candidate and the proposer with the elec-
toral roll of that constituency."

The witness further said :
c
"The correct position of these nomination papers
which I found regarding the vote numbers of the candi-
date and the proposer is refiected in notice in form 3A,-
the office copy of which is Ext. P-3 and the original
taken away from the notice board and produced by the D
election petitioners has been marked as Ex.P-10".

In view of the statement by PW .4, the High Court was right in
its conclusion that the respective nomination papers contained the
correct serial numbers in the electoral roll of the proposer in each of E
them. These nomination papers were made over by the Assistant
Returning Officer between 9 and 9.30 A.M. to the Naib Tashsildar
incharge of elections on December J, 1983, under in,tructions from
the Returning Officer. December I, 19~3. was the date appointed for
scrutiny and as the evidence shows, the Assistant Returning Officer
was not available at the time of scrutiny as deposed to by him as F
also by the Returning Officer. There is no evidence that the nomina-
tion papers were handled by the Naib Tahsildar, Elections, and the
Kanungo, Elections, as also other members of the staff al the time
when form 3A was typed out. Even when the work of scrutiny
began the nomination papers which were 45 in number were taken by G
the candidates and their agents for inspection and for some time they
were handled by them. We have looked into the nomination papers
wtih great care but by merely looking at them it is difficult to say
at what point of time the figure 'I' has been inserted in the preseribed
column against the proposer's serial number in both of them. When B
admittedly the nomination papers have been handled by the staff in
the establishment of the Returning Officer and by the candidates and
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPPL. s.c.!l.

their agents before scrutiny began, it is difficult to ascribe the inser-
A tion of figure 'I' to the Returning Officer. We agree with the High
Court that for the effective functioning of democracy in a large polity
as ours the election process h·as got to be free from blemish and
officers in whom trust has been reposed to conduct the electoral
process in a fair and decent way cannot be permitted to hobnob or
interpolate with valuable documents like nomination papers. At the
B
same time it must be remembered that the credibility of public
officers assigned the sacred trust should not be doubted on mere
suspicion and without acceptable evidence. The conclusion of the
High Court that the Returning Officer either by himself or through
somebody caused the interpolation to be done is totally unwarranted
c even if we accept as a fact that the figure 'I' appearing before the
rest of the number of the column for serial number in the electoral
roll was not there when the nomination papers had been filed.
Strictly speaking, the insertion in the instant case is a forgery and
amounts to a criminal act. To put that responsibility on the Return-
ing Officer without cogent evidence is highly improper and the
D conclusion of the High Court does not commend itself to us.

The election petitioners had pleaded that they were present
before the Returning Officer when the process of the scrutiny started.
They alleged that the Returning Officer made an announcement that
E all the nomination papers were in order and after beaming the same
most of them and in particular the two candidates whose nomination
papers were rejected went away. From the evidence it is clear that
the nomination papers were taken up for scruting one after the other
and the Returning Officer has stated that he used to pass orders
either of acceptance or rejection of each of the nomination papers
F after due scrutiny. That position has also been accepted by witnesses
on the election petitioners. The evidence on the side of the election
petitioners does indicate that the nomination papers were first shown
to the candidates and their agents and scrutiny followed thereafter.
The Returning Officer has denied, as already pointed out, that he had
G made an open declaration that all the nomination papers were in
order. Mani Ram Chhapola has admitted in his deposition that by
2 P.M. on the date of scrutiny the fact that his nomination paper
had been rejected on the ground indicated has been notified to him
by the Returning Officer. If the Returning Officer wanted to play
H any mischief he could have avoided intimating the fact of rejection
or at any rate delayed the same. In the absence of cogent evidence on
the side of the election petitions and accepting the evidence of the
LiLA KRISHAN v. M.R, GODARA (Ranganath Mi1ra, J.) 599

Returning Officer that he had scrutinised the nomination papers oue
after the other and contemporaneously accepted or reject6d the same A
by providing grouuds of rejection, we hold that the orders of rejection
nomination papers in the two casses relevant for the appeal, contem-
poraneous ordered had been made.

