N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Others

A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India, in N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Others (1959) Supp (1) SCR 623, analyzed the scope of inquiry in an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The primary legal issue was whether the Election Tribunal could entertain grounds of disqualification not previously raised before the Returning Officer during the nomination scrutiny. The Court ruled that an election petition is an original proceeding and not an appellate jurisdiction over the Returning Officer’s decision. Thus, the Tribunal may consider any relevant disqualification under Section 36(2) of the Act, regardless of whether it was raised earlier. This judgment clarified the interpretation of “improperly rejected” in Section 100(1)(c) and underscored the Tribunal’s competence to independently assess a candidate’s eligibility based on all applicable disqualifications, ensuring the sanctity of the electoral process. The judgment thus harmonized procedural and substantive electoral laws, reinforcing judicial oversight in upholding electoral fairness.

Keywords: Representation of the People Act, Election Tribunal, Improper Rejection, Nomination Scrutiny, Original Proceedings, Disqualification, Returning Officer, Election Petition, Section 36(2), Section 100(1)(c).

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
N.T. Veluswami Thevar v. G. Raja Nainar and Others

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeals Nos. 231 and 232 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date
November 24, 1958

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar, Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar, and Justice A.K. Sarkar

vi) Author
Justice T.L. Venkatarama Aiyar

vii) Citation
(1959) Supp (1) SCR 623

viii) Legal Provisions Involved

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951): Sections 7, 32, 33, 36(2), 100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i), and 116A

  • Articles 84, 102, 173, and 191 of the Constitution of India

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any)
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects
Constitutional Law, Election Law, Administrative Law, Procedural Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arose from the 1957 general elections to the Madras Legislative Assembly. Multiple candidates, including the appellant N.T. Veluswami Thevar and fourth respondent S. Arunachalam, filed nominations from the Alangulam Constituency in Tirunelveli District. During the scrutiny, objections were raised against Arunachalam’s nomination under Sections 7(d) and 7(e) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that as the Headmaster of a government-aided school, he held an office of profit and was disqualified.

The Returning Officer upheld the objection and rejected Arunachalam’s nomination. Consequently, Veluswami Thevar was declared elected after polling. Subsequently, G. Raja Nainar, a voter, filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) challenging the validity of Arunachalam’s rejection and thus Thevar’s election.

The pivotal legal question was whether the Election Tribunal could entertain additional grounds of disqualification not presented before the Returning Officer during the nomination scrutiny.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

During the 1957 general elections, six candidates, including the appellant and Arunachalam, submitted nominations. On February 1, 1957, during scrutiny, an objection was raised by another candidate Chellapandian against Arunachalam’s nomination, citing his employment as Headmaster in a government-aided institution. This led to the Returning Officer rejecting Arunachalam’s nomination based on Sections 7(d) and (e) of the Act.

Following the withdrawal of two candidates, elections were held, and Veluswami Thevar secured the highest votes. Raja Nainar, a voter, filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(c), contending that the Returning Officer improperly rejected Arunachalam’s nomination since he had resigned before the nomination date and the institution was private.

In his defense, Veluswami Thevar asserted additional grounds of disqualification under Section 7: that Arunachalam held interests in government contracts and had entered employment agreements with the District Board.

Nainar moved the Election Tribunal to strike out these additional grounds, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over new disqualification grounds not raised before the Returning Officer. The Tribunal rejected this view, but the Madras High Court later overruled the Tribunal, confining its jurisdiction to only the grounds raised before the Returning Officer.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the Election Tribunal has jurisdiction under Section 100(1)(c) to examine disqualification grounds not raised before the Returning Officer.

ii) What constitutes “improperly rejected” under Section 100(1)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

iii) Whether an election petition under Section 100(1)(c) operates as an original proceeding or an appellate review of the Returning Officer’s decision.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The election petition is an original proceeding governed by Section 81 of the Act. The Tribunal is not bound by the narrow inquiry conducted by the Returning Officer but must independently verify if a candidate suffers from any disqualification under Section 36(2).

They argued that “improperly rejected” under Section 100(1)(c) refers broadly to whether the candidate was duly qualified under the Constitution and the Act, not limited to objections raised at scrutiny.

Citing the ruling in Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 267 and Mengh Raj v. Bhimandas, (1952) 2 E.L.R. 301, they contended that the Tribunal may entertain any legitimate disqualification, whether or not raised previously.

