RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM versus VANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR.
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 74, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Issues
A 
B 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 74 
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM 
v. 
VANSHMANI PRASAD VERMA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.3797 of2015) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Representation of People Act, 1951 - ss.33(5), 36(2)(b), 87, 
C JOO(l)(a) and JOO(l)(d) - Election of appellant to a constituency 
of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly - Election petition filed 
by respondent No. J - High Court held that appellant had not filed 
the electoral roll (or certified copy thereof) of his constituency, 
therefore the returning officer had committed an illegality in 
D accepting the nomination of appellant - High Court came to the 
conclusion that election of appellant was liable to be declared void 
uls.JOO(J)(a) along with s.JOO(l)(d)(i) - On appeal, held: High 
Court ought to have found out whether improper acceptance of the 
nomination had materially affected the result of the election - Without 
dealing with that question/issue, it was not empowered to declare 
E the election of appellant-returned candidate as void - To declare 
election void uls.JOO(l)(a), it must be established that the returned 
candidate is not a voter of any assembly constituency of the State -
Election petition filed by the respondent-election petitioner itself 
stated that the appellant-returned candidate was a registered voter 
F 
of a constituency - There was no pleading at all to the effect that 
appellant was not a voter - Therefore, order of High Court 
unsustainable -
Election of appellant-returned candidate was valid. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The election of the appellant-returned candidate 
a is declared to be valid in law. [Para 17] (82-G] 
2. Under s.100 (l)(d) of Representation of People Act,1951, 
an election is liable to be declared void on the ground of improper 
acceptance of a nomination if such improper acceptance of the 
nomination has materially affected the result of the election. This 
H 
is in distinction to what is contained in s.lOO(l)(c) i.e. improper 
74
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM v. VANSHMANI PRASAD 
VERMA AND ANR. 
rejection of a nomination which itself is a sufficient ground for 
invalidating the election without any further requirement of proof 
of material effect of such rejection on the result of the election. 
The High Court did not endeavor to go into the further question 
that would be required to be determined even if it is assumed 
that the appellant-returned candidate had not filed the electoral 
roll or a certified copy thereof and, therefore, had not complied 
with the mandatory provisions of s.33(5) of the 1951 Act. Before 
setting aside the election on the above ground, the High Court 
ought to have carried out a further exercise, namely, to find out 
whether the improper acceptance of the nomination had materially 
affected the result of the election. The High Court having failed 
to determine the said issue naturally, it was not empowered to 
declare the election of the appellant returned candidate as void 
even if it is assumed that the acceptance of the nomination of the 
returned candidate was improper. (Para 9) (79-F-H; 80-A-C) 
3.1 Under s.lOO(l)(a), the election of the returned candidate 
is liable to be declared void if, i11ter ali<t, he was not qualified for 
membership of Parliament or the State Legislature as may be. 
S.5 of the 1951 Act deals with qualifications for membership of a 
Legislative Assembly of a State which, i11ter lllill, requires a 
candidate to be an elector of any Assembly
constituency of the 
State. To declare an election void u/s.lOO(l)(a), it must, therefore, 
be established that the returned candidate is not a voter of any 
assembly constituency of the State. [Para llj (80-E-F] 
3.2 No objection to the effect that the returned candidate 
was not qualified to contest the election as he was not a voter of 
any assembly Constituency of the State was raised in the objection 
filed in election petition. Neither was any objection taken to the 
effect that the returned candidate was not eligible to participate 
in the election as he had not furnished the electoral roll of the 
Constituency in which he was a voter or a certified copy thereof. 
However, in the election petition filed, it was pleaded in para 
1.11, that the returned candidate had "failed to furnish a certified 
copy of the voter list to entitle him to contest the election from 
Devsar constituency as he is registered voter of 80, Singrauli 
constituency and without filing the certified copy of relevant part 
of voter list he was not eligible to contest from other constituency." 
75 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 9 S.C.R. 
A 
There was no pleading at all to the effect that the appellant is not 
a voter of any assembly constituency and therefore is not qualified. 
[Para 12) [80-G-H; 81-A-C] 
3.3 The trial of an election petition, as per section 87 of 
1951 Act has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Code 
B of Civil Procedure, 1908. When no pleadings that the election of 
the returned candidate was void on grounds mentioned in section 
IOO(l)(a) were made and no issue on this score was struck and 
no op1>ortunity to the returned candidate to adduce relevant 
evidence was afforded, the High Court could not have found that 
the election of the returned candidate was void under section 
C 
IOO(l)(a). The High Court erred in holding that the respondent-
election petitioner had made out a case for declaration that the 
result of the election in favour of the returned candidate was void 
u/s.IOO(l)(a) of the 1951 Act. [Paras 14, 15) [81-E-F; 82-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3797 
D of2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.03.2015 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh Judicature at Jabalpur in Election Petition No. 2 of 
2014. 
Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv., C. D. Singh, D.S. Parmar, Ms. Sakshi 
E 
Kakkar, Ms. Shivali Choudhary, Adv. for the Appellant. 
F 
Vivek Tankha, Sr. Adv., Pawanshree Agrawal, Sachin Pujari, 
Ms. Nikita Shrivastava, Mishra Saurabh,Ankit Kr. Lal, Advs. for the 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court
was delivered by 
RANJAN GOGOi, J. I. The election of the appellant to the 
No.81 Deosar Constituency of Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly 
which was held on 11.05.2013 has been set aside by the High Court in 
an election petition filed by the respondent No. I herein. The validity of 
the said order of the High Court is the subject matter of the present 
G appeal. 
2. On a reading of the election petition filed by the respondent 
No. I, it would appear to us that several grounds were urged to invalidate 
the election in question. According to the respondent-election petitioner, 
one of the nominations filed by him as a candidate of the Indian National 
H Congress Party was wrongly rejected on the ground that the symbol
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM v. VANSHMANI PRASAD 
VERMA AND ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
allotment letter was submitted by the election petitioner after the stipulated 
time. However as two other nominations filed by the respondent-election 
petitioner as an independent candidate was accepted, he contested the 
election in which he lost. Consequently, he challenges the rejection of 
his nomination as a Indian National Congress Party candidate as being 
wrongful. Apart from the above ground, the election petition was also 
filed alleging that the appellant-returned candidate was a government 
servant. In addition to the above, it was pleaded that the appellant-returned 
candidate had failed to furnish, along with the nomination paper, a copy/ 
certified copy of the electoral rol i of N o.80 S ingrau!i constituency in 
which electoral roll his name was claimed to be appearing against serial 
No.118. According to the election petitioner on account of the aforesaid 
omission the returned candidate was not eligible to participate in the 
election. His nomination, therefore, was wrongly accepted. 
3. The High Court answered the first two questions in favour of 
the returned candidate. However, insofar as the third question set forth 
above is concerned, the conclusion of the High Court is adverse to the 
returned candidate. In this connection the High Court came to the 
conclusion that the returned candidate had not filed the electoral roll or 
certified copy thereof ofNo.80 Singrauli
Constituency and therefore the 
returning officer had committed an illegality in accepting the nomination 
of the returned candidate and in not rejecting the same on account of 
non-compliance of Sections 33(5) and 36(2)(b) of the Representation of 
People Act, 1951 (For short, "the 195 I Act"). On the said basis the High 
Court came to the conclusion that the election of the returned candidate 
was liable to be declared void under Section I 00(1 )(a) along with Section 
IOO(l)(d)(i) of the 1951 Act. Consequential directions therefore have 
been issued. Aggrieved this appeal has been filed. 
4. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the appellant, Shri Vivek Tankha, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the respondent No. I and Shri Mishra Saurabh, learned 
counsel for the respondent No.2. 
5. As no cross appeal has been filed by the respondent-election 
petitioner challenging the findings of the High Court adverse to him, the 
scope of the present appeal is confined to the correctness of the order 
of the High Court insofar as the third question set forth above is 
concerned. 
77 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
78 
A 
B 
c 
·D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
6. At the outset the relevant part of the pleadings contained in the 
election petition insofar as the said issue is concerned may be set out as 
hereunder:-
1.11 That, the election of the respondent as a member of M.P. 
Legislative Assembly for Devsar Constituency deserves to be 
declared as void for the reason that the Returning Officer has 
wrongly rejected the petitioner's nomination form as candidate 
sponsored by Indian National Congress and also for wrongly 
accepting the nomination from the respondent. It is also submitted 
that the respondent not only failed to submit order by Competent 
Authority accepting his resignation but also failed to furnish a 
certified copy of the voter list to entitle him to contest the election 
from Devsar constituency as he is registered voter of 80. Singrauli 
constituency and without filing the certified copy ofrelevant part 
of voter list he was not eligible to contest from other constituency. 
Acceptance of respondent's nomination form has materially 
affected the election result. 
1.12 That the respondent has been illegally allowed to contest 
the election while the petitioner has been wrongly denied the right 
to contest the election and therefore, this petition. 
1.13 That, the rejection of nomination form of the petitioner was 
illegal and contrary to election law and rules framed thereunder 
and as such declaring the respondent No. I (one) as returned 
candidate
from 81, Devsar constituency deserves to be quashed 
and deserves to be declared as null and void. 
