c SHEIKH ABDUL REHMAN v. JAGAT RAM ARYAN February 11, 1969 [S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] Jammu and Kashmir Constitution, 1957, s. 51(a)-Signed oalh form filed before authorised officer-No oath or affirmation made before the officer nor oath for1n signed before hini-If section con1plied with. Section 5 l(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Constitution provides that a person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a seat in the State Legislature unless Ile 1nakes and subscribes an oath or affirmation in the prescribed for"' before the person outhorised in that behalf. The Election Commission nc:ified the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer as the authorised officers.
Where a candidate did not sign the oath form before the Assi;tant Returning Officer, nor make oath or affirmation in his presence, but pre- sented to the Assistant Returning Officer the candidate's nomination paper along with the oath form filled up and signed before presentation, HELD: There was no sufficient compliance with s. 51 (a) and there- fore, the candidate was not qualified to be choseri to fill the seat in the Legislature under the section, and his nomination paper \vas liabl~ to be rejected by the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny under s. 47(2) (a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Representation of the People Act, 1957 [601 E-F, H; 602 A·Bl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1527 of 1968. Appeal under s. 123 of the Jammu and Kashmir Representa· tion of the People Act,. 1957 from the Judgment and order dated April 29, 1968 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in ElectiOn Petition No. 33 of 1967.
R. N. Bhalgotra and S. S. Khanduja, for the appellant. R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and S. Chakravarti, for the respondent. The Judgment of th.~ Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. This appeal is directed against a ju?g~ent. o~ a Single Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dtsm1ssmg an election petition for setting aside th~ election of the respondent Jagat Ram Aryan to the legislative assembly of the State of Jamm~ & Kashmir from the Bhaderwah schedulefl caste assembly consl!- 'H
tuency. The last date for filing the nomination papers was January 20, 1967. The date of scrutiny of nomination papers was January 23, 1967. The date of poll was February 21, 1967. The date of
counting and dc;claration of result was March l, 1967. Several candidates filed their nomination papers from this constituency. The candidates were : {I) Jagat Ram Aryan, (2) Faquir Chand, (3) Narain Dass, (4) Nikka Ram, (5) Bhagat Ram, (6) Om
Parkash and (7) Swami Raj. The first five filed their nomination papers on January 23, 1967 before the Assistant Returning Officer, Kahan Singh, a Tehsildar of Bhaderwah. On scrutiny of the nomination papers, the Returning Officer Abdul Gani accept- ed as valid the nomination papers of J agat Ram and Faquir Chand and rejected the nominations papers of the remaining candidates for various reasons.
At the poll the contest was between Jagat Ram, the congress candidate and Faquit" Chand, the National Conference candidate. Respondent Jagat Ram having secured larger number of votes was declared elected.
The appellant, a voter in the constituency, filed the ckction petition for setting aside the respondent's election on the ground that the nomination papers of Narain Dass, Nikka Ram and
Bhagat Ram were improperly rejected. The High Court found that the nomination paper of Bhagat Ram was properly rejected and this finding is no longer challenged. The nomination paper of Nikka Ram was rejected on three
grounds : ( 1 ) he did not make and subscribe the oath or affinna- c tion as required by's. 51(a) of the Jammu & Kashmir Constitu- tion; (2) he was not a member of a scheduled caste and (3) his father"s name was not correctly shown in the electoral rolls. The nomination paper of Narain Dass was rejected on two grounds : ( 1 ) he did not make and subscribe the oath or affirmation as re- quired bys. 51 (a) and (2) he was not a member pf a scheduled caste. The High Court found that both Narain Dass and Nikka Ram were members of the scheduled caste "Megh". It also held that the error in the electoral roll with regard to the name of Nikka Ram's father was not a ground for rejecting his nomination paper having regard to s. 44 ( 4) of the J. & K. Representation of the People Act, 1957.
The High Court also rejected the addi· tional contention that Narain Dass had not made a deposit of Rs. 125 in conformity with s. 45 (2) of the Act. All these find- ings are no longer challenged.
The only point now in issue is whether Narain Dass and Nikka Ram made and subscribed the oath or affirmation as required by s. 51 (a) of the J. & K. Constitution. Section 51 (a) provides : "A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to fill a
sent in the Legislature unless he- ( a) is a permanent resident of the State, and makes and subscribes before some person authorised in that be- lialf by the Election Commission of India an oath or
.,… c ABDUL REHMAN v. JAGAT RAM (Bachawat, J.) 59~ affirmation according to the form set out for the purpose in the Fifth Schedule." The Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer
were authorised in this behalf by the Election Commission of India bv notification No. 3/ 4 J & K/65 as the persons before whom the oath or affirmation could be made and subscribed. The pres- cribed form of oath or affirmation to be made by a candidate of the State legislature is :-
"I, A.B., having been nominated as a candidate to fill a seat in the Legislative Assembly, (or legislative Council) do swear in the name of God/solemnly affirm that I will bear true faith and allegience to the Constitu- tion of the State as by law established and that I will
uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India." Section 44 of the J. & K. Representation of the People Act,. 1957 provides for presentation of nomination papers and pres- cribes certain requirements for a valid nomination.
Section 45 provides for deposits. Section 46 deals with notice of nominations and the time and place for their scrutiny. Section 47 (2)(a)- reads :- ;.The returning officer shall then examine the nomi-
nation papers and shall decide all objections which may be made to any nomination, and may, either on such objection or on his own motion, after such summary en- quiry, if any, as he thinks necessary, reject any nomina-
tion on any of the following grounds; (a) that on the date fixed for the scrutiny of nomi- nations the candidate either is not qualified or is dis- qualified for being chosen to fill the seat under any of tile provisions of sections
51 and 69 of the Constitution and Part VI of this Act; …. " Form 2A of the J. & K. Representation of the People (Con- duct of election and election petition) Rules, 1957 prescribes the form of nomination paper for election to the legislative assembly. It is common case that along with their nomination papers
both Narain Dass and Nikka Ram filed oath forms signed by them. The appellant's case is that at the time of the presentation of their nomination papers both Narain Dass and Nikka Ram made oaths and signed the oath forms in the presence of the Assistant Returning Officer. In support of this case, the appellant examined Narain Dass. Nikka Ram. Abdul Qayum and Abdul Rehman.
