Before the Court, the Congress argued that the two declarations were inconsistent. They contended that either Rath’s declared age or her educational qualification was incorrect and that the defect was of a substantial character.
The party argued that the returning officer should have examined the discrepancy while scrutinising Rath’s nomination under Section 36 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows the officer to reject a nomination on specified grounds after scrutiny.
The Election Commission of India, however, argued that Rath’s nomination had already been scrutinised and accepted on September 17 and that no objection had been raised during the scrutiny.
The Court noted that a complaint regarding the affidavit was made only on September 21. The Chief Electoral Officer also submitted that a prescribed Form 26 affidavit had been filed. An allegation of false information, he argued, could not by itself be a ground to reject her nomination.
Meanwhile, the BJP said that Rath actually studied in Class X in 1980 and attributed the 1965 entry in the affidavit to a typographical error.