Minor Differences In Nomination Form Of Candidate Is Not Substantial Defect To Affect Election Result: MP HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that mere minor differences in the nomination form or non-disclosure of some information cannot be said to be a substantial defect to materially affect the result of the election.
The Bench of Justice Vishal Mishra held, “The nomination form submitted by the respondent was duly considered by the returning officer. The objections which were filed were taken note of and the form was accepted on 01.11.2023. The returning officer has not found any defect in the nomination form of the respondent. Even the compilation shows that the nomination form was submitted along with affidavit in the form of Form 26 along with the annexures which forms part of affidavit giving all the detailed particulars as required in the affidavit. It cannot be said that there is non-compliance of any of the mandatory provisions as required under the Act of 1951. Mere minor differences in the nomination form or non- disclosure of some information regarding dues, as in the present case cannot be said to be a substantial defect so as to materially affect the result of the election.”
Advocate Prakash Upadhyay for the Petitioners while Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal appeared for the Respondents.
An election petition was filed challenging the election of the MLA Ajay Arjun Singh on the ground that he did not furnish correct and complete information at the time of submission of his nomination paper as well as in the affidavit submitted in Form 26 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (‘Rules of 1961') for deciding the State Legislative Assembly Constituency in the State of M.P. which was held on November 17, 2023 of which the results were declared on December 3, 2023. Thus, there was no proper acceptance of his nomination paper. It was pleaded that there were certain blank columns left in the nomination paper and there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 ('Act of 1951') and the Rules of 1961. He also failed to comply with Rule 4A of the Rules of 1961 by not furnishing the mandatory affidavit in Form 26 along with the nomination paper. Thus, it was alleged that he committed corrupt practice in terms of Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951.
The Court relied on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Karikho Kri v. Nuney Tayang (2024) and said that the Supreme Court has taken note of the aspect that mere general difference in non-compliance of particular provisions and rules will not be an adequate pleading or proof to substantiate or satisfy the requirement of Section 100 (1)(d)(iv) of the Act of 1951.
The Court also relied on the judgments in Union of India v. Association of Democratic Reform (2002), Dasanglu Pul v. Lupalam Kri (2023), Kanimozhi Karunanidhi v. A Santhana Kumar and Ors. (2023), Ramsukh v. Dinesh Agrawal (2009) and Harishankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001).
The Court held that the petitioners did not aver as to how the result of the returned candidate could be affected by minor deficiencies. Thus, the petitioners failed to make out any cause of action. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the election petition being sans merits.
Cause Title: Ramgareb and Ors v. Ajay Arjun Singh (Neutral Citation: 2024:MPHC-JBP:41862)
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocate Prakash Upadhyay
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal and Advocate Ankita Singh Parihar