1.14 That, the nomination form of the respondent has been 
wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer ignoring the legal 
provision. It is submitted that the respondent has not produced 
any valid documents to prove that he was not in service on the 
date of filing ofhis nomination form and he has also not furnished 
the certified copy of the relevant part of the voter list of the 
constituency in which he was registered as voter to entitle him to 
contest election from other constituency i.e. 81, Devsar 
Constituency." 
7. In a written statement filed by the returned candidate, all the 
aforesaid averments have been denied. On the basis of the pleadings of 
H the parties the following issues were framed by the Court:-
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM v. VANSHMANI PRASAD 
79 
VERMA AND ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
(1) Whether the returning officer has malafidely rejected the 
A 
petitioner's nomination form as the candidate sponsored by the 
Indian National Congress under fhe influence of the then ruling 
party? 
(2) Whether respondent No. I was in government service at the 
time of acceptance of his nomination form by the returning officer? 
B 
(3) Whether respondent No.2 has committed illegality in accepting 
the nomination form of respondent No. I? 
( 4) Whether respondent No.1 has failed to prove that his name 
was in the voter list of80 Singrauli Constituency? (if so, effect) 
(S) Whether respondent No. I has failed to submit valid Caste 
Ce1tificate for contesting the election from the constituency 
reserved for scheduled caste category? 
(6) Whether result of election of 81 Deosar Constituency was 
materially affected due to improper acceptance of nomination of 
respondent No.1? 
(7) Relief and costs? 
8. As issue Nos.I and 2 extracted above, have been answered in 
favour of the returned candidate and there is no cross appeal, it is only 
the remaining issues that survive for consideration. All the said issues 
center round the question of improper acceptance of the nomination 
form of the returned candidate. Jn this regard, issue No.6 which raises 
the question of material affect of the improper acceptance ofnomination 
of the returned candidate on the result of the election may be specifically
noticed. 
9. Under Section 100 (l)(d), an election is liable to be declared 
void on the ground of improper acceptance of a nomination if such 
improper acceptance of the nomination has materially affected the result 
of the election. This is in distinction to what is contained in Section 
100( I)( c) i.e. improper rejection of a nomination which itself is a sufficient 
ground for invalidating the election without any further requirement of 
proof of material effect of such rejection on the result of the election. 
The above distinction must be kept in mind. Proceeding on the said basis, 
we find that the High Court did not endeavor to go into the further 
question that would be required to be determined even if it is assumed 
that the appellant-returned candidate had not filed the electoral roll or a 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
80 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 9 S.C.R. 
ce11ified copy thereof and, therefore, had not complied with the mandatory 
provisions of Section 33(5) of the 1951 Act. In other words, before setting 
aside the election on the above ground, the High Court ought to have 
carried out a further exercise, namely, to find out whether the improper 
acceptance of the nomination had materially affected the result of the 
election. This has not been done notwithstanding issue No.6 framed 
which is specifically to the above effect. The High Court having failed 
to determine the said issue i.e. issue No.6, naturally, it was not empowered 
to declare the election of the appellant returned candidate as void even 
if we are to assume that the acceptance of the nomination of the returned 
candidate was improper. 
l 0. An argument has been advanced on behalf of the respondent-
election petitioner that the High Court has also found the election to be 
void on the grounds mentioned in Section l 00(1 )(a). In this regard it has 
been submitted that the failure of the returned candidate to furnish the 
electoral roll of the constituency where his name appears as a voter or 
D 
the certified copy thereof would, by itself, establish that he was not 
qualified to take part in the election as he had failed to prove that he is a 
voter. Therefore his election was liable to be declared void under Section 
IOO(l)(a) of the 1951 Act which the High Court had done. 
E 
F 
G 
11. Under Section l 00(1
)(a) the election of the returned candidate 
is liable to be declared void if, inter alia, he was not qualified for 
membership of Parliament or the State Legislature as may be. Section 5 
of the 1951 Act deals with qualifications for membership of a Legislative 
Assembly of a State which, inter alia, requires a candidate to be an 
elector of any Assembly constituency of the State. To declare an election 
void under Section I 00(1 )(a), it must, therefore, be established that the 
returned candidate is not a voter of any assembly constituency of the 
State. 
