# AMOLAK CHAND v. RAGHUVEER SINGH

- **Citation:** [1968] 3 S.C.R. 246
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1968-02-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1352 of 1967
- **Bench:** J. C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, G. K. Mitter
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/amolak-chand-v-raghuveer-singh-4359
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Repre:«nt«tion of the People Act, 1955, ss. 33, 36-0ne el.ctor whetlier
niay propose· two candidates in a single me,nber constituency-Candidale
unn~enarily filling caste colu111n in nomlnation paper-Nomination paper
whether liable to he rejecud.
The appellant and the respondent were rival candidates for election to
the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the 1967 general election.
Besides t~ two other candidates had filed nomination papers but these
were rejected on the ground that they had both been proposec\ by the same
elector.
The appellant won the election.
The respondent in his election
petition before 1hc High Coun urged that the election had to be set aside
because the nomination papers of the aforesaid two candidates had been
wrongly rejected. The High Court held the election to be void.
Under
s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 the appellant came
to this Court,
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
(i) After the amendment made by Act 27 of 1956, there is no longer
any express ban or prohibition under ss. 33 and 36 of the Representation
of the People Act against an «?leotor proposing more than one candidate in
a single seat constituency, nor' is there such a necessary implication in any
other provision of the Act. On the other hand the said amendment indi·
cotes that it was the intention of Parliament that there should be no ban
on the. number of candidates to be proposei by an elector for a single
seat constituency. [248 D-249 BJ
• ·
(ii) The two candidates whose nomination papers were rejected, un~
necessarily filled the column indicating their caste. Such a requirement is
there only for resei:ved seats. But there is nothing in s. 33 (2) or in the
rules forbidding the candidate from mentioning his caste, and the mention
of ca~te therefore did not invalidate the nomination papers. [249 HJ

