//
you're reading...
legal issues

Election case =whereby the High Court has allowed the Interlocutory application filed by the first respondent herein, and directed the District Returning Officer, Distt. Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh to produce the record of Register of voters’ counterfoils (in Form 17A) of 38 polling stations of 13-Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency in that State.=an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas.=The impugned judgment has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Fulena Singh (supra). In that matter also there was an allegation of double voting, and the inspection of register of voters in Form 17-A was sought. In para 13 of the judgment the Court noted the submission on behalf of the respondent that the registers of voters in Form 17-A do not enjoy the same immunity as that of the other papers mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) and (e) of Rule 93 (1). This Court did not accept that submission, and held that inspection of election papers mentioned in detail in the entire Rule 93 (1) is not a matter of course unless a clear case is made out. The Court, therefore, disallowed the inspection of register of voters in Form 17-A. Thus, the reliance on Fulena Singh (supra) in the impugned judgment was also wholly erroneous 25. This being the position, in our view the order passed by the learned Single Judge is illegal and unsustainable. We are, therefore, required to set-aside the same. 26. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

ITANAGAR ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Image via Wikipedia

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 1539 OF 2012
@ SLP No. 30410 OF 2010

Markio Tado … Appellant
Versus

Takam Sorang & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G E M E N T
H.L. Gokhale J.
Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated
14.9.2010 passed by a Learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in Misc. Case
(E.P.) No. 05(AP)/2010 in Election Petition No. 01(AP)/2009 whereby the High Court
has allowed the Interlocutory application filed by the first respondent herein, and
directed the District Returning Officer, Distt. Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh to
produce the record of Register of voters’ counterfoils (in Form 17A) of 38 polling
stations of 13-Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency in that State.
2
Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows:-

3. The appellant and the respondent No. 1 herein contested the election
to the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 20-Tali (ST) Assembly
Constituency held in October 2009, wherein the appellant was declared elected,
defeating his nearest rival respondent No. 1, by 2713 votes. Respondent No. 1 filed
Election Petition No. 01/2009 to challenge the election of the appellant on the
ground of corrupt practice of booth capturing. This 20-Tali (ST) Assembly
Constituency consists of two circles viz. (i) Tali, and (ii) Pipsorang. Each of the
circles was having 10 polling stations. The voting had taken place on 13.10.2009.
It was alleged that on two polling stations viz. (i) 7-Roing and (ii) 2-Ruhi from circle
Tali, boxes (containing EVMs) were illegally removed by the party workers of the
appellant, and votes in favour of the appellant were cast by a single hand. The
common voters were not allowed to exercise their voting rights as they were
threatened for their lives by the miscreants of the appellant. It was claimed that
polling agents of the first respondent at these two polling stations jointly reported
about the happenings in these polling stations on 15.10.2009 to the Assistant
Returning Officer. It was alleged that such incidents also took place on 6 more
polling stations. In para 9 of the petition, it was stated that, it was necessary to
bring the EVMs and counter foils of Form 17A (register of voters) of these 8-polling
stations (mentioned in para-7 of the petition) for forensic test and other examination
etc. before the Hon’ble Court for proper adjudication of the case. It was stated that
the votes received by the appellant in these 8 polling stations were 3763, and if they
were deleted from the votes of appellant, the first respondent would be declared as
3
elected. It was prayed that the records of (i) register of voters counterfoils (Form
17-A) of these 8 polling stations described in paragraph 7 of the petition, (ii) EVMs
of these 8 polling stations, and (iii) records relating to 20 Tali (ST) Assembly
Constituency be called, and appellant be directed to show cause as to why those
votes cast by booth capturing in 8 polling stations in favour of the appellant should
not be declared as illegal, and the election order dated 22.10.2009 be not declared
as void, and why the respondent No. 1 should not be declared as elected candidate.

4. The appellant contested this petition by filing a Written Statement. He
submitted that no unfair means were employed by him, or by his agents, and stated
that the allegation of illegal practice adopted in 8 polling stations is completely false.
He submitted that the election was conducted peacefully with free and fair means.
The polling stations were guarded by police personnel who carried arms and
ammunitions. There was no booth capturing or criminal intimidation at all. EVMs
and voters’ counterfoils were duly verified at the Receiving Centre, and there was no
need to call for any of these documents, nor was there any question to declare the
election void.

