9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Rejection of nomination paper by Returning Officer. 2. Interpretation of s. 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Requirement of making and subscribing oath or affirmation under Art. 173 of the Constitution. 4. Timing of taking oath or affirmation by a candidate. 5. Legal implications of the term "on the date fixed for scrutiny." Analysis: The case involved an appeal under s. 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the rejection of a nomination paper by the Returning Officer for the Bihar Legislative Assembly election. The key issue was whether the candidate was required to make and subscribe the oath or affirmation before the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination papers. The High Court upheld the rejection, stating that the candidate was not qualified under Art. 173 of the Constitution as he had not taken the requisite oath before scrutiny. The interpretation of s. 36(2) of the Act was crucial in determining the timing of taking the oath or affirmation. The section allows the rejection of a nomination if the candidate is not qualified under Art. 173 on the date fixed for scrutiny. The candidate argued that he could take the oath immediately before objections were considered, but the court held that the qualification must exist from the start of the scrutiny day. The requirement of making and subscribing the oath or affirmation under Art. 173 was a central point of contention. The form of oath specified in the Constitution indicated that it should be done after nomination. The court emphasized that none of the Act's sections mandated attaching the oath to the nomination paper, and the oath could not be taken before being nominated as a candidate. The judgment delved into the legal implications of the term "on the date fixed for scrutiny," emphasizing that the candidate must be qualified from the beginning of the scrutiny day. Referring to legal precedents and the Conduct of Elections Rules, the court rejected the argument that the oath could be taken on the scrutiny date. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to the legal requirements and dismissed the appeal, affirming the rejection of the nomination paper. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the rejection of the nomination paper and emphasizing the necessity for candidates to fulfill the qualification criteria, including making and subscribing the oath or affirmation as per the Constitution, before the commencement of the scrutiny of nomination papers. The judgment clarified the timing requirements for candidates to meet the eligibility criteria under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
|
