Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Election Petition: Tej Bahadur vs. Narendra Modi (24 November 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 November 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 860

Judges: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna J., V. Ramasubramanian J.

Can a person whose nomination was rejected for failing to provide a mandatory certificate claim to be a ‘candidate’ and challenge an election? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the requirements for a valid nomination in election law. This case revolves around an election petition filed by an individual whose nomination was rejected due to the absence of a required certificate, and the Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for future election challenges. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna, and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with the opinion authored by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde.

Case Background

The appellant, Tej Bahadur, was an employee of the Border Security Force, who was dismissed from service on 19 April 2017. He sought to contest the 2019 Lok Sabha elections from the Varanasi constituency. The last date for filing nominations was 29 April 2019, and the scrutiny of nominations was scheduled for 30 April 2019. Mr. Bahadur filed two nomination papers, one on 24 April 2019 and another on 29 April 2019. Both nominations were rejected by the Returning Officer because they were not accompanied by a certificate from the Election Commission stating that he had not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State, as required by Section 9(2) read with Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

In his first nomination form, Mr. Bahadur had answered ‘Yes’ to the query about whether he had been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty, while in his second form, he answered ‘No’. The Returning Officer issued notices on 30 April 2019, pointing out the discrepancy and the lack of the required certificate. Mr. Bahadur was given time until 11:00 am on 1 May 2019 to provide the certificate. Although he requested the certificate from the Election Commission, he could not produce it within the given time. Consequently, his nomination papers were rejected on 1 May 2019. Mr. Bahadur then filed an election petition challenging the election of the respondent, Shri Narendra Modi, which was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the Election Petition filed by Tej Bahadur, stating that he lacked the locus standi to challenge the election. The High Court reasoned that since Mr. Bahadur was neither an elector of the Varanasi constituency nor a validly nominated candidate, he could not maintain an election petition. The High Court’s decision was based on an application filed by the respondent under Order VI Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, read with Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The High Court held that the petition did not disclose a cause of action.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section states that a certificate from the Election Commission is conclusive proof of whether a person who held office under the Government of India or a State has been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty.
  “For the purpose of sub-section (1), a certificate issued by the Election Commission to the effect that a person having held office under the Government of India or under the Government of a State, has or has not been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be conclusive proof of that fact; Provided that no certificate to the effect that a person has been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be issued unless an opportunity of being heard has been given to the said person.”
• Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section specifies that a person dismissed from government service within five years before the nomination date cannot be deemed duly nominated unless their nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate from the Election Commission stating they were not dismissed for corruption or disloyalty. “Where the candidate is a person who, having held any office referred to in (section 9) has been dismissed and a period of five years has not elapsed since the dismissal, such person shall not be deemed to be duly nominated as a candidate unless his nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate issued in the prescribed manner by the Election Commission to the effect that he has not been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State.”
• Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section deals with the scrutiny of nominations and allows a candidate time to rebut any objection, not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny. “The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny on the date appointed in this behalf under clause (b) of section 30 and shall not allow any adjournment of the proceedings except when such proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or open violence or by causes beyond his control; Provided that in case [an objection is raised by the returning officer or is made by any other person] the candidate concerned may be allowed time to rebut it not later than the next day but one following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the returning officer shall record his decision on the date to which the proceedings have been adjourned.”
• Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Defines a ‘candidate’ as a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election. “‘candidate’ means a person who has been or claims to have been duly nominated as a candidate at any election;”
• Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: Specifies who can file an election petition – either an elector or a candidate. The Explanation to this section defines an ‘elector’ as a person entitled to vote in the election.
• Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: States that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 81.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the Returning Officer did not provide sufficient time to produce the required certificate from the Election Commission, as mandated by the proviso of Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The appellant contended that he was not dismissed from service on the grounds of corruption or disloyalty to the State.
• The appellant claimed that he should be considered a ‘candidate’ as he claimed to have been duly nominated, and therefore, his election petition was maintainable.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the phrase “may be allowed time” in Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, gives discretion to the Returning Officer, and the appellant cannot claim a right to more time.
• The respondent contended that the appellant did not possess the required certificate at the time of filing the nomination, at the time of scrutiny, or even at the time of filing the Election Petition.
• The respondent argued that the appellant was not a ‘candidate’ because his nomination was not valid, and therefore, he had no locus standi to file the election petition.

