HARIKRISHNA LAL versus BABU LAL MARANDI

HARIKRISHNA LAL versus BABU LAL MARANDI

The omission of the second name 'Lal' from the voters' list was inadvertent, accidental, and merely technical. There was no doubt about the identity of the respondent, and the returning officer’s acceptance of the nomination was proper. As no objection was raised at the scrutiny and no evidence led in the election petition, the challenge fails; burden of proof lies on the petitioner, who failed to adduce evidence.

Parties
Appellant: Harikrishna Lal; Respondent: Babu Lal Marandi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 18.7.2002 of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in E.p. No. 1 of 2001
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Nomination Papers, Burden of Proof in Election Petitions, Technical Defects in Electoral Rolls, Scrutiny of Nominations
Election Law Nomination Papers Burden of Proof in Election Petitions Technical Defects in Electoral Rolls Scrutiny of Nominations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harikrishna Lal

Appellant

Babu Lal Marandi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 18.7.2002 of the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in E.p. No. 1 of 2001

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an inadvertent or accidental omission in the electoral roll as to the name of the candidate constitutes a substantial defect for rejection of nomination paper
  2. 2 Whether the absence of certified copy of electoral roll reflecting the candidate’s name invalidates the nomination
  3. 3 Who bears the burden of proof in an election petition challenging the election of a candidate

Ratio Decidendi

The omission of the second name 'Lal' from the voters' list was inadvertent, accidental, and merely technical. There was no doubt about the identity of the respondent, and the returning officer’s acceptance of the nomination was proper. As no objection was raised at the scrutiny and no evidence led in the election petition, the challenge fails; burden of proof lies on the petitioner, who failed to adduce evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed without any order as to costs