When scrutiny was taken up Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj
Tilak on their own showing were not present before the Returning B
Officer. Similarly, the proposers, Brij Bhushan and Upender Kumar
were also absent. Though there is a evidence on the side of the
election petitioners that the Assistant Returning Officer was present
at the time of scrutiny, he as P. W.4 bas categorically denied that fact
The Returning Officer, R W.3 has stated that the Assistant Returning
Officer was not present when he took up scrutiny of the nomination
c
papers. There is also evidence from the side of the appellant that the
Assistant Returning Officer was not present. We accept as a fact
that the Assistant Returning Officer was not present at the time of
llcrutiny. There were 45 nomination papers to be scrutinised. It is
the evidence of the Returning Officer that he scrutinised all the nomi- D
nation papers one by one. PW .5 who is a practising Advocate and
was a proposer of one of the election petitioners examined as PW.3
bas stated :

"After the departure of some of the. people, the
Returning Officer compared the entries in the nomination
E
papers one by one with the relevant electoral rolls."

T In view of such evidence there was no justification to hold otherwise.

The evidence of RW.4, the Returning Officer was placed before F
us once by Mr. Sibal for the appellant and over again by Mr. Kacker
for the respondents. The Returning Officer has deposed that he
passed the orders of rejection of nomination papers at the time of
.... scrutiny and he rejected those nomination papers as the serial number
of the proposers as disclosed in the nomination papers did not tally
with refernce to the electoral roll. G

In the two nomination papers the Returning Officer put tick
marks against the name of the candidate as also the name of the
proposer and specification of the part in the electoral roll of the
proposer. He has put cross marks as against the serial number.
H
R W.3, stated in Court : "At the time of scrutiny I had the nomina-
tion papers before me. The election staff, including Election Naib-
600 SUPREME co\JRT REPoRTS (198)) SUPPL. S.t.ll,

Teshsildar, Quanungo, etc. were helping me in tracing out the relve-
A vant entries from other records, like electoral rolls etc. When after
location they used to put before me, I used to tick-mark on the
nomination papers. At the time of scrutiny when I found the
entries in the nomination papers are correct, I used to tick-mark
each entry. In Lose nomination papers I found the entries not to
B be tallying with the other records and on this basis I found those to
be incorrect, I used to put cross." Coming to the specific nomination
papers, the witness stated : "I have seen nomination paper Ex.P-1 of
Shri Mani Ram Chhapola. In this after reading the name of Brij
Bhushan I tick-marked it because that was held correct. I have cros-
sed his vote number because it was not found to tally with the
c electoral roll." The witness again said : "I had seen vote number
126 in the relvant voters list, which did not contain the name of Brij
Bhushan:" With reference to tick marks in Ext. P· l which is the
nomination paper of Mani Ram Chbapola, we find that there
has really been no tick mark against the name of Brij Bhushan, the
proposer. If the Returning Officer had really put a tick mark
D against the name of Brij Bhushan there should have been four tick
marks with pencil. As :a fact there are only three tick ma1 ks.
Mr. Kacker strongly contended that in view of the statement
of the witness he had tick marked the name of Brij Bhushan
we must not entertain a different view by a look at the docu-
E ment. Having seen the document with some amount of care
and having looked into other nomination papers for the
pattern of tick marking by the Retunring Officer, we have no doubts
in our mind that the statement by the witness has been made out of
confusion. We cannot loss sight of the fact that the Returning
Officer had accusations to face and he was possibly puzzled and bewil-
F dered when he was facing cross - examination. The tick mark appear-
ing above the name of Brij Bhushan related to the candidate's parti·
culars. As we have just pointed out, if Brij Bhushan's name had
been tick marked, one more tick mark should inevitably be found in

G
the document. Similar comments are available with reference to the
nomination paper of Raj Tilak. The stand adopted by Mr. Kacker,
...
learned counsel for the election petitioners-respondents is that if Brij
Bhushan name had been tick-marked, even if the serial number was
wrong by the time the nomination paper came before the Returing
Officer, finding out the correct serial number was not a problem and
H the Returning Officer who was being assisted by other public officers
would have easily found it out. Connected with this stand and the
submission, reliance is placed on s.36(4) of the Act which provides
LILA KR1S!IAN v. M.R. GODARA (Ranganath Misra, J.) 601

that tbe Returning Officer shall not reject any nomination paper on
the ground of any defect which is not of a substantial character. A