The appellant further emphasized that procedural technicalities should not undermine the substantive right under Section 32 and Articles 84, 173 of the Constitution which require eligibility compliance.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

The election petition, in their view, acts as an appeal from the Returning Officer’s decision. Thus, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction should be restricted to reviewing only the grounds raised and examined during scrutiny.

The respondent relied on the reasoning of the Madras High Court, which held that the Tribunal could not enlarge its scope beyond what was examined by the Returning Officer.

They contended that Section 36(6), which requires the Returning Officer to record reasons for rejection, signifies the intent to limit Tribunal review to these specific reasons.

Additionally, they cited Charanjit Lal v. Lehri Singh, AIR 1958 Punj 433 to argue that the Tribunal must evaluate the Returning Officer’s decision based solely on material available at the time of scrutiny.

They cautioned that allowing fresh grounds would introduce uncertainty and procedural anomalies, undermining the sanctity of nomination scrutiny under Section 36.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i)

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951:

    • Section 7 – Disqualifications for membership

    • Section 32 – Right to be nominated if qualified

    • Section 33 – Presentation of nomination papers

    • Section 36(2) – Grounds for rejection of nomination papers

    • Section 36(6) – Requirement to record reasons for rejection

    • Section 100(1)(c) – Improper rejection of nomination paper

    • Section 100(1)(d)(i) – Improper acceptance of nomination paper

    • Section 116A – Appeal to High Court

  • Constitution of India:

    • Articles 84, 102, 173, 191 – Qualifications and disqualifications for membership

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i)

The Supreme Court held that an election petition is an original proceeding under Section 81 of the Act. The Tribunal exercises original jurisdiction and is not confined to reviewing the Returning Officer’s decision.

The Court interpreted “improperly rejected” in Section 100(1)(c) broadly, holding that the Tribunal must examine whether the candidate was disqualified under any of the provisions of Section 36(2), irrespective of whether the Returning Officer had considered those grounds.

The Tribunal’s inquiry should not be limited to procedural lapses or specific objections but should ensure that only duly qualified candidates contest elections.

The Court emphasized that Section 36(2) covers all grounds of disqualification under constitutional provisions and the Act. Thus, procedural failures by the Returning Officer cannot restrict the Tribunal’s substantive jurisdiction.

The Court cited Mengh Raj v. Bhimandas, (1952) 2 E.L.R. 301, Tej Singh v. Election Tribunal, Jaipur, (1954) 9 E.L.R. 193, and Dhanraj Deshlehara v. Vishwanath Y. Tamaskar, (1958) 15 E.L.R. 260 to support its reasoning.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i)

The Court observed that limiting the Tribunal’s inquiry would lead to anomalous results where candidates with multiple disqualifications may escape scrutiny simply because the Returning Officer only recorded one disqualification.

The Court clarified that the law must be construed to avoid anomalies and to ensure electoral purity.

The Court also commented that interfering with interlocutory orders under Article 226 should be discouraged when appellate remedies under Section 116A exist to ensure expeditious electoral dispute resolution.

c. GUIDELINES 

  • The Tribunal shall examine all disqualifications under Section 36(2), irrespective of prior objections.

  • An election petition under Section 100(1)(c) is an original proceeding, not an appellate review.

  • High Courts should avoid interfering with interlocutory Tribunal orders under Article 226 when statutory appeals exist.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i)

  • Mengh Raj v. Bhimandas, (1952) 2 E.L.R. 301

  • Tej Singh v. Election Tribunal, Jaipur, (1954) 9 E.L.R. 193

  • Dhanraj Deshlehara v. Vishwanath Y. Tamaskar, (1958) 15 E.L.R. 260

  • Durga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh, [1955] 1 SCR 267

  • Bhikaji Keshao Joshi v. Brijlal Nandlal Biyani, [1955] 2 SCR 428

  • Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, [1955] 1 SCR 1104

  • Charanjit Lal v. Lehri Singh, AIR 1958 Punj 433

b. Important Statutes Referred

i)

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) – Sections 7, 32, 33, 36(2), 36(6), 100(1)(c), 100(1)(d)(i), 116A

  • Constitution of India – Articles 84, 102, 173, 191

Share this :
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp
Author picture