When Improper acceptance of nomination be said to have materially affected result of election?

  Representation of the  People  Act,  1951-S.100(1)(d)-
Improper acceptance  of nomination-When  could it be said to
materially affect the result of election?
The appellant, the respondent and four other candidates
contested the  election to  a legislative  assembly  from  a
constituency  reserved  for  Scheduled  Castes.  While  the
respondent was declared elected,  the appellant secured the
next highest  number of  votes and  the  difference  in  the
number of  votes secured by them was only 373. The appellant
challenged the election of the respondent on the ground that
the result  of the  election had been materially effected by
the  improper  acceptance  of  the  nomination of  a  third
candidate who  had secured 6710 votes. The Election Tribunal
arrived at  the finding  that the  candidate in question was
not a member of the Scheduled Castes and hence is nomination
had been  improperly accepted, but nevertheless, refused to
set aside  the election of the respondent on the ground that
the result  of the  election had not been shown to have been
materially affected  as a  result of the improper acceptance
of the nomination.
     Allowing the appeal,
^
     HELD: Under  s. 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951, the election of a returned candidate shall
be declared  to be  void if the High Court is of the opinion
that the  result of  the election,  in so far as it concerns
the returned  candidate, has been materially affected by the
improper acceptance  of any  nomination and  the  burden  of
establishing the  same is  on the  person  impeaching  the
election.  Where   the candidate   whose   nomination  was
improperly accepted  has secured  a larger  number of  votes
than the  difference between  the number of votes secured by
the successful candidate and the candidate securing the next
highest number of votes,  there is  a possibility  that  a
sufficient number  of votes  actually cast for the candidate
whose nomination  was improperly  accepted might  have been
cast for  the candidate  who secured  the highest  number of
votes next  to the  successful candidate  so as to upset the
result of  the election.  In such a situation, the answer to
the question  whether the  result of  the election  could be
said to  have been  materially affected  must depend  on the
facts, circumstances  and reasonable  probabilities  of  the
case. If  the number of votes secured by the candidate whose
nomination was improperly  accepted  is  disproportionately
large as compared with the difference
967
between the  votes secured  by the  successful candidate and
the candidate  securing the next highest number of votes and
if the votes secured  by the candidate whose nomination was
improperly accepted  bears a  fairly high  proportion to the
votes secured  by the  successful candidate,  the reasonable
probability is that the  result of  the election  has been
materially affected  and one may venture to hold the fact as
proved. [968 F-G; 969 D-F]
     Under the Evidence Act,  a fact  is said to be proved
when after  considering the  matters before  it,  the  Court
either believes  it to exist or  considers its existence so
probable that  a prudent  man ought, under the circumstances
of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it
exists. If having regard to the facts and circumstances of a
case, the  reasonable probability  is all  one way,  a court
must not lay down an impossible standard of proof and hold a
fact as not proved. [969 G-H]
     In the instant case, the candidate whose nomination was
improperly accepted had obtained 6710 votes, that is, almost
20-times the  difference between the number of votes secured
by the successful candidate  and the candidate securing the
next highest  number of  votes. Further, the number of votes
secured by  the candidate  whose nomination  was  improperly
accepted bore  a fairly  high proportion  to the  number  of
votes secured  by the  successful candidate-it was a little
over one-third.  In such  a  situation the  result  of  the
election may  safely be  said to have been affected.

Supreme Court of India

Chhedi Ram vs Jhilmit Ram & Others on 5 December, 1983

Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 146, 1984 SCR (1) 966,

1984 SCC  (2) 281,

BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

Print Page

Basic concept of expression ‘Concise’ in pleading

The requirement under Section 83(1)(a) of the RP Act in

contradistinction to Section 83(1)(b) of the RP Act is that the

election petition need contain only a concise statement of the

material facts and not material particulars. ‘Concise’ according

to Oxford Dictionary means, ‘brief and comprehensive’.

Concise Oxford Dictionary has given the meaning to the

expression ‘Concise’ as ‘giving a lot of information clearly and

in few words’. As per Webster Comprehensive Dictionary,

International Edition, expression has been defined as

‘expressing much in brief form’. Having furnished the facts in a

compendious manner, can it be said that there is no concise

statement of material facts?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 69-70 OF 2012

Ashraf Kokkur V K.V. Abdul Khader Etc.

KURIAN, J.:

Citation;2014(5) ALLMR 880 SC

Print Page