# DILIP KUMAR GON v. DURGA PRASAD SINGH

- **Citation:** [1975] 2 S.C.R. 570
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1974-11-04
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1973
- **Bench:** Alagiriswami, R. S. Sarkaria
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/dilip-kumar-gon-v-durga-prasad-singh-6181
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Eh·c1io11-Contes1 .from a general Constituency to seat in State Legislative
Assembly~mission to strike ojf 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe' and to fill in candidate's
caste iii nomination paper-If defective justifO'ing rejection of nomination paper.
In relation to an election to the State Legislative Assembly from a general
constituency, one candidate had not in the nomination paper (a) filled his specific
caste in the blank meant for that purpose, and (b) he had, left the words 'Scheduled Caste' unscored. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper on
the ground that his failure to d~lete ·the words 'Scheduled Caste' meant that he
belonged to the scheduled caste which was not true, and consequently, the nomination papc:r was not filled up properly. The respondent was declared elected.
ThC' High Court, holding that the candidate, whose nomination paper wu~
rejected by the
Returnin~ Officer, had not
properly filled his
nomination
paper, upheld the rejecl!on and dismissed the election petition challenging
the respondent's election.
Allowing the appeal to this Court.
HEU> : (1) The seat for Which the candidates contested was not a re·
sen~d seat. There is no statutory provision in the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, or elsewhere which enjoins
a candidate who is contesting
t!)e election for a. general seat, and not for a reserved seat, to specify in his
-declaration his caste or tribe. [571GJ
·
(2) The Returning Officer admitted in his evidence that at the time of
the scrutiny of the nomination papers. he was aware !ha• the candidate, whose
nomination paper he rejected, was no( a member of the scheduled caste and
that
he
had
deposited
Rs. 250/ • as security. Therefore, the
omis·
sion to strike off scheduled cas.te/trire in
the form did not amount to a
defect in the eye of law, much less was it a defect of a substantial character,
warranting the rejection of the nomination paper. [571H]
Amo/ak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh [1968} 3, S.C.R. 246 followed.