5. The learned Judge framed the necessary issues on 8th March, 2010
including as to whether the EVMs were illegally removed, whether any election
offence of booth capturing and criminal intimidation was committed, whether the
election was liable to be declared void under Section 100 of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 (“Act of 1951” or the said Act for short) and whether the first
respondent was entitled to be declared as duly elected?
4
6. Before the evidence could start, the first respondent filed Interlocutory
Application No. 6/2010 in the said Election Petition on 29th March, 2010. In para 1
thereof he submitted as follows:-

“1. That your applicants beg to state and submit that
some thousand of voters of those 8 polling stations viz. (i) Giba,
(ii) Tungmar, (iii) 15-Richik, (iv) 7-Roing, (v) 10-Yarda, (vi) 5-
Guchi, (vii) 8-Dotte, (viii) 2-Ruhi of 20 Tali (ST) Assembly
Constituency have double entry in different 38 polling stations of
13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency. So far your applicant
knowledge is concerned about 80% of the voters of 20-(ST) Tali
Assembly Constituency from those 8 polling stations viz. (i) 6-
Giba, (ii) 4-Tugnmar, (iii) 15-Richik, (iv) 7-Roing, (v) 10-Yarda,
(vi) 5-Guchi, (vii) 8-Dotte, (viii) 2-Ruhi have cast their votes at
13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency and not at 20-(ST) Tali
Constituency.”
Thereafter, he gave the list of 38 polling stations of Itanagar
constituency. He claimed that the total number of such voters who had their names
in those 38 polling stations was 1304. He, therefore, prayed that the record of
register of voters counterfoils (Form 17-A) of the above 38 polling stations of 13-
(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency from the District Returning Officer, Distt.
Papum Pare be called.

7. The appellant opposed this application. The learned Single Judge
noted the submissions on behalf of the respondent No. 1. He also noted the
submissions on behalf of the appellant that there was no allegation of double
enrollment, and no issue had been framed in this respect in the election petition,
and therefore the application was liable to be dismissed. Having noted the
submissions, the learned Single Judge rejected the said application by his order
5
dated 31.03.2010 observing “I am of the considered view that calling of records as
sought for by the applicant is not justified at this stage.”

8. Thereafter, the evidence was recorded. The first respondent went into
the witness box on 4th April, 2010 and in his examination in chief, he stated that he
had sent a fax message to the Returning Officer of 20-Tali (ST) Assembly
Constituency on 15.10.2009 alleging the booth capturing of 2-Ruhi and 7-Roing
polling stations. He stated that he had complained about the booth capturing in 6
more polling stations and produced copies of complaints. He stated that there was
single handed voting in favour of the appellant, and respondent’s voters were
threatened and not allowed to cast their votes. He further stated that a large
number of voters had double entries in the electoral roll of 20 Tali (ST) as well as
Itanagar (ST) Assembly Constituency. They had actually cast their votes at 38
different polling stations of 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency, and in their
place votes were cast in Tali Constituency by the miscreants of the appellant. The
electoral rolls of the two constituencies were to be exhibited. He further pointed out
that a vote was cast against a dead person by name Markio Tama from 2-Ruhi
polling station and the death certificate of the person concerned was produced.

9. In his cross examination on 9th June, 2010, the first respondent
accepted that he had not made any averments in the election petition regarding
double enrollment of the voters in the two Assembly Constituencies. He accepted
that he was aware that the final electoral rolls were published by the authorities
concerned before the election was held, prior to which the draft roll was published
for information of the voters concerned, and that he did not lodge any complaint
6
before the authorities concerned about the double enrollment in the two
constituencies. He explained it by stating that he did not know that such double
enrollment had taken place. He could not say who actually cast the vote for Markio
Tama, who had already expired. He accepted that he had appointed his polling
agents for all the polling stations. He knew about the duties of the polling agents
which included raising objection in case of detection of any impersonation during the
polling time, before the Presiding Officer concerned by filling up a prescribed form
alongwith a fee of Rs. 2/-. He stated that his polling agents were not allowed to
enter into the polling booths and the candidates appointed by the appellant acted as
fake polling agents for the first respondent. He however, accepted that he has not
stated in election petition that the candidates appointed by the opposite party had
acted as fake polling agents for him. He further accepted that his complaint to the
Returning Officer did not mention all the 8 polling stations. It mentioned only about
2 polling stations. He also accepted that he did not mention the names of persons
involved in booth capturing. The first respondent had alleged that in two polling
stations viz. Ruhi and Roing, booth capturing had taken place which was on the
basis that in Ruhi the first respondent got only 3 votes as against appellant getting
697 votes and in Roing he got only one vote as against the appellant getting 1196
votes. On this aspect it was put to him that there were two circles in this
constituency viz. Tali and Pipsorang. The above two polling stations were in Tali
Circle. The first respondent accepted that the returned candidate secured no vote in
11-Vovia polling station. He also accepted that the returned candidate secured only
7
7 votes in 13-Zara polling station, both falling in Pipsorang circle. Thereafter, he
accepted that