## Text

AMOLAK CHAND
v.
RAGHUVEER SINGH
February 22, 1968
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J
Repre:«nt«tion of the People Act, 1955, ss. 33, 36-0ne el.ctor whetlier
niay propose· two candidates in a single me,nber constituency-Candidale
unn~enarily filling caste colu111n in nomlnation paper-Nomination paper
whether liable to he rejecud.
The appellant and the respondent were rival candidates for election to
the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the 1967 general election.
Besides t~ two other candidates had filed nomination papers but these
were rejected on the ground that they had both been proposec\ by the same
elector.
The appellant won the election.
The respondent in his election
petition before 1hc High Coun urged that the election had to be set aside
because the nomination papers of the aforesaid two candidates had been
wrongly rejected. The High Court held the election to be void.
Under
s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 the appellant came
to this Court,
HELD : The appeal must be dismissed.
(i) After the amendment made by Act 27 of 1956, there is no longer
any express ban or prohibition under ss. 33 and 36 of the Representation
of the People Act against an «?leotor proposing more than one candidate in
a single seat constituency, nor' is there such a necessary implication in any
other provision of the Act. On the other hand the said amendment indi·
cotes that it was the intention of Parliament that there should be no ban
on the. number of candidates to be proposei by an elector for a single
seat constituency. [248 D-249 BJ
• ·
(ii) The two candidates whose nomination papers were rejected, un~
necessarily filled the column indicating their caste. Such a requirement is
there only for resei:ved seats. But there is nothing in s. 33 (2) or in the
rules forbidding the candidate from mentioning his caste, and the mention
of ca~te therefore did not invalidate the nomination papers. [249 HJ
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1352 of
1967.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of People Act,
1951 from the judgment and order dated August 25, 1967 of
the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench in Election Petition No. 2 of 1967.
S. V. Gupte, Rameshwar Nath and Mahinder Narain, for ·the
appellant.
D. D. Varma and Ganpat Rai for the respondent.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought unde; s. 116-A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951, hereinafter referred to as the
•
AMOLAK CHAND v. RAGHUVEER (Ramaswami, I.)
247
A
·Act', from the judgment of ·the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
dated August 25, 1967 in Election Petition No. 2 of 1967 whereby the High Court held that ~he election of the appellant from
Barwaha Vidhan Sabha Constituency held on February 20, 1967
was void.
B
c
D
The appellant was a candidate at the election of the Legisla·
live Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh from Barwaha
Constituency held on February 20, 1967. The respondent was a
candidate for election from the same Constituency. Besides the
appellant and the responden.t, there were two other candidates,
namely,· Nathu son of Rupa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram.
There were two nomination papers filed for Nathu son of Rupa,
one nomination paper (R-3) was filed on January 19, 1967 at
2.12 p.m. and the second nomination paper (R-1) was filed on
January 20, 1967 at 12.47 p.m. The nomination paper of Sita
Ram son of Sadhu Ram (R·l) was also filed on January 20,
1967 at 2.32 p.m. In all the three nomination papers, the name
of the candidate was proposed by one Sharawan son of Gheesa,
an elector from that Constituency. On January 21, 1967, the
Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers of the two candidates, Nathu son of R,upa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram on
the ground that the same elector could not propose two different
candidates for the same Consituency. At the polling which took
E
place on February 20, 1967 the appellant was declared elected to
the Assembly from the aforesaid Constituency on February 22,
1967 by the Returning Officer.
On March 29, 1967, the respondent filed an Election Petition under s. 80 of the Act in the
High Court against 1he appellant. The respondent sought a decla·
ration that the election of the appellant was void under s. lOO(c)
F
G
H
of the Act on the ground that the nomination papers of Nathu son
of Rupa and Sita Ram son of Sadhu Ram were improperly rejected.
By its judgment dated August 25, 1967, the High Court
accepted the contention of the respondent and declared the elec·
lion of the appellant from Barwaha Constituency to be void.
On behalf of the appellant Mr. Gupte put forward the argument that under the scheme and policy of the Act an elector can
propose only one candidate for a single seat Constituency and not
more than one candidate and if more than one nomination is
made for a single seat Constituency, all the i:iominations should be
taken to be null and void. We are unable to accept this argument
as correct. Section 33(2) of the Act, as it was originally enacted
in 1951, contained an express ban against the same elector proposing more than one candidate for a ·single seat Constituency-Section 33(2) states:
L6Sup.C.l./68-3
248
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1968] 3 S.C.R.
"Any person whose name is registered in the electoral roll of the constituency and who is not subject to any
disqualification mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 may subscribe as
proposer or seconder as many nomination papers as
there are vacancies lo be filled but no more."
Section 36(7)(b) reads as follows:
"(7) For the purposes of this section
(b) where a person has subscribed,
whether
as
r ·. ooser or seconder,· a larger number of non1ina110;1 papers than there are vacancies to be filled, those
of the papers so subscribed which have been first receiv.
cd, up to the number of vacancies to be filled, shall be
deemed to be valid."
But by the Amending Act 27 of 1956, ss. 33 and 36 have been
re :ast and do not contain any ban as that contemplated by s. 33
(2) of the unamended Act.
Section 33(1) & (2)
<ifter the
amendment reads thus :
"33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a valid nomination.-(1) On or before the
date appointed under clause (a) of section 30 each
candidate shall, either in person or by his proposer
between the hours of eleven o'clock in the forenoon and
three o'clock in the afternoon deliver to the returning
officer at the place specified in this behalf in the notice
issued under section 31 a nomination paper completed
in the prescribed form and signed by the candidate and
by an elector of the constituency as proposer.
Provided that no nomination paper shall be delivered to the returning officer on a day which is a public
holiday.
(2) In a constituency where any seat is reserved.
a candidate shall not be deemed to be qualified to be
chosen to fill that seat unless his nomination paper contains a declaration by him specifying the particular caste
or tribe of which he is a member and the area in relation to which that caste or tribe is a Scheduled Caste or,
as the case may. be, a Scheduled Tribe of the State."
Jt is true thats. 33(6) as it stands at present enables a proposer
to file more than one nomination paper in respect of the same
candidate, but this sub-section has no bearing on the question
presented for determination in the present appeal. It is manifest
A
8
c
D
•
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
AMOLAK CHAND v. RAGHUVEER (Ramaswami, J.)
249
that there is no express ban or prohibition under s. 33 or s. 36
of the present Act against an elector proposing more than one
candidate for a single seat Constituency.
Mr. Gupte. has not
been able to point out anything in the context or language of other
sections of the Act for leading to the necessary implication that
an elector cannot propose more than one candidate for a single
seat Constituency. On the other hand, the amendment to s. 33
of the Act by the Amending Act 27 of 1956 indicates that it
was the intention of Parliament that there should be. no ban on
the number of nomination papers or the number of candidates
to be proposed by an elector for a single seat Constituency. On
behalf of the appellant reference was made to page
13 3 of
Schofield's 'Parliamentary Elections', Second Edition in which it
is said that "no person is permitted to sign more than one nomi·
nation paper at the same election and if he does then his signature is operative only in the case of the paper which is first
deJi,·ered". But this statement is based on r. 8(2) of the Parliamentary Elections Rules of the British Parliament.
There is
no such statutory provision made under the Act for parliamentary
elections in India and the analogy ·is not applicable.
We are
accordingly of the opinion that Counsel for the appellant has
been unable to make good his submission on this aspect of the
case.
It was contended, in the next place, that Nathu and Sita Ram
had mentioned in the nomination papers that they were Balais
belonging to the Scheduled Caste and this was contrary to the
direc.tion that the column indicating caste or tribe should be
struck off except in the case of reserved seat. It was therefore
argued . that the nomination papers of Nathu and Sita Ram were
rightly rejected by the returning officer. In our opinion, there
is no substance in this argument. The printed form 2-A is meant
both for General and R~erved Constitu.encies but while it
i;
obligatory for candidates in the reserved constituency to make
a deelaration in the proper column that he is a member of a particular caste or tribe, there is no such rule . with regard to a
General Constituency.
Section 3 3 ( 2) of the Act imposes an
obligation on the candidate in the reserved constituency to
make a declaration in the proper column, but there is no such
direction in the statute with regard to the General Constituency.
In our opinion, the mention of the caste of the candidate in the
nomination form was a clear superfluity because it was
not·
n~sary for the candidate to fill in the colum~ when he was
conte:dng in a General Constituency; but there is nothing either
in the section or in the rules forbidding the candidate from mentioning his caste. In our opinion, there is no violation of the
provisions of s. 33 of the Act or the breach of general directions
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1968] 3 S.C.R.
contained in Rule 4 and the nomination papers cannot be !:dd
to be invalid on this account.
For these reasons we hold that the judgment of the MaJhya
Pradesh High Court dated August 25, 1967 is correct and '.his
appeal must be dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismis.<cd.
A
B