Eh·c1io11-Contes1 .from a general Constituency to seat in State Legislative Assemblymission to strike ojf 'Scheduled Caste/Tribe' and to fill in candidate's caste iii nomination paper-If defective justifO'ing rejection of nomination paper. In relation to an election to the State Legislative Assembly from a general constituency, one candidate had not in the nomination paper (a) filled his specific caste in the blank meant for that purpose, and (b) he had, left the words 'Scheduled Caste' unscored. The Returning Officer rejected his nomination paper on the ground that his failure to dlete ·the words 'Scheduled Caste' meant that he belonged to the scheduled caste which was not true, and consequently, the nomination papc:r was not filled up properly. The respondent was declared elected. ThC' High Court, holding that the candidate, whose nomination paper wu~ rejected by the Returnin~ Officer, had not properly filled his nomination paper, upheld the rejecl!on and dismissed the election petition challenging the respondent's election. Allowing the appeal to this Court. HEU> : (1) The seat for Which the candidates contested was not a re· sen~d seat. There is no statutory provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or elsewhere which enjoins a candidate who is contesting t!)e election for a. general seat, and not for a reserved seat, to specify in his -declaration his caste or tribe. [571GJ · (2) The Returning Officer admitted in his evidence that at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination papers. he was aware !ha• the candidate, whose nomination paper he rejected, was no( a member of the scheduled caste and that he had deposited Rs. 250/ • as security. Therefore, the omis· sion to strike off scheduled cas.te/trire in the form did not amount to a defect in the eye of law, much less was it a defect of a substantial character, warranting the rejection of the nomination paper. [571H] Amo/ak Chand v. Raghuveer Singh [1968} 3, S.C.R. 246 followed.
