RAM AWADESH SINGH versus SUMITRA DEVI & ORS.

RAM AWADESH SINGH versus SUMITRA DEVI & ORS.

Mistaken entry as to elector's name in electoral roll is not a substantial defect; acceptance of nomination paper with such mistake does not vitiate the election where the candidate is otherwise qualified. Allegations of corrupt practice must each be individually proven; collective effect cannot be accepted if individual instances are not proven.

Parties
Appellant: Ram Awadesh Singh; Respondent: Sumitra Devi
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
03 December 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 1970 allowed; Civil Appeal No. 1584 of 1970 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Nomination Paper Defect, Improper Acceptance of Nomination, Corrupt Practices
Election Law Nomination Paper Defect Improper Acceptance of Nomination Corrupt Practices

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 2 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Awadesh Singh

Appellant

Sumitra Devi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defects in nomination paper are substantial under s. 36(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether improper acceptance of nomination materially affected the result of the election
  3. 3 Whether corrupt practices by the appellant were established

Ratio Decidendi

Mistaken entry as to elector's name in electoral roll is not a substantial defect; acceptance of nomination paper with such mistake does not vitiate the election where the candidate is otherwise qualified. Allegations of corrupt practice must each be individually proven; collective effect cannot be accepted if individual instances are not proven.

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 1384 of 1970 allowed; Civil Appeal No. 1584 of 1970 dismissed.

Orders

  • Election petition stands dismissed with costs in the High Court and Supreme Court; appellant is entitled to only one hearing fee.