A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Khosla v. Dalip Singh [1957] scrutinized the impact of an improper rejection of a nomination paper under The Representation of the People Act, 1951. The case revolved around whether such a rejection materially affected the result of the election in a double-member constituency where one seat was reserved for Scheduled Castes. The Court laid down a pivotal presumption that improper rejection materially affects election results unless rebutted convincingly. It upheld that the entire election, including the reserved seat, must be void if one nomination was improperly rejected. This ruling significantly strengthened electoral fairness by protecting candidates from wrongful procedural exclusions. It distinguished prior rulings like Vasisht Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra (1955) 1 SCR 509 and emphasized the importance of factual attestation despite clerical communication errors by the Election Commission.

Keywords: Election Law, Improper Rejection, Representation of People Act 1951, Materially Affected Election, Double-member Constituency, Thumb Impression Attestation.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Surendra Nath Khosla v. Dalip Singh

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 23 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date:
November 29, 1956

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
S.R. Das C.J., Bhagwati J., Venkatarama Ayyar J., B.P. Sinha J., S.K. Das J.

vi) Author:
Justice B.P. Sinha

vii) Citation:
[1957] SCR 179

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 100(1)(c) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 [Read at: Indian Kanoon – Section 100]

• Rule 2(2) of The Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951.

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case:
None, but distinguished Vasisht Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra (1955) 1 SCR 509 and Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955) 1 SCR 1104.

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

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

Twelve candidates filed nominations from Samana Constituency, a double-member seat for the Pepsu Legislative Assembly, with one seat reserved for Scheduled Castes. Buta Singh’s nomination was rejected by the Returning Officer due to the alleged improper attestation of thumb impressions by the proposer and seconder. Despite actual specification of the attesting magistrate by the Election Commission, a clerical omission led to rejection. The Election Tribunal at Patiala set aside the entire election, ruling it materially affected. The Supreme Court deliberated upon the proper standards of attestation, the burden of proving material effect, and the consequences of procedural errors in electoral law [5].

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On January 9, 1954, nominations were filed. Scrutiny on January 13, 1954, saw all nominations accepted except Buta Singh’s. The thumb impressions of his proposer and seconder were attested by a magistrate properly authorized, but due to omission in communication by the Election Commission, the Returning Officer rejected it. Elections occurred on February 24, 1954, and results declared on March 4, 1954. Surendra Nath Khosla and Pritam Singh were elected. Dalip Singh filed an election petition alleging improper rejection materially altered election results. The Tribunal majority voided the election; a dissenting member disagreed on the ‘materially affected’ issue. Special leave was granted by the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the thumb impressions of the proposer and seconder were properly attested as per law.

ii) Whether improper rejection of a nomination paper materially affected the result of the election.

iii) Whether the entire election, including the reserved seat, should be declared void.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the thumb impressions were not properly attested since the magistrate’s name was not communicated, and thus rejection was valid [5].

ii) They argued that even if the rejection was improper, the respondent failed to prove that the election result was materially affected.

iii) They further asserted that the election to the reserved seat should not have been annulled as it was independent of the general seat.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that actual specification by the Election Commission sufficed for proper attestation under Rule 2(2) [5].

ii) They maintained that improper rejection of a nomination inherently prejudiced the election process, justifying annulment of the entire election.

iii) They contended that the elections being for a double-member constituency, were indivisible, making partial annulment legally untenable.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 100(1)(c) of The Representation of the People Act, 1951 mandates election to be void if improper rejection materially affects the result.

ii) Rule 2(2) of The Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951 validates thumb impressions if attested by a specified officer.

iii) Sections 101 and 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 establish burden of proof principles applicable to election petitions.

I) JUDGEMENT

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Court affirmed that once the Election Commission specifies an officer, attestation remains valid, even if clerical communication errors exist [5].

ii) It recognized a presumption that improper rejection materially affects elections, shifting burden onto those supporting the election to rebut it.

iii) It held that the entire election must be set aside, including the reserved seat, as elections for double-member constituencies are a composite process.

b) OBITER DICTA

i) The Court noted that procedural irregularities by election officials, if left unchecked, can endanger democratic processes.

ii) It emphasized the difficulties in proving electoral prejudice post facto, justifying presumptive rules favoring fairness.

c) GUIDELINES 

i) In cases of improper rejection, presume material effect unless convincingly rebutted.

ii) Composite elections (double-member) require annulment of entire results upon any material procedural flaw.

iii) Minor clerical errors in election commission communications should not prejudice candidates’ rights if the underlying authorisation exists.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment provided a strong precedent reinforcing electoral justice by ensuring that wrongful procedural decisions do not deprive candidates of rightful participation. It highlighted the need for practical presumptions rather than impractical burdens on petitioners. Furthermore, the case marked a distinction between improper acceptance and improper rejection impacts. Future elections thus benefited from a clarified and more candidate-protective framework ensuring that democratic choices are not manipulated by procedural faults or administrative mistakes.

K) REFERENCES

Important Cases Referred:

i) Vasisht Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra, (1955) 1 SCR 509
ii) Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1955) 1 SCR 1104
iii) Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwar Parashram, (1954) SCR 817
iv) Karnail Singh v. Election Tribunal, Hissar, (10 Elec. Law Reports 189)

Important Statutes Referred:

i) The Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 100(1)(c) and 90(3).

ii) The Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, Rule 2(2).

iii) The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 101 and 102.