RO rejects Congress challenge to Parimal Nathwani nomination in Jharkhand
Ranchi, June 10: The nomination of NDA-backed Rajya Sabha candidate Parimal Nathwani was upheld on Wednesday after Jharkhand Rajya Sabha Returning Officer…
Ranchi, June 10: The nomination of NDA-backed Rajya Sabha candidate Parimal Nathwani was upheld on Wednesday after Jharkhand Rajya Sabha Returning Officer Ranjeet Kumar rejected a series of objections raised during the scrutiny process, holding that none of them disclosed a valid ground for rejection under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
In a detailed three-page order issued under Section 36 of the Act, Kumar examined objections relating to an alleged failure to furnish a No Dues Certificate, alleged non-disclosure of shareholding and financial interests, variation in the candidate’s name, and incomplete disclosure in Form 26. The Returning Officer concluded that the objections either lacked factual basis or involved issues that could not legally justify rejection of a nomination at the scrutiny stage.
The order clears the way for Nathwani, who is backed by the NDA, to remain in the fray for the Rajya Sabha election from Jharkhand.
Returning Officer Rejects Objection on No Dues Certificate
The first objection alleged that Nathwani had failed to furnish a No Dues Certificate relating to government accommodation.
After examining the records and the candidate’s response, Returning Officer Ranjeet Kumar found that the requisite document had in fact been submitted.
“The candidate has stated that the requisite certificate has been furnished. On examination of the records, it is found that there is a NOC,” the order records.
The objection was therefore rejected.
ALSO READ: Babulal Marandi SC verdict helps Parimal Nathwani survive nomination challenge
Shareholding Allegation Not Ground for Rejecting Nomination
The second objection claimed that Nathwani was a shareholder or director in a company and had failed to disclose the same.
Nathwani denied the allegation.
While dealing with the issue, the Returning Officer did not determine whether the allegation itself was correct. Instead, he held that scrutiny proceedings under Section 36 have a limited scope.
The order notes that questions concerning the correctness, adequacy or truthfulness of disclosures made in Form 26 are matters that may be examined in appropriate proceedings but do not furnish a ground for rejection of a nomination at the scrutiny stage when the prescribed affidavit has been filed.
“The prescribed affidavit has been filed,” the order states, adding that scrutiny under Section 36 is not intended to adjudicate disputes regarding the accuracy of disclosures.
Name Variation Held to Be Technical, Not Substantial
The third objection related to a variation in the candidate’s name, with records referring to him as both “Parimal Nathwani” and “Nathwani Parimal”.
The Returning Officer examined the documents produced by Nathwani and concluded that both names referred to the same individual.
The order records that electoral identity documents and certificates issued by competent electoral authorities supported the candidate’s identity. It also notes that Nathwani had previously been elected to the Rajya Sabha from Jharkhand.
According to the Returning Officer, the variation was only in the arrangement or spelling format of the name and did not create any genuine doubt regarding identity.
The discrepancy, he held, was “at best technical in nature” and not a defect of substantial character under Section 36(4) of the Act.
Form 26 Omissions Do Not Warrant Rejection
The fourth objection concerned certain blank columns in Nathwani’s Form 26 affidavit relating to dependents and other particulars.
The objector argued that the affidavit was incomplete.
The Returning Officer acknowledged the Supreme Court’s ruling in Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India, which emphasises that affidavit columns should ordinarily not be left blank and complete disclosure should be made.
However, he found that:
- The prescribed affidavit had been filed along with the nomination paper;
- There was no case of complete non-filing of the affidavit;
- Nathwani clarified that the omitted entries related to matters not applicable to him; and
- A revised Form 26 had been furnished explaining the position.
In these circumstances, Kumar held that the omission did not justify rejection of the nomination, particularly in view of Section 36(4), which bars rejection for defects that are not of a substantial character.
No Constitutional or Statutory Disqualification Found
The Returning Officer also independently examined whether Nathwani suffered from any disqualification under Article 102 of the Constitution, Sections 8 to 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or lacked the qualifications prescribed under Article 84 and Section 3 of the Act.
The order records that no such disqualification or lack of qualification was established.
Nomination Declared Valid
Concluding that none of the objections disclosed a valid ground for rejection under Section 36(2) of the Representation of the People Act, Returning Officer Ranjeet Kumar rejected all objections and accepted Nathwani’s nomination.
“The nomination paper of Shri Nathwani Parimal is found to be valid and is hereby accepted under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” the order states.
P
