Case: Harcharan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh &amp; Ors

1. At the general elections held in February 1967 the appellant polled the largest number of votes and was declared elected to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha from the Zira Constituency. The first respondent S. Mohinder Singh, who was a candidate at the election applied to the High Court of Punjab for setting aside the election of the appellant on the ground that the nomination of the appellant who was not a voter in the Zira Constituency was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer, for the appellant had failed to file before the scrutiny a copy of the electoral roll or the relevant part thereof or a certified copy of the relevant entries of the poll pertaining to the constituency to which he belonged, and that the result of the election to the Zira Constituency insofar as it concerned the appellant was materially affected by improper acceptance of his nomination. The High Court upheld the contention and set aside the election of the appellant and declared the election of the appellant void under S. 100 (1) (d) (i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Against that order the appellant has appealed to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
5. The appellant concedes that with his nomination paper he did not produce the electoral roll or a copy of the relevant part thereof of the Gidderbha Constituency. He, however, pleaded that at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers he had produced before the returning officer copies of the electoral roll, and had requested that officer to keep the copies of the roll on his file if he needed them, and the returning officer had said that he did not need the copies of the electoral roll. This case was not set up by the appellant in his reply to the election petition. The returning officer Sher Singh Sindhu was summoned to appear before the High Court to produce certain documents in his custody. Sher Singh Sindhu personally appeared in Court and tendered the documents called for, but the appellant did not ask the Trial Judge to administer him oath and to examine him as a witness. There is no written record about the production of the electoral roll before the returning officer. In the order passed by the returning officer dated January 21, l967, the returning officer has referred to the production of a certificate, but not to the production of the electoral roll. We therefore agree with the High Court that the case set up by the appellant that he had produced copies of the electoral roll or relevant parts thereof before the returning officer at the time of the scrutiny of nomination, papers cannot be accepted as true.The statutory requirements of election law must be strictly observed. An election dispute is a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law : it is not an action at law or in equity. As a copy of the relevant entries from the electoral roll relating to the appellant it was indisputably defective. But under Section 36,(4) the Returning Officer is entitled to accept the nomination paper even if it be defective, if the defect is not of a substantial character: indeed he is enjoined not to reject the nomination paper unless the defect is of a substantial character. The details for identifying the appellant as an elector were duly furnished. His age was mentioned in the nomination paper, though it was not to be found in the certified copy produced by the appellant. No objection was raised to the acceptance of the nomination paper on behalf of the contesting candidate and his agents present at the scrutiny. The returning, officer satisfied himself by personal inquiry that the appellant was above the age of twenty-five and therefore competent to stand for election. It is true that he did not apply his mind to the absence of house number entered in the electoral register. But he did not come to the conclusion that even though the copy produced was defective the defect was of a substantial character. The decision of the returning officer in the matter is not final and in appropriate cases it is open to the Court to reach a different conclusion in an election petition. But on a careful review of the proceedings of the Returning Officer we are of the opinion that the returning officer did not err in not rejecting the nomination paper : the defects in text. P W. 1/4 were not of a substantial character.8. The primary purpose of the diverse provisions of the election law which may appear to be technical is to safeguard the purity of the election process, and the Courts will not ordinarily minimise their operation.If there was any reason to think that the appellant was negligent, or that on account of defects which were found in the copy produced by the appellant the purity of the election process was likely to be affected we would have been loath to disagree with the High Court. But in this case the appellant moved the Electoral Registration Officer, for a copy certifying the correctness of the entries in the list which had been supplied to him, and the Electoral Registration Officer supplied to him a copy which though defective, did include sufficient particulars for identifying the appellant. No objection was raised before the Returning Officer and that officer after holding an inquiry was apparently of the view that there was no defect which could be regarded as of a substantial character. We do not think that any ground is made out for disagreeing with the view of the Returning Officer.