The respondent's case ;s that Narain Dass and Nikka Ram did not make or subscribe any oath or affirmation before the Assistant Returning Officer, that the oath forms had been filled up and sign- ed before they were presented to him and were not signed in his presence.
In support of his case the respondent examined Kahan Singh, the Assistant Returning Officer, and Abdul Gani, the Re- turning Officer. The High Court accepted the respondent's case.
It should be remembered that the requirement of making and subscnbing an oath or affirmation was inserted in s. 51 (a) of the J. & K. Constitution by the Co,nstitution Sixth Amendment Act, 1965. There is ground for believing that Narain Dass and Nikka Ram were not aware of this provision and for this reason they omitted to make or subscribe any oath or affirmation before the Assistant Returning Officer.
Our attention was drawn to Instruction No. 7 ( 7) in Chapter U at p. 19 of the Handbook for Returning Officers, issued by the Election Commission, India, for General Elections, 1967. The aforesaid instruction was as follows :-
"The oath or affirmation has first to be made and then signed by the candidate before the authorized officer. It should be borne in mind that mere signing on the paper on which the form of oath is written out is not
sufficient. The candidate must make the oath before the authorised officer. Accordingly he will ask the candi- date to read aloud the oath or affirmation in English or the regional language and then to sign and date the
paper on which the oath or affirmation is written. In the case of illiterate persons who want to contest elec- tions, and who cannot properly make and subscribe the oath or affirmation the authorised officer, should read
out the prescribed oath and ask the candidate to repe;;t the same and thereafter take his thumb impression on the form on which the oath is printed or cyclostyled in token of his having subscribed the oath. The authorised
officer should endorse on this paper that the oath or affirmation has been made and subscribed before the candidate on that day. He will immediatelv furnish to the candidate a certified copy thereof keeping a copy for
your record. The candidate will produce this copy as evidence before you at the time of scrutiny of nomina- tion papers. This copy will be given to the candidate forthwith without his applying for it. nor any fee be
charged for it." .Kahan Singh the Assistant Returning Officer was not conversant with these instructions. He did not ask either Narain Dass or Nikka Ram to read the oath or to sign the oath form in his pre- sence. But the breach of these instructions does not entitle them to say that they had made and subscribed the oath before the Assistant Returning Officer when in fact they did not make or -subscribe the oath before him.
c c ABDUL REHMAN v. JAGAT RAM (Bachawat, J.) It is admitted by the appellant that the oath forms filed by Narain Dass and Nikka Ram did not bear any endorsement of the Assistant Returning Officer stating that the oath or affirma· tion had been made and subscribed before him nor was any certi- ficate of such endorsement furnished to them.
The absence of the endorsement on the oath forms tend to suggest that no oath or affirmation was made and subscribed by them before the Assistant Returning Officer. Neither Narain Dass nor Nikka Ram could
produce before the Returning Officer Abdul Gani any evidence of their making and subscribing the oath or affirmation. Abdul Gani gave them an opportunity to produce affidavits in proof of this fact but they did not file any affidavit or any other evidence be- fore him.
The appellant examined witnesses to prove that attempts w.ere made to file such affidavits, but the High Court rightly rejected the testimony of these witnesses. The materials on the record corroborate the testimony of Kahan Singh, the Assistant Returning Officer that Narain Dass and Nikka Ram did not sign the oath forms in his presence and did not make the oath or affirmation before him. Narain Dass and Nikka Ram were
Jana Sangh candidates. Abdul Qayum and Abdul Rehman were their party men. All of them were interested witnesses. Having regard to all the materials on the record it is impossible to prefer their testimony to that of Kahan Singh.
In agreement with the High Court we hold that neither Narain Dass and Nikka Ram signed the oath forms before the Assistant Returning Officer nor did they make the oath or affirmation before him.
On January 23, 1967 both Narain Dass and Nikka Ram filed with the Assistant Returning Officer signed and filled up oath forms along with their nomination papers. In our opinion, this was not sufficient compliance with the requirement of s. 51(a). In Pashupati Nath v. Harihar Prasad(') this Court held tllat the nomination paper was liable to be rejected under s. 36(2)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 corresponding to s. 4712)1a) of the J. & K. Representation of the People Act 1957 if the qualification required by Art. 173(a) of the Constitu: tio.n corresponding to s. 51(a) of the J. & K. Constitution did not e~1st on the date of scrutiny of nominations. In that case no signed oath form was attach~ to the nomination paper or filed before the date. fixed f~r s~runny … In 'the present case signed oath forms alon? with nommat1on papers were filed with the Assistant Returnmg Officer on January 23, 1967 before the date fixed for scrutiny. But this fact mak.es no difference. They neither made nor subscribed the oath or affirmation before the Assistant Re- turni~g Officer a~ re9uired bys. 51 (a). On the date fixed for the scrutmy of nomma!Ions they were not qualified to be chosen to (I I [1968] 2 S.C.R. 812, A.1.R. 1968 S.C. 1064.
'11– (1969) 3 S.C.R· fill the seat in the legislature under s. 5l(a) of the J. & K. Consti· tution and their nomination papers were liable to be rejected under s. 47(2)(a) of the J. & K. Representation of the People Act, 1957.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. V.P.S. Appeal dismissed.