# AllDUL AZEEZ v. RAMNATHAN (Hidayatullah, /.)

- **Citation:** [1966] 3 S.C.R. 672
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1966-02-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 435of1965
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/alldul-azeez-v-ramnathan-hidayatullah-3650
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

K. S. ABDt:L AZEEZ
l'.
RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR & ORS.
February 28, 1966
(P. B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCIIOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, A1''D
S. M. S!KRI, JJ.]
The Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 36(4) and
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, r. ~Filling up nomination paper with
one reserved symbol and leaving tire rest blank-If a defect of "substantial
character."
1bc nomination Form prescribed for election to the State Assembly
had a blank space, where a candidate could show three symbols in order
of preference as his symbol.
One of the candidates for election showed
only ooe symbol which was reserved for a political party, and left blank
the rest of the space. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination
paper holding that the defect was of a substantial character. Alleging
that the rejection was improper, two voters filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant who was successful at the ensuing
election. The Tribunal dismissed the petition but, on appeal, the High
Court set aside the election on the ground that the rejection was improper.
In appeal to this Court,
A
B
c
D
HELD: Under s. 36(4) of the Act, the returning officer shall not
reject the nomination paper when the
defect is not of a
substantial
character. The mention of the reserved symbol,
in the first space and
E
leaving blank the rest of the space is covered by the phrase, "failure to
complete, or defect in completing, the declaratioo as to symbols," in the
proviso to r. 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, and was therefore not
defect of a substantial character. [674 E]
•
I
~

