ADV. JOICE GEORGE Vs. ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Infraction of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 ('the Rules' for short) is alleged by the petitioner who is a candidate contesting from the Idukki Parliament Constituency. The name of the petitioner was entered as 'Joice George' in the nomination paper submitted to be in tune with the electoral roll. The petitioner later filed Ext.P1 representation to the Returning Officer to correct his name as 'Adv.Joice George' in the list of validly nominated candidates. The same was preferred under the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the Rules on the premise that the petitioner is popularly known by that name in the Constituency. Ext.P1 representation was entertained by the Returning Officer and the name of the petitioner appeared as 'Adv.Joice George' in Ext.P2 list of validly nominated candidates.

(2.) The dispute centers around the fact that the name of the petitioner figures only as Serial No.10 in the list of validly nominated candidates. The petitioner contends that his name should figure as Serial No.7 in the list of validly nominated candidates if the names are arranged alphabetically. The petitioner concedes that the names of candidates of recognised political parties figure as Serial Nos.1 to 6 in the list of validly nominated candidates. They gain preference in listing owing to the classification under Section 38(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('the Act' for short). The petitioner asserts that his name has been pushed down to Serial No.10 even though he is legitimately entitled to Serial No.7 in the list as per the alphabetical order.

(3.) Reliance is placed on Rule 10(3) of the Rules which is as under:-