Defects In Nomination Form Cannot Be Cured At The Time Of Scrutiny: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a candidate contesting elections to a public office is not permitted to rectify defects in the nomination form at the time of scrutiny, which is done post the last date for filing of nomination.

A single judge bench of Justice Surag Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by Manjula @ Manju, wherein her nomination for the post of Member of Tumbala Grama Panchayath from Block-II Constituency reserved for BCM-IIA Women Category, came to rejected by the returning officer.

The bench said,

“Law does not provide for scrutiny to be carried out and the objections raised in the scrutiny to be satisfied by a contestant. The scrutiny in the course of election is only carried out for the purpose of determining the eligible candidate by deleting the ineligible candidates.”

The petition claimed that though the petitioner had submitted a caste verification certificate for the purpose of contesting election on 17.12.2020, the same was not considered by the Returning Officer and the nomination submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on 17.12.2020.

Firstly the bench noted that the last date for filing of nomination was fixed at 16.12.2020 which were to be scrutinised on 17.12.2020. It said, “I am of the considered opinion that it is not the date of the scrutiny or the compliance after the scrutiny which is relevant but what is relevant in election matters is that all the relevant documents satisfying all the relevant criteria are to be submitted on or before the last date and time fixed for submission of the nominations.”

It added, “In the present case, the time being fixed as 3.00 p.m. on 16.12.2020 for submission of the nomination form, it was but required for the petitioner to submit her nomination form, affidavit and all other documents that the petitioner intended to rely upon in support of her nomination form on that date by that time.”

Court noted the eligibility in this case related to a seat which was reserved for BCMII(A) (Female). It observed, "It was required for the candidate to have produced all documents to support such a claim made by the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the requirements of the notification bearing No.RDP/5/ZPS 95(1) dated 13.01.1995 and furnished the caste certificate in terms of Rule 8(a) of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1993 along with the nomination form. Thus, the non-production of such documents along with the nomination form would make the nomination form incomplete and liable for rejection.”

Further it said, “There is no opportunity given to any of the contestants to rectify any defects pointed out during the scrutiny and as aforesaid, the scrutiny is carried out only to separate the eligible and ineligible candidates.”

Accordingly it dismissed the petition.

Appearance: Prasanna V R for Petitioner

AGA Naveen Chandrashekar for R1-5

Advocate P. Nataraju for R6.

Citation No. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

Case Title: Manjula @ Manju And The Chief Secretary & Others Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17758 OF 2022

Click Here To Read/Download Order