Case: Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Gopal Swarup Pathak

4. The relevant facts for determining these issues may now be set out. On 19th or 20th July, 1969, the office of the Vice-President of India fell vacant on the resignation of the then incumbent, Shri V. V. Giri. The Election Commission appointed Shri B. N. Banerjee Secretary, Rajya Sabha, as returning officer for the election of the Vice-President of India. The Election Commission issued a notification under Section 4 appointing August 9, 1969, as the last date for filling nomination for election to the office of the Vice-President of India and August 11, 1969, for scrutiny of nomination papers. A number of candidates filed nomination papers and on August 11, 1969, the Returning Officer made a record of proceedings. The relevant part of the proceedings reads asheld the scrutiny of nomination papers for the Vice-Presidential Election today, the 11th August, 1969, at 11 a. m. in my office (Room No. 29) in Parliament House, New Delhi; 24 nomination papers were delivered to me within the time and in the manner laid down in Rule 4 of the Presidential and Vice - Presidential Elections Rules, 1952. These nomination papers related to :-1. Shri S. Nagappa(One nomination paper)2. Shri G. S. Pathak(Seventeen nomination papers)3. Shri Sivashanmugam(Two nomination papers) (Jagannathan Pillai)4. Smt. Manohara Nirmala Holkar(One nomination paper)5. Shri B. P. Mahaseth(One nomination paper)6. Shri Hari Vishnu Kamath(Two nominationI gave the candidates and the others present all facilities for examining the nomination papers of all the candidates delivered to me. The nomination papers were examined by them. No objection was raised to any nomination papers by any candidate or his representative. I scrutinised all the nomination papers and I found that they satisfied the requirements of a valid nomination paper. I accordingly accepted all the nomination papers as valid and made endorsements on all the 24 nomination papers accepting them.I also brought to the notice of those present that I had received some nomination papers, and some other papers purporting to be nomination papers, by post, and that I could not treat them as valid nomination papers as they were not delivered to me in accordance with sub-r. (1) of Rule 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1952, and that they also did not comply with the provisions of law in other respects. I further mentioned to those present that there were in addition three other papers which, though presented to me in person, did not comply with the requirements of the law as they were not accompanied by the certified extracts from the electoral roll and suffered from other defects. I had not given any serial number to any of these papers and had rejected all of them.One of the nominations referred to in para 4 of the proceedings was that of Dr. Ram Sharan Dass Shakuja. It appears that the nomination papers of Dr. Shakuja alleged to be complete in every respect, were not delivered in person either by Dr. Shakuja or by the proposer or seconder in person to the Returning Officer but were received by him by post on August 6, 1969. On that very day the Returning Officer did not treat the papers as valid as they were not delivered to him in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Rules, 1952.

Court's reasoning:
It will be noticed that Rule 4 provides only one manner of presentation, i. e. delivery either in person by the candidate or by his proposer or seconder. Further, it mentions the time within which it can be delivered i. e., between the hours of eleven in the forenoon and three in the afternoon. It seems to us that if the nomination paper is not presented in person either by the candidate or by the proposer or the seconder it cannot be deemed to have been presented at all.There seems to be good reason for making this rule because otherwise not only the authenticity of the person sending the nomination paper will be in doubt but also the time of the delivery of the nomination paper would be in doubt.Be that as it may, if the rule provides one method of presentation that method of presentation must be followed. That this is the only method of presentation of nomination papers is borne out by subsequent provisions. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 provides that any nomination paper which is not received before 3 Oclock in the afternoon on the last date appointed under Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of Section 4 shall be rejected. This shows that even if a nomination paper is presented personally but after 3 Oclock in the afternoon it has to be rejected. The rule proceeds on the basis that the presentation must have been either in person or by the proposer or the seconder. If a nomination paper is received by post it would be difficult to say that it has been presented and received before 3 Oclock on the last date appointed under Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 4.Rule 5 also proceeds on the basis that the presentation of a nomination paper must be in person because it requires the Returning Officer to sign thereon a certificate stating the date and time of presentation of the nomination paper and inform the person or persons presenting the nomination paper of the date, time and place fixed for the scrutiny of nominations.It is clear that Rule 5 contemplates only one method of presentation. This is again evident from Rule 6 which directs the Returning Officer inter alia to give the candidates and other authorised persons present reasonable facilities for examining the nomination papers of all candidates which have been delivered within the time and in the manner laid down in Rule 4. In other words, the nomination papers which have not been delivered within time and in the manner laid down in Rule 4 have not to be shown for purposes of scrutiny.It seems to us that this nomination paper could be rejected on the ground that it has not been presented in person and received before 3 Oclock in the afternoon on the last date appointed under Cl. (a) of sub-r. (1) of R. 4. Such a nomination paper could not be treated to have been received within the meaning of sub-rule (2) of Rule 4 and the Returning Officer was entitled to reject it.There is no force in the second submission that at any rate the Returning Officer should have waited till the date of the scrutiny because as soon as he finds that a nomination paper has not been duly represented he must reject it outright at the time it is handed over toare unable to agree with this submission. As we have mentioned before, the rules contemplate only one method of presentation and if that method is not followed the nomination papers cannot be held to be validly presented and must be rejected outright. To hold otherwise would lead to utter confusion and delay in the completion of the election. The Returning Officer would not know who and where to inform about the date of scrutiny, he would not be certain whether it is genuine and would have to take evidence as to whether it is a genuine nomination paper or a forged paper.