We have already come to the conclusion .that the Returning
Officer had not ticked the names of Brij Bhushan and Opender
Kumar. Mr. Kacker not being satisfied with that conclusion which
we had indicated during hearing, relied upon the position that the B
Returning Officer personally knew both Brij Bhushan and U pender
Kumar and there could be no difficulty in the Returning Officer
fixing them up properly with refernce to the electoral roll. This
aspect requires closer examination.

Indisputably the insistence on disclosure of the serial number
c
in the prescribed column against the proposer is for the purpose of
identifying the proposer and ascertaining that he is competent to
proporn. The scope of scrutiny is obviously to verify the contents
of the nomination paper with a view to ascertaining whether the
form is in order and what is required to be complied with by the D
election law has been duly complied with. This Court has repeatedly
held that election proceedings are strict in nature and what is required
to be perfomed in a particular manner has to be done as required
and substantial compliance has ordinarily no place while dealing
with the Act or the Rules made thereunder. That is why an excep-
tion has been made by tins~rting sub·s.(4) of s.36 of the Act. E

The Returning Officer made reference to the electoral roll and
did not find the name of the proposer against the disclosed serial
nnmber in either case. The High Court has taken the view that it
was the obligation of the Returning Officer to verify the electoral F
roll and find out the serial number, the mistake, if any, was not of
substantial character so as to expose the nomination papers to rejec-
tion and the rejection on such a ground was improper. To cast
the obligation on the Returning Officer to look through the entire
electoral roll of a particular part with a view to finding out the identity
G
of the proposer is not the requirement of the law. To read that as
an obligation is likely to lead to a unworkable position. The prescri-
bed form of nomination (form 2·B) does not require to specify the
name of the father of the proposer. That actually does not
become necessary because once the name and the serial number in H
the voters' list are given, the cross-verification become easy and the
father's name is available in the electaral roll. In one part of the
electoral roll on the average names of about a thousand voters
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198SJ SUPPL. S.C.R.
appear. Out of one thousand name it is quite possible that there
A would be more than one voter by the same names. Identification of
any particular voter out of such list even when there are more voters
with the same name is possible only with further reference to the
father's name. To cast the obligation of verifying the entire electoral
roll of a particular part is actually requiring the Returning Officer
B to do almost an impossible fact. It may not be so if there be a few
candidates and it be a case of a by-election but when general election
takes place and every Returning Officer is supposed to handle about
seven or eight Assembly Constituencies and there may be instances
of even 300 candidate contesting from one seat as it happened in the
1985 elections in the Belgaum Constituency of Karantaka State, the
c Returning Officer would find it physically impossible to grapple with
such a situation. The election schedule is a very tight one. Under
the law the day following the last day fixed for receipt of nomi·
nation papers is the date of scrutiny and soon thereafter follo" s the
date fixed for withdrawal. If nomination papers are not scrutinised
D with due haste and promptness the election schedule may not be
operative in the strict manner and dislocation are bound to follow.

It is not the submission of Mr. Kacker, and rightly so, that
even if the Returning Officer has not been in a position to the propo·
ser with refernce to his serial number in the electoral roll, he can
E accept the nomination paper to be valid. If that to be so, it is the
obligation of the Returning Officer to comply with the requirements
of the law by satisfying himself that the name of the candidate has
been proposed by a voter entitled to propose. The proviso to s.33,
sub·s.(4), run thus:
F
"Provided that no 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 elec·
toral roll or the nomination paper and no electoral
G technical or printing error in regard to the electoral roll
numbers of any such person in the elecoral 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 in such as to be
commonly understood and the returning officersh all permit
t1tA KRISHAN v. M.R. GODARA (k.anganath Misra, J.) 603

any such misnomer or inaccurate description, clerical,
technical or printing error in the electoral roll or in the A
nomination paper shall be overlooked."

