Acceptance of a rectified nomination form is valid if submission is in order before the deadline.

The petitioner challenged the acceptance of the nomination form of respondent No. 4 for a Panchayat election. The petitioner contended that the scanned affidavit uploaded to the election portal by respondent No. 4 was unsigned, making the nomination defective and liable for rejection.

The petitioner argued that had the form been rejected, they would have been elected unopposed.

The Returning Officer (RO) filed an affidavit explaining that due to a large crowd on the final day, respondent No. 4 initially submitted documents to subordinate staff, who scanned the unsigned affidavit.

However, upon formal submission to the RO, the defect was spotted; respondent No. 4 briefly took the form back and resubmitted it duly signed within the stipulated time (12:54 pm). The RO admitted that through inadvertence, the original unsigned scan remained on the portal instead of the rectified version.

1. Whether the acceptance of a nomination form is legally valid if the initial affidavit uploaded to the portal was unsigned but was subsequently rectified and signed before formal acceptance by the Returning Officer.

2. Whether the act of signing a pre-notarized affidavit after the initial submission constitutes a gross illegality necessitating the rejection of the nomination.

The court's decision was governed by the Panchayats Election Rules regarding the valid filing of nomination papers and affidavits in Form 4.

The core legal principle applied is that the validity of a nomination is determined by the state of the document at the time it is officially received and accepted by the Returning Officer.

The court also relied on the principle of administrative "bona fides," where clerical or procedural inadvertence by election officials (in failing to update a portal) does not invalidate an otherwise physically compliant nomination.

The court analyzed the discrepancy between the digital record and the physical submission. It noted the RO’s explanation that the unsigned affidavit was a result of premature scanning by subordinate officers during administrative chaos.

The RO exercised their duty by pointing out the lack of signature, allowing the candidate to rectify the defect immediately. The court found that because the physical nomination form held by the RO was in order (signed and verified) at the time of official receipt, the RO could not be expected to reject it based on a previously submitted defective draft.

The court dismissed the petitioner's argument regarding the timing and the use of the same notarized document, placing trust in the RO's sworn statement that the rectified form was submitted within the permitted window.

The Court held that there was no merit in the petition and dismissed it. The discrepancies on the online portal were attributed to administrative inadvertence and did not vitiate the election process.