Submissions Table:

Innovativeness of the Argument: The appellant’s argument that he should be considered a ‘candidate’ simply by claiming to have been duly nominated is an innovative interpretation of Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. However, this argument was not accepted by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issue:

1. Whether the appellant, whose nomination was rejected for not submitting the required certificate, can claim to be a ‘candidate’ under Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and thus maintain an election petition?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Charan Lal Sahu vs. Giani Zail Singh & Anr., (1984) 1 SCC 390 (Supreme Court of India): The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a person can only claim to have been duly nominated if their nomination paper complies with the mandatory statutory requirements.
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, (1978) 2 SCC 500 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election & Ors. (1993) SUPP 4 SCC 386 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Charan Lal Sahu & Anr. v. K.R. Narayanan & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 56 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Dr. A.P .J. Abdul Kalam & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 609 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to emphasize that the matter must be decided on the basis of the averments in the Election Petition.
• Bolin Chetia v. Jogadish Bhuyan & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 81 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the power of appellate courts to dismiss appeals summarily.
• T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467 (Supreme Court of India): This case was cited to support the principle that a meritless plaint should be nipped in the bud.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 9(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision deals with the certificate issued by the Election Commission regarding dismissal for corruption or disloyalty.
• Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision mandates that a nomination paper of a dismissed officer must be accompanied by a certificate from the Election Commission.
• Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision deals with the scrutiny of nominations and allows a candidate time to rebut any objection.
• Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision defines ‘candidate’.
• Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision specifies who can file an election petition.
• Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision specifies who can maintain an Election Petition.
• Section 86(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This provision states that the High Court shall dismiss an election petition that does not comply with the provisions of Section 81.
• Order VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This provision deals with striking out pleadings.
• Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: This provision deals with rejection of plaint.

Authority Table:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Charan Lal Sahu vs. Giani Zail Singh & Anr., (1984) 1 SCC 390*: The Court followed this case to hold that a person can only claim to have been duly nominated if their nomination paper complies with the mandatory statutory requirements.
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, (1978) 2 SCC 500*: The Court cited this case to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. Returning Officer for Presidential Election & Ors. (1993) SUPP 4 SCC 386*: The Court cited this case to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Charan Lal Sahu & Anr. v. K.R. Narayanan & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC 56*: The Court cited this case to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Charan Lal Sahu v. Dr. A.P .J. Abdul Kalam & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 609*: The Court cited this case to support the principle that a nomination paper must comply with statutory requirements to be valid.
• Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal, (2017) 5 SCC 345*: The Court cited this case to emphasize that the matter must be decided on the basis of the averments in the Election Petition.
• Bolin Chetia v. Jogadish Bhuyan & Ors., (2005) 6 SCC 81*: The Court cited this case to support the power of appellate courts to dismiss appeals summarily.
• T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal (1977) 4 SCC 467*: The Court cited this case to support the principle that a meritless plaint should be nipped in the bud.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the mandatory nature of Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court emphasized that the absence of the required certificate automatically disqualifies a person from being considered a duly nominated candidate. The Court also noted that the appellant did not possess the certificate at any relevant time, including the time of filing the nomination, scrutiny, and the election petition. The Court’s reasoning focused on the strict compliance with statutory requirements for a valid nomination.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s decision was heavily influenced by legal considerations (70%), specifically the interpretation of Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the requirement for strict compliance with statutory provisions. Factual aspects (30%), such as the appellant’s failure to obtain the certificate, also played a role, but the legal analysis was the dominant factor.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation that the appellant’s claim of having been duly nominated should be sufficient to consider him a candidate, but rejected this interpretation because it would violate the mandatory requirement of Section 33(3) of the Act. The Court held that a person who does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the statute cannot claim to be a duly nominated candidate.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Allahabad High Court, stating that the appellant’s election petition was rightly dismissed. The Court emphasized that the appellant was not a ‘candidate’ as his nomination was invalid due to the lack of the required certificate. The Court also held that the appellant’s claim that he was not dismissed for corruption or disloyalty was irrelevant, as the law mandates the certificate regardless of the grounds of dismissal.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The law itself deems that such a person cannot be duly nominated.”
• “It would, therefore, be absurd to construe the legislative scheme as permitting a person who has not filed his nomination in accordance with Section 33 (3), as enabling him to claim that he is a duly nominated candidate even though the provision mandates that such a person shall not be deemed to be a duly nominated candidate.”
• “The claim of a contestant that he was duly nominated must arise out of his compliance with the provisions of the Act. It cannot arise out of the violation of the Act.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench, with all judges concurring.

The judgment establishes that strict compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is necessary for a person to be considered a duly nominated candidate. The decision also clarifies that a person whose nomination is rejected for failing to provide the required certificate cannot challenge an election as a ‘candidate’. This has implications for future election petitions, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory requirements.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles but reinforced the existing principle of strict compliance with statutory requirements in election law.

Key Takeaways

• A person dismissed from government service must produce a certificate from the Election Commission stating they were not dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to be considered a validly nominated candidate.
• Failure to provide the required certificate results in the rejection of the nomination and disqualifies the person from being considered a ‘candidate’.
• A person whose nomination is rejected for failing to provide the mandatory certificate cannot challenge an election as a ‘candidate’.
• The time provided under Section 36(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to rebut an objection is discretionary, not mandatory.
• Strict compliance with the statutory requirements for a valid nomination is essential in election law.

The judgment has potential future impacts on election law, reinforcing the importance of strict adherence to statutory requirements and clarifying the definition of a ‘candidate’ inelection disputes. It limits the scope of who can file an election petition, ensuring that only validly nominated candidates or electors can challenge election results. This can help prevent frivolous or vexatious election petitions.