The Supreme Court of India held in Rajendra Kumar Meshram v Vanshmani Prasad Verma that setting aside an election on the ground of improper acceptance of nomination under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires strict proof that the election result was materially affected. The court clarified that failure to furnish an electoral roll copy under Section 33(5) does not automatically disqualify a candidate under Section 100(1)(a) without specific pleadings and evidence.
Background of the Election Dispute in Deosar Constituency
The appellant, Rajendra Kumar Meshram, was declared the returned candidate for No. 81 Deosar Constituency of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the May 2013 elections. The defeated candidate, respondent Vanshmani Prasad Verma, filed an election petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court seeking to invalidate the election. The petitioner challenged the outcome on three grounds: wrongful rejection of his own party nomination, alleged disqualification of the appellant as an active government servant, and the appellant's omission to submit a certified copy of the electoral roll of No. 80 Singrauli Constituency where he was registered as an elector.
The High Court resolved the first two issues in favor of the returned candidate, holding that his resignation from government service had been accepted prior to nomination. However, on the third issue, the High Court held that because the appellant was registered in a different constituency and failed to produce a certified copy of the electoral roll at scrutiny as required by Section 33(5), the returning officer committed an illegality in accepting the nomination. Consequently, the High Court declared the election void under Section 100(1)(a) and Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the 1951 Act.
Supreme Court Analysis of Improper Acceptance vs Improper Rejection
Delivering the judgment for the Supreme Court Bench, Justice Ranjan Gogoi drew a clear statutory distinction between Section 100(1)(c) and Section 100(1)(d) of the 1951 Act:
- Improper Rejection (Section 100(1)(c)): When a nomination paper is improperly rejected by the returning officer, the election is void per se without requiring proof of material effect on the result.
- Improper Acceptance (Section 100(1)(d)(i)): When a nomination paper is improperly accepted, the election cannot be set aside automatically. The election petitioner must plead and prove through evidence that the improper acceptance materially affected the final election result.
The Supreme Court observed that although the High Court framed Issue No. 6 regarding whether the result was materially affected, it failed to record any finding or evaluate evidence on that question. Without establishing that the election result was materially altered, the High Court lacked statutory authority to invalidate the election under Section 100(1)(d).
Pleadings Requirement Under Section 100(1)(a) and Final Decision
The Supreme Court also rejected the argument that non-compliance with Section 33(5) establishes disqualification under Section 100(1)(a) and Section 5 of the 1951 Act. Section 5 requires a candidate to be an elector of any assembly constituency in the State. The election petition contained no averment that the appellant was not an elector in Madhya Pradesh; rather, the petition explicitly acknowledged that he was a registered voter in No. 80 Singrauli Constituency.
Because trial of an election petition under Section 87 must strictly follow the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, courts cannot grant relief on unpleaded grounds. Procedural rigor in public law disputes parallels standards discussed in Laxmi Narain v State of Uttar Pradesh and Jagdish Narain Shukla v State of U.P.. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court judgment and declared the appellant's election valid.