VIRJI RAM SUTARIA V. NATHALAL PREMJI BHANVADIA AND ORS INSC 269; AIR 1970 SC 765; 1969 SCR 507; 1969 SCC 77

NAME OF CASE Virji Ram Sutaria v. Nathalal Premji Bhanvadia and Ors

FACTS Nathalal Premji Bhanvadia ran for elections to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly and took the necessary oath as mandated by Article 173(a) of the Constitution. His vow, made in both English and Gujarati, became contentious because of a mistranslation in the Gujarati document. Although the English version accurately identified the "Vidhan Sabha" (Legislative Assembly), the Gujarati version incorrectly stated "Rajya Sabha" (Council of States). This mistake caused rival candidate Virji Ram Sutaria to submit an election petition, claiming that the translation error made Bhanvadia’s nomination invalid, since the oath did not meet constitutional standards. The Gujarat High Court dismissed Sutaria’s argument, stating that the translation error was insignificant and did not impact the oath's validity. The court highlighted that Bhanvadia’s intention to run in the Legislative Assembly elections was clear, and his nomination adhered to the legal requirements. Unhappy with this ruling, Sutaria appealed to the Supreme Court, emphasizing that following constitutional and procedural standards was vital and that even slight deviations should lead to disqualification.

ISSUE If the inclusion of the term "Rajya Sabha" in the Gujarati version of the oath rendered the nomination and ensuing election of the elected candidate invalid?

HOLDING The Supreme Court affirmed the legitimacy of the oath and rejected the appeal, supporting Bhanvadia's election to the Gujarat Legislative Assembly.

RATIONALE Analysis of "Rajya Sabha": The Court explored the term "Rajya Sabha" and observed that, in relation to the oath, it signified the "Legislative Assembly" of the state. The Court highlighted that the purpose of the oath was evident, and the candidate aimed for election to the Legislative Assembly, rather than the Council. Significant Compliance: The Court determined that there was significant compliance with the constitutional requirement, as the candidate's intent was clear, and the slight linguistic variation did not render the oath invalid.