12. After the receipt of nomination, the election petitioner has 
objected to the acceptance of the nomination of the appellant-returned 
candidate on the ground that the returned candidate was a Government 
servant and therefore disqualified from contesting the election. This was 
rejected by the Returning Officer on 11.11.2013 holding that the returned 
candidate had duly submitted his resignation which was accepted before 
the date of filing of nomination. No objection to the effect that the 
returned candidate was not qur lified to contest the election as he was 
H 
not a voter of any assembly Constituency of the State was raised in the
RAJENDRA KUMAR MESHRAM v. VANSHMANI PRASAD 
VERMA AND ANR. [RANJAN GOGOi, J.] 
objection filed. Neither was any objection taken to the effect that the 
returned candidate was not eligible to participate in the election as he 
had not furnished the electoral roll of the Constituency in which he was 
a voter or a certified copy thereof. However, in the election petition 
filed, it was pleaded in para 1.11 of the election petition, (extracted above) 
that the returned candidate had "failed to furnish a certified copy of the 
voter I ist to entitle him to contest the election from Devsar constituency 
as he is registered voter of80, Singrauli constituency and without filing 
the certified copy of relevant part of voter list he was not eligible to 
contest from other constituency." There was no pleading at all to the 
effect that the appellant is not a voter of any assembly constituency and 
therefore is not qualified. 
13. From the above, it is clear that it was not the case of the 
respondent-election petitioner that the appellant-returned candidate was 
not qualified to contest the election. It is only before this Court, and that 
too in the oral arguments made, that it has been urged, by relying on the 
order of the High Court, that the returned candidate was not qualified to 
contest the election under Section 100(1 )(a) of the 1951 Act and therefore 
his election was rightly set aside by the High Court. 
14. The trial of an election petition, as per Section 87of1951 Act
has to be in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 
1908. When no pleadings that the election of the returned candidate was 
void on grounds mentioned in Section I OO(l)(a) were made and no issue 
on this score was struck and no opportunity to the returned candidate to 
adduce relevant evidence was afforded, the High Court, in our considered 
view, could not have found that the election of the returned-candidate 
was void under Section lOO(l)(a). In fact, from a reading of para 1.11 of 
the election petition as extracted above, it clearly appears that the election 
petitioner had stated that the appellant-returned candidate is a voter of 
No.80 Singrauli constituency but he had omitted to enclose the electoral 
roll or a certified copy thereof along with his nomination papers which 
made him ineligible to contest the election. This part of the pleading 
must be seen in the light of the provisions of Section 33(4) and 33(5) of 
the 1951 Act. Under-Section 33( 4) the returning officer must satisfy 
himself that a candidate's name and electoral roll numbers is the same 
as claimed/entered in the nomination paper. If the candidate is a voter 
of the same constituency from which he seeks election, there is no 
difficulty the electoral rolls would be readily available with the returning 
81 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
officer. But if the candidate is a voter of another constituency, then 
Section 33(5) requires him to enclose along with the nomination or atthe 
time of scrutiny, the electoral roll or certified copy of the same pertaining 
to that constituency. The entire case of the election petitioner as pleaded 
is that the appellant-returned candidate was a voter of another 
B 
constituency i.e. No.80 Singrauli constituency but he had not enclosed 
or produced the electoral roll of that constituency or a certified copy 
thereof thereby making him ineligible to contest the election. ' 
15. In view of the state of the pleadings as noticed above; the 
issues framed and the evidence led by the parties, we cannot agree with 
the High Court that the respondent-election petitioner had made out a 
C 
case for declaration that the result of the election in favour of the returned 
candidate was void under Section IOO(l)(a) of the 1951 Act. Having 
reached our conclusion on above said basis, it is not necessary to go into 
the question raised on behalf of the respondent-election petitioner that 
failure to produce the copy of the electoral roll of the constituency in 
D 
which a candidate is a voter or a certified copy thereof, by itself, would 
amount to a proof of lack of/absence of qualification under Section 5 of 
the 1951 Act. All that would be necessary for us to say in this regard is 
that any such view would not be consistent with the
legislative intent 
expressed by the enactment of two separate and specific provisions 
E 
F 
contained in Section 100 (1 )(a) and 100 (J)(d) of the 1951 Act. 
16. Though a number of precedents have been cited on behalf of 
the respondent-election petitioner to sustain the arguments advanced, it 
will not be necessary for us to take any specific note of the principles of 
Jaw laid down in any of the said cases inasmuch as all the said cases 
relate to rejection of nominations on account of failure to comply with 
the provisions of Section 33(5) of the Act of 1951 which is not in issue 
before us in the present appeal. 
17. Consequently and forthe aforesaid reasons, we cannot sustain 
the order of the High Court. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the 
appeal is allowed. The election of the appellant-returned candidate is 
G 
declared to be valid in Jaw. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeal allowed.