2011 (12) TMI 766 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Improper rejection of nomination papers.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules.
3. Role and duties of the Returning Officer.
4. Filing and scrutiny of Forms A and B.
5. Legal interpretation of mandatory requirements.
6. Procedural fairness and natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Improper Rejection of Nomination Papers:
The primary issue was whether the Returning Officer improperly rejected the nomination papers of the proposed candidate. The High Court framed issues to determine if the rejection violated statutory provisions, rules, and principles of natural justice. The High Court concluded that the rejection was improper, as the proposed candidate had filed original Forms A and B duly signed in ink by the authorized person of the BJD, which the Returning Officer failed to acknowledge.

2. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Rules:
The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of filing original Forms A and B signed in ink by the authorized person of a recognized political party. The Supreme Court held that non-compliance with this requirement constitutes a defect of substantial character, making the nomination paper liable to be rejected under Section 36(2)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

3. Role and Duties of the Returning Officer:
The Returning Officer's role in election management was scrutinized. The Court noted that the Returning Officer must ensure no scope for complaints and must follow the guidelines in the handbook issued by the Election Commission. The Returning Officer's failure to detect the original Forms A and B at the time of scrutiny and his subsequent rejection of the nomination without adequate inquiry were deemed improper.

4. Filing and Scrutiny of Forms A and B:
The case hinged on whether the proposed candidate filed original Forms A and B duly signed in ink. The High Court found that the candidate had filed these forms, supported by documentary evidence such as the check list, Form 3A, and the consolidated list of nominated candidates. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the importance of these documents in establishing compliance with the statutory requirements.

5. Legal Interpretation of Mandatory Requirements:
The Court interpreted the word "only" in Clause (e) of para 13 of the 1968 Order to indicate the mandatory nature of filing Forms A and B signed in ink. The Court rejected the argument that this requirement was merely directory, holding that it was essential for the validity of the nomination paper.

6. Procedural Fairness and Natural Justice:
The judgment highlighted the need for procedural fairness and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Returning Officer's failure to provide the proposed candidate an opportunity to rebut the objection regarding the missing Forms A and B was criticized. The Court held that the Returning Officer should have allowed time for the candidate to address the objection, as mandated by the proviso to Section 36(5) of the 1951 Act.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the election of the returned candidate due to the improper rejection of the proposed candidate's nomination papers. The judgment emphasized strict compliance with statutory requirements, the mandatory nature of filing original Forms A and B, and the Returning Officer's duty to ensure procedural fairness. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's declaration of a casual vacancy and the direction for fresh elections in the 89-Athagarh Assembly Constituency.