## Text

K. S. ABDt:L AZEEZ
l'.
RAMANATHAN CHETTIAR & ORS.
February 28, 1966
(P. B.
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCIIOO,
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH, A1''D
S. M. S!KRI, JJ.]
The Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 36(4) and
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, r. ~Filling up nomination paper with
one reserved symbol and leaving tire rest blank-If a defect of "substantial
character."
1bc nomination Form prescribed for election to the State Assembly
had a blank space, where a candidate could show three symbols in order
of preference as his symbol.
One of the candidates for election showed
only ooe symbol which was reserved for a political party, and left blank
the rest of the space. The Returning Officer rejected the nomination
paper holding that the defect was of a substantial character. Alleging
that the rejection was improper, two voters filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant who was successful at the ensuing
election. The Tribunal dismissed the petition but, on appeal, the High
Court set aside the election on the ground that the rejection was improper.
In appeal to this Court,
A
B
c
D
HELD: Under s. 36(4) of the Act, the returning officer shall not
reject the nomination paper when the
defect is not of a
substantial
character. The mention of the reserved symbol,
in the first space and
E
leaving blank the rest of the space is covered by the phrase, "failure to
complete, or defect in completing, the declaratioo as to symbols," in the
proviso to r. 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules, and was therefore not
defect of a substantial character. [674 E]
•
I
~
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 435of1965
...
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 4, 1963
F
of the Madras High Court in Appeal against Order No. 300 of
1962.
R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the appellant.
R. Mahalingier, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G
Hidayatullab, J. At the last General Election to the Assembly
in the Madras State five candidates filed their nomination papers
for the Nilakottai constituency. The appellant K. S. Abdul Az.ccz
was one of them and at tqe ensuing election he was successful
having polled 4,000 and odd votes in excess of those of his nearest
H
rival. Four other candidates had filed nomination papers and they
included respondents 3 to 5 in this appeal. One of the candidates
withdrew and the nomination paper of the 5th respondent
... •
-
/
\ ..
~
l
I ..
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
AllDUL AZEEZ V. RAMNATHAN (Hidayatullah, /.)
673
(Peyathevar) was rejected at the scrutiny. He had shown in his
nomination paper only one symbol in the spaces provided for three
symbols and that was the star which is reserved for the Swatantra
Party. He was not the accredited candidate of the Swantantra
Party and as he had not shown any other symbol, the nomination
paper was held to contain a defect of substance.
After the election was over two voters (who are respondents 1
and 2 in this appeal) filed an election petition against the appellant
and one of the grounds urged against him was that as the rejection
of the nomination paper of Peyathevar was improper, under s. 100
(l)(c) of the Representation of the People Act the election was void.
Other grounds on which the election was challenged need not
concern us because nothing turns upon them in this appeal. The
Election Tribunal held that the nomination paper was rightly rejected
and dismissed the election in petition negativing the other allegations
to the election at the same time. On appeal by the two voters the
decision of the Tribunal was reversed and it was held that the
nomination paper was improperly rejected and the election of the
appellant was, therefore, void. On hearing Mr. Ganapathy Iyer
and looking into the relevant provision on the subject of symbols
we are satisfied that the decision of the High Court was right.
The matter has to be considered in relation to the Conduct
of Election Rules, 1961. Sub-rule(!) of Rule 5 enables the Election
Commission to specify the symbols that may be chosen by candidates at elections and the restrictions to which their choice shall be
subject. By virtue of this power the Election Commission issued a
notification No. So 2316 dated 19th September, 1961 which showed
in a table the symbols for the Madras Legislative Assembly elections. Some of these symbols were reserved for recognised political
parties and the name of the party was mentioned in brackets against
the reserved symbol. Symbols which were not reserved were "free
symbols" and an independent candidate, such as the appellant,
could choose one of them. If two or more independent candidates
chose the same free symbols lots were to be drawn. These rules
were in the notification and detailed reference to them is hardly
necessary because the matter is perfectly plain.
The question is whether by choosing a symbol reserved for a
political party and by leaving blank the space where he could have
shown two other symbols as his alternative choice, Peyathevar's
nomination paper became so defective that it was rightly rejected.
In this connection we have to see the provision of s. 36( 4) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951. Sub-section(4) provides:
"The returning officer shall not reject any nomination
paper on the ground of any defect which is nrt of a
substantial character."
874
SUPREME COUllT
REPORTS
[1966) 3 S.C.R.
This sub-section must be read with Rule 4 of the Conduct of Election Rules. It provides as follows:-
"Every nomination
paper presented under subsection (I) of section 33 shall be completed in such one
of the Forms 2A to 2E as may be appropriate."
The form appropriate to this election had a blank space where a
candidate could show three symbols in order of preference
as
symbols of his choice. Peyathevar showed only the star in the first
space and left blank the other two places. The nomination paper,
therefore, did not comply with s. 33 read with Rule 4. The nomination paper was, however, saved by the proviso to Rule 4 which
reads:
"Provided that a failure to complete, or defect in
completing, the declaration as to symbols in a nomination
paper in Form 2A or Fonn 2B shall not be deemed to be
defect of a substantial character within the meaning of
sub-section( 4) of section 36."
The Tribunal held that mentioning a reserved symbol and leaving blank the space for alternative symbols, did not come within
this proviso and was a defect of substance. The High Court held
otherwise and, in our opinion, rightly.
In so far as the blank
space is concerned it showed a failure to complete the declaration
as to symbols and where the star was shown as the symbol it amounted to a defect in completing the declaration as to symbol in the
nomination paper. In other words, taking the proviso as a whole
the mention of the star and leaving blank rest of the space was
covered by the composite phrase "failure to complete or defect in
completing the declaration as to symbols."
Mr. Ganapathy Iyer contends that a defect in completing the
symbol is something like putting down "'two bullocks" but omitting
the words "with yoke on" or mentioning the "ears of corn" without
mentioning "the sickle" in describing the reserved symbols for the
Congress and the Communist Parties respectively.
We do not
agree. If an independent candidate named "star," "bicycle" and
"flower" as his preferences there would be no defect in the nomination paper except one, namely, that he i!Jcluded the "star-" a
reserved symbol--to which he was not entitled. The phrase '.'defect
in completing the declaration as to symbols" would obviously cover
such a case and there is no difference between that case and this
where the star is shown in the first space and the rest of the space
i~ left blank. The intention seems to be that the question of symbols
should not play an important part because symbols can be assigned
by political parties till the date for withdrawal and nomination
paper should not be cancelled during the interval.
A
B
c
D
' •
~
E
F
G
H
•
'
(
f
'
·~
' •
-...
•
ABDUL AZEEZ V. RAMNATHAN (Hidayatullah, J.)
675
A
On the whole the decision of the High Court was right in the
B
circumstances of this case and we see no reason to reverse it. The
appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but as none appeared to
contest it there shall be no order as to costs.
Appeal dismissed.