Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. Mr. L. R. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the object of production of the certified copy is simply to show that the candidate is an elector in a different constituency. Under Section 33(5) of the Act, such a document can even be produced at the time of scrutiny and it is not necessary that it should be filed along with the nomination paper.

23. In Brijendralal Gupta v. Jwalaprasad. AIR 1960 SC 1049 cited by Shri Mehta. the question which arose for consideration was whether omission to specify the age by the respondent No. 5 Udaibhan in his nomination paper amounts to a defect and whether it is a defect of substantial nature under Sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Act. In that case, the Returning Officer noticed the omission and recorded that failure of respondent 5 to declare his age, cannot be treated as a clerical or technical error but is of a substantial nature since declaration as to age was necessary in order to entitle a candidate to be qualified under Article 173 of the Constitution. P. B. Gajendragadkar. J. as he then was, speaking for court held that having regard to the context, it would be unreasonable to hold that the word 'defect' under Section 36 excludes all cases of omission to specify the nomination paper and this contention of the appellant was rejected that omission in question is not a defect under Section 36(4). The next question which was considered in that case was as to whether in case of such an omission, it was obligatory on the Returning Officer to hold an enquiry under Section 36 of the Act. It was observed as under :-- (at Pp. 1053-54) "If the nomination paper of respondent 5 did not comply with the provisions of Section 33 the case fell squarely under Section 36 and the only question which can arise in such a case is whether or not the defect arising from the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33 is of a substantial character or not. If the defect is not of a substantial character the Returning Officer shall not reject the nomination paper on the ground of the said defect; if, on the other hand, the defect is of a substantial character the Returning Officer has to reject the nomination paper on the ground of said defect. That is the effect of the provisions of Section 36(2)(b) and (4) read together. An enquiry which is necessary under Section 36(2)(a) may and can be held for instance in cases where the nomination paper shows the age of the candidate's above 25, but an objection has been raised that in fact he is below 25 and as such incompetent to stand for election under Article 173 of the Constitution; in other words, the impugned nomination has complied with the provisions of Section 33 and as such does not fall under Section 36(2)(b) at all, nevertheless the validity of the nomination can be challenged on the ground that in fact Article 173 is not complied with. Cases falling under this class must be distinguished from cases falling under Section 36. In the latter class of cases the failure to comply with the provisions of Section 33 being established there is no scope for any enquiry under Section 36. Once the alleged non-compliance is proved, the d(sic) nomination falls to be accepted or rejected according as the defect is of an unsubstantial or of a substantial character. Therefore, it is not right to hold that even after the Returning Officer was satisfied that the omission to specify his age showed that the nomination paper of respondent 5 had not complied with the provisions of Section 33, he should still have held an enquiry under Section 36. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 33 itself would justify the rejection of the nomination paper provided of course that the defect arising from the non-compliance in question is of a substantial character."

under Article 173 of the Constitution, inter alia, on his having completed the age of 25 years is an important matter, and it is in respect of such an important matter that the prescribed form requires the candidate to make the declaration. It would, we think, be unreasonable to hold that the failure to make a declaration on such an important matter is a defect of an unsubstantial character.''

24. This contention of the respondent was negatived that "the Returning Officer should not be astute to reject the nomination paper on technical grounds and that in the present case, the Returning Officer should have looked at the electoral roll and satisfied himself, that respondent 5 was duly qualified to stand for the election. His age was 48 years and it was shown in the electoral roll against his name. It was observed in cases of non-compliance of Section 33, which attract the provisions of Section 36, there would be no occasion to hold an enquiry under Section 36(2)(a), The only point to consider in such cases would be whether the defects in question are substantial or not and so the argument that the Returning Officer could have easily verified the age of respondent 5 is not really material in construing Section 36." .

25. Their Lordships also considered the matter in the light of the provision contained in Section 36 of the Act. That aspect is an important aspect of the matter. Section 36 lays down that for the purpose of this Section, a certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll 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 the person in question is subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. It was observed that AIR 1960 SC 1049 at Pp. 1055-56 "the presumption raised under Section 36 would not be enough to justify the plea about the validity of the nomination paper because thesaid presumption only tends to show that the person concerned has completed 21 years of age. It is clear that in regard to persons between 21 to 25 years of age their names would be registered in the electoral roll and so, they would be electors if otherwise qualified and yet they would not be entitled to stand for election to the State Legislature. Thus, it would not be correct to assume that a reference to the certified copy of the electoral roll would in every case decisively show that the age of the candidate satisfied the test prescribed by Article 173 of the Constitution; in other words, the requirement about the completion of 25 years of age is outside the presumption under Section 36 and that must be the reason why the prescribed nomination form requires that the candidate in signing the said form must make a declaration about his age. This Consideration supports our conclusion that the declaration about the age is a matter of importance and failure to comply with the said requirement cannot be treated as a defect of an unsubstantial character."

26. It has been pointed out that in Bijendralal's case, (AIR 1960 SC 1049) (supra), the certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll was not a part of the nomination paper, so, this question directly did not come up for consideration as to what is the effect of such a document which forms part of the nomination paper and which makes mention of the requisite qualification to be possessed by the candidate to stand at the election. So far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, first it is to be seen as to whether the certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll is an 'integral part of the nomination paper. The domination paper is complete by itself and has to be submitted in the prescribed form. Nothing is required to be added to it or to make an integral part of it. Besides that, there is nothing in the nomination paper suggesting that the certified copy is the integral part of the nomination paper. There is no requirement of filing the certified copy of the entry along with the nomination paper. It can even be produced at the time of scrutiny as provided under Section 33. The intention behind filing the certified copy of the entry along with the nomination paper is simply to satisfy the requirement of Section 33(5) of the Act. That filing or production as contemplated in Section 33(5) does not in any way dispense with the making of declaration regarding the age in the nomination paper. The declaration emanates from the candidate himself and such emanation from the candidate is of Utmost importance. So far as the entry of age in the electoral roll is concerned, it may or may not be based on the information of the person concerned and it cannot decisively show that the age of the candidate satisfied the test prescribed by Article 173 of the Constitution as observed in Brijendralai's case (supra). A clear and positive declaration has to be made by the candidate about the requisite qualification of age. The declaration can be supported by an entry in the electoral roll but the electoral list can never be a substitute for declaration. The declaration necessarily has to be made by the candidate himself and an entry made by someonelse cannot be considered to be a declaration of the candidate. It is urged that if the matter is examined in the light of Ganuram's case, (AIR 1984 SC 1513) (supra), the requirement of making declaration regarding the age is satisfied. I am unable to accept this submission. True, in Ganuram's case (supra), certificate by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was made as an annexure to the nomination paper and no additional declaration was given by the candidate regarding his caste and the area in relation to which that caste is a Scheduled Caste of the State. But the certificate stands on a different footing, than filing of a certified copy of the entry in the electoral roll. The certificate is issued at the instance of the party, so, it can be taken to be a version of the person obtaining the certificate but the same cannot be said to be true in respect of the electoral roll/list. Purpose of which, is only to show that the person concerned is an elector in a different constituency. It is only an estimated age based on some enquiry as envisaged in the Rules, which is recorded in the electoral list, so, such an entry cannot be equated with the declaration regarding the age to be made in the nomination form.