## Text

DILIP KUMAR GON
v.
DURGA PRASAD SINGH
November 4, 1974
[A, ALAGIRISWAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
Eh·c1io11-Contes1 .from a general Constituency to seat in State Legislative
Assembly~mission to strike ojf 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe' and to fill in candidate's
caste iii nomination paper-If defective justifO'ing rejection of nomination paper.
In relation to an election to the State Legislative Assembly from a general
constituency, one candidate had not in the nomination paper (a) filled his specific
caste in the blank meant for that purpose, and (b) he had, left the words 'Scheduled Caste' unscored. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper on
the ground that his failure to d~lete ·the words 'Scheduled Caste' meant that he
belonged to the scheduled caste which was not true, and consequently, the nomination papc:r was not filled up properly. The respondent was declared elected.
ThC' High Court, holding that the candidate, whose nomination paper wu~
rejected by the
Returnin~ Officer, had not
properly filled his
nomination
paper, upheld the rejecl!on and dismissed the election petition challenging
the respondent's election.
Allowing the appeal to this Court.
HEU> : (1) The seat for Which the candidates contested was not a re·
sen~d seat. There is no statutory provision in the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, or elsewhere which enjoins
a candidate who is contesting
t!)e election for a. general seat, and not for a reserved seat, to specify in his
-declaration his caste or tribe. [571GJ
·
(2) The Returning Officer admitted in his evidence that at the time of
the scrutiny of the nomination papers. he was aware !ha• the candidate, whose
nomination paper he rejected, was no( a member of the scheduled caste and
that
he
had
deposited
Rs. 250/ • as security. Therefore, the
omis·
sion to strike off scheduled cas.te/trire in
the form did not amount to a
defect in the eye of law, much less was it a defect of a substantial character,
warranting the rejection of the nomination paper. [571H]
Amo/ak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh [1968} 3, S.C.R. 246 followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 602 of 1973.
From the Judgment & Order dated the 6th February, 1973 of the
Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1972.
R. K. Garg, s·. C. Agarwala, S. S. !Jhatnagar and V. !. Francis,
for the appellant.
D. Goburdhan, for 1he respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SARKARIA, J. Durga Prasad Singh, respondent herein, Khatir Ali
.and Abdul Hamid, filed their nomination papers before the Returning
Officer for contesting the election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly
from 147-Jamtara. Assembly Constituency (General).
The date for
scrutiny of the nomination papers was February 9, 1972. The Returning Officer rejected
th1~ nomination papers of Khatir) Ali and
Abdul Hamid ignoring the objections that were raised on their behalf.
Durga Prasad Singh was declared duly elected.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
E
F
G
B
o. K. GON v. o. P. SINGH (Sarkaria, 1.)
571
The appellant, an elector of the Constituency, filed an Election
Petition challenging the election of Durga Prasad Singh inter alia on
the ground that the nomination papers of Abdul Hamid and Khatir
Ali had been improperly rejected. A learned single Judge of the High
Court, who tried the Petition decided that issue against the petitioner,
and in consequence, dismissed the Petition.
Hence this appeal.
Before us, Mr. R. K. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant has
confined his arguments to the rejection of the nomination paper of
Abdul Hamid, only. It is submitted that the defect on the basis of
which the Re.turning Officer rejected Abdul Ha!Ijid's
nomination
papers, was not a 'defect' 'in the eye of law.
At any rate, proceeds
the argument,. it was not a defect of a substantial character which
could jμstify rejection of the nomination papers.
There is merit in this contention.
What happened was that in the column of the printed nomination
form, meant for making a declaration of the candidates' of the Scheduled Caste/Tribe contesting for a Reserved Seat, Abdul Hamid had
not (a) filled his specific caste in the bank meant for that purpose and
further, (b) he had in that column, left the words 'Scheduled Caste'
unscored.
The Returning Officer rejected the nomination papers on
the ground that the failure of the candidate to
delete the words
'Scheduled Caste' means that "he belongs to Scheduled Caste which is
not true" said consequently, "the nomination papers are not filled up
properly".
·
The learned Judge of the High Court upheld this rejection, holding that "the candidate's filling of these entries were on the face of it,
not proper and did not comply with the requirements of law on this
subject" and further that this defect was not "trivial or technical" but
· of a substantial character.
In our opinion, in the circumstances of the case, the rejection of
the nomination papers of Abdul Hamid was manifestly erroneous.
The High Court's view that in scoring out only the word 'Jan-Jati'
(Tribe) and leaving the word 'Jati' (caste) untouched in the aforesaid
column of the nomination form, Abdul Hamid had failed "to comply
with the requirement of the law on the subject" was entirely misconceived. It overlooked the fact that the Jamtara Constituency was
a 'General' Constituency, and the seat for whkh the candidates wanted
to contest the election was not a Reserved seat.
Section 33 (2) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or any other statutory
provision does not enjoin upon a candidate who is contesting the
election for a General Seat, and not for a Reserved seat, to specify in
his declaration his caste or tribe.
Further, the Returning Officer
appearing as R. W. 2, had clearly admitted that at the time of the .
scrutiny of the nomination papers, he was aware that Abdul Hamid
was not a member of the Scheduled Caste and that he had deposited
Rs. 250/. as security. The omission to strike off the column in the
printed nomination form relating to Scheduled Caste/Tribe did not
amount to a defect in the eye of law, much less was it a defect 0f a
substantial character, warranting rejection-· of the nomination paper.
572
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 2 S.C.R.
In Amolak Chand v.· Ragh~1veer Singh,(I) the nomination papers of
two candidates contesting for a General Constituency were ·rejected
on a similar ground. Hollding that the rejection was improper, Ramaswami J. speaking for the Court stated the law. on the pomt thus :
"The printed form 2-A is meant both for General and
Reserved Constituen,cies but while it is obligatory for candidates in the reserved cc1ns~ituency to make a declaration in
the proper column that he is a member of a particular caste
or tribe, there is no1 such rule with re~rd to General Constituency. · Section 33 (2) of the Act imposes an obligation
on the candidate in thie reserved constitueqcy to make a
dQclaration in the proper column, but there is 1~0 such direction in th~ .statute with ~egard to the Gener11l Const~tuency.
In our opm10n, the mention of the caste of the candidate m
the nomination form was a clear superfluity because it was
not necessary for th1~ candidate to fill in the column when
he was contesting in a General Constituency .. "
In the light of what has been said above, we would, reverse the
finding of the High Court and hold that the nomination papers of
Abdul Hamid were improperly rejected by the Returning Officer.
In the result, we would on this short ground, allow this appeal and
the Election Petition and declare the election of Durga Prasad Singh,
Respondent herein to be void.
The appellant shall have his costs
throughout
V. P. S.
Appeal allowed.
(1) [1968) 3 S.C.R. 246.
A
n
c
D