The contents of the aforesaid proviso and the provisions of sub-s.(4)
of s.36 when read together make it clear that the mistake with refernce
to the serial number was such an error in this case which could be
corrected. Under section 36(1) of the Act, on the date fixed for
B
scrutiny of nominations election agents, one proposer of each candi-
date and one other person dully authorised in writing by each candi-
date are entitled to appear before the Returning Officer, and such
persons are entitled to reasonable facilities for examining the nomi-
nation papers. The purpose of making such provision is to facili- c
tate scrutiny. The presence of candidate, bis election agent and
another person acquainted with the Constituency would certainly
facilitate the process of scrutiny. Defects covered by the proviso to
s.33(4) could easily be resolved if people authorised under s. 36(1) of
the Act are present at the time of the scrutiny. What could be
resolved or overlooked in case proper stops were taken in due D
time has become a major issue leading to rejection of nomi-
nation papers in the instant case mainly on account of the
absence of the candidate, their election agents of persons
interested in them at the time of scrutiny. No one was available, for
instance, when the Returning Officer took up the nomination paper E
of Mani Ram Cbhapola, to indicate to the Returning Officer that
his serial number in the electoral roll was 26 and not 126. If this
bad been pointed out and on summary enquiry the Returning Officer
was satisfied that it was a mistake, clerical in natural, and the iden-
tity of Brij Bhushan was not in dispute, there would have been end
of the matter. If the correlation has not been made and the Return-
F
ing Officer has no assistance to fix up the identification it cannot
be said to be a defect not of substantial character. We reiterate that
it could not be a statutory obligation of the Returning Oflicer to
scrutinse the electoral roll for finding out the identity of the proposer
when the serial number turns out to be wrong. But if interested G
and competent persons point out to the Returning Officer that it is a ·
mistake, it would certainly be his obligation to look into the matter
to find out whether the mistake is inconsequential and bas, therefore,
either to be permitted to be corrected or to be overlooked.
H
-· As a result of scrutiny nomination papers are either accepted
or rejected. Once a nomination paper is rejected, the candidaet
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985] SUPPL. s.c.R.

loses his opportunity to contest and is kept out from the electoral
A fray. Every genuine candidate is expected to be very much interested
in ensuring clearance of his nomination paper at the stage of scru-
tiny. It is indeed surprising that before scrutiny was done and the
nomination papers were accepted by the Returning Officer, the two
candidates and people interested in them went away from the place
B of scrutiny and did not remain available to the Returning Officer.
In the.circumstances, if the nomination papers have been rejected for
mistakes in the nomination papers it is the candidates themselves who
have to thank their lot and no mistake can be found with the Return-
ing Officer. We may not be understood to say that a mistake of
the type if properly clarified would not be unsubstantial in character.
c But if the Returning Officer is not in a position to correlate and
idenify the proposer, the mistake would indeed be not one which can
be covered by sub·s.(4) of s 36 of the Act. That view has been taken
recently by this Court in Brij Mohan v. Sat Pa/( 1 ), to which two of us
are parties. We endorse the ratio of the decision and applying
the same, we agree with Mr. Sibal that the nomination papers were
D validly rejected in this case. Mr. Sibal thereafter contended that
Mani Ram Chhapola and Raj Tilak had designedly entered wrong
references to the electoral roll in re>pect of their proposers with a
view to challenging the election of the returned candidate if necessary.
The evidence on record is not impressive as apart from bare sugges-
E tions there is no material worth the name to accept it as a fact.
We are also of the view that once we have reached the conclusion
in the manner indicated above, it is totally unnecessary to go into
such an aspect. On the analysis indicated, the view taken by the
High Court cannot be sustained. We allow the appeal, vacate the
F judgment of the High Court and uphold the election of the appellant
as the returned candidate from the Constituency in question. The
appellant shall be entitled to his costs before the High Court as also
before this Court. Hearing fee in this Court is assessed at. Rs. 3,000

M.L.A. Appeal allowed.
H
(I) Civil Appeal No. 2650/84 disposed of on 13.3.85.