No Section 33(3) Certificate, No Nomination: Rajasthan HC

Nomination Without Section 33(3) Certificate Rightly Rejected; Later Certificate Cannot Revive It: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed, with costs, an election petition challenging the election of the returned candidate from the Barmer Parliamentary Constituency in 2019. The petitioner, dismissed from the Indian Police Service on 19.02.2019, had filed his nomination without the Election Commission's certificate under Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Returning Officer had no option but to reject it, and a certificate issued after scrutiny could not change that (paras 39, 41, 45, 47).

Key holdings

Without the Section 33(3) certificate, a recently dismissed government servant is not duly nominated; the Returning Officer must reject the nomination (paras 37, 39).

A rejection is tested on the facts on the date of scrutiny; a later certificate is of no consequence (paras 40-41).

Mala fides alleged against the Election Commission for delay in issuing the certificate cannot be examined in an election petition (paras 42, 44).

An election petition is tried only on matters within Section 100 of the Act (paras 43-44).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The petitioner, an IPS officer, was dismissed from service by the Ministry of Home Affairs on 19.02.2019 for violating the Conduct Rules, 1968 (paras 3, 34). On 01.04.2019 he asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) for a certificate under Sections 9(2) and 33(3) (para 3). He filed his nomination for Barmer on 08.04.2019 without it, and at scrutiny on 10.04.2019 the Returning Officer rejected it under Section 36(2)(b) (paras 4-5, 7, 38). He then sought to contest from Bikaner and, on the High Court's direction in his writ petition to pass a speaking order by 16.04.2019, the ECI issued the certificate on 15.04.2019 (paras 8, 24). The issues were decided on the pleadings and documents (paras 15, 19).

Court's Findings

Section 33(3), read with Section 9, provides that a person dismissed from government service within five years is not deemed duly nominated unless the nomination paper is accompanied by the ECI's certificate that the dismissal was not for corruption or disloyalty to the State (para 35). Drawing on S.M. Banerji v. Krishna Agarwal, the Court held that without the certificate the Returning Officer has to mandatorily reject the nomination (paras 36-37). The petition itself showed that no certificate accompanied the nomination, and the petitioner did not claim that one existed on the date of scrutiny, so the rejection could not be called wrong (para 39). Relying on K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan, the Court held that the Returning Officer decides on the facts existing on the date of scrutiny, not on later events; the certificate issued after the writ order, sought for Bikaner, where scrutiny was on 16.04.2019, was of no consequence for the rejection of 10.04.2019 (paras 40-41). Allegations of mala fides against the ECI for not issuing the certificate in time cannot be decided in an election petition; following Thampanoor Ravi v. Charupara Ravi, the inquiry was confined to whether the nomination was wrongly rejected (paras 42-44).

Legal Principle

A candidate dismissed from government service within five years must file the Election Commission's certificate under Section 33(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 with the nomination paper, or the nomination must be rejected. The decision is judged on the facts on the date of scrutiny, so a later certificate cannot cure the defect (paras 37, 39, 41).

Precedents Relied Upon

S.M. Banerji v. Krishna Agarwal AIR 1960 SC 368
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 36-37
If a candidate dismissed from government service within five years does not file the Election Commission's certificate with the nomination, the Returning Officer, suo motu or on objection, has to reject the nomination.
K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan (2005) 1 SCC 754
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 31, 40-41
Qualification or disqualification is judged by reference to the date of scrutiny on the facts as they then existed; the Returning Officer's decision cannot depend on later events.
Thampanoor Ravi v. Charupara Ravi & Ors. (1999) 8 SCC 74
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 43-44
The High Court trying an election petition exercises a special jurisdiction and cannot pronounce on matters outside Section 100 of the Act.

View all precedents (7)

Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 691
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12
Noted on the presence of the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer not being necessary in the election petition.
B. Sundra Rami Reddy v. Election Commission & Ors. (1991) Suppl.(2) SCC 624
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12
Noted on the presence of the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer not being necessary in the election petition.
Micheal Fernandeas v. C.K. Jaffar Sharif & Ors. AIR 2002 SC 1041
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 12
Noted on the presence of the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer not being necessary in the election petition.
Narendra Singh Bhati v. Ram Narain Bishnoi AIR 1993 Raj. 130
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 31
Cited for the returned candidate.