“It may be correct that securing less vote by a candidate
may be due to his less attachment to the people of a particular
area and it may also be the one of the reasons for losing the
election.”
The first respondent also accepted that Micro Observers were
appointed in all the polling stations and they were provided with digital camera for
their use as and when required during election for all the purposes.

10. It was at that stage that the first respondent moved another
application viz. Mis Case No. 05(AP) of 2010 on 29th June, 2010. In that application
he repeated that some of the voters of the 8 polling stations mentioned earlier, had
double entries in different 38 polling stations of 13 Itanagar (ST) Assembly
Constituency. In para 2 he stated that 30% of voters of Tali Constituency from
those 8 polling stations had cast their votes in Itanagar and not in Tali, and in their
place the double voting was effected on behalf of the appellant, and therefore it was
necessary to get the record of the voters’ counterfoils (in Form 17A) from the 38
polling stations under 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency. The appellant
opposed this application. The counsel for the appellant submitted that this was a
fishing inquiry to improve the case. The learned Single Judge however observed:

“This allegation sounds to be new one, but when it is
closely examined, it also comes under the purview of booth
capturing because votes by impersonation is one of the modus
operandi adopted towards accomplishment of securing votes by
use of illegal method or illegal resource”.
8
11. The learned Judge referred to a judgment of this Court in Hari Ram
Vs. Hira Singh reported in AIR 1984 SC 396, that electoral rolls and counter foils
should be called sparingly and only when sufficient material is placed before the
Court. He also referred to a judgment of this Court in Fulena Singh Vs. Vijoy Kr.
Sinha reported in 2009(5) SCC 290 wherein it was held that inspection of register
of voters in Form 17-A would be permissible where a clear case is made out. The
learned Single Judge held that the official record would be the most reliable
evidence where there was impersonation, and thereafter passed the impugned order
calling for the record of registers of voters counterfoils in form 17A of 38 polling
stations of 13-(ST) Itanagar Assembly Constituency which order is challenged in the
present appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the rival parties
12. Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the learned Judge of the High Court clearly erred in allowing the second
application filed by the first respondent for the simple reason that he was making a
roving and fishing inquiry. Mr. Giri submitted firstly that if the respondent No.1 was
concerned with the alleged double entries of the voters in the two constituencies, he
ought to have challenged the double enrollment when the draft rolls were published.
Secondly, this ground of impersonation and double voting was not raised in the
election petition at all. Then there were no particulars provided as to whether
anybody had seen the real voters not voting, and somebody else voting in their
place. Thirdly, he submitted that the application made by respondent No.1 earlier
having been rejected, there could not be a second application for that very purpose.
9
Besides, impersonation or double voting would come in the category of `improper
reception of votes’ which is a separate category of corrupt practice falling under
Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act of 1951. For invoking this ground one has to
plead that the election was materially affected by such improper reception of votes
which the first respondent had not done. `Improper reception’ is different from
`booth capturing’ which is a separate corrupt practice under Section 123 (8) read
with Section 135 A of the Act of 1951. The first respondent had filed the election
petition only on the ground of booth capturing and not on the basis of improper
reception of votes and he cannot be permitted to improve upon it from stage to
stage. The sanctity and secrecy of the electoral process was important and the
same could not be permitted to be violated.

13. Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the first
respondent on the other hand submitted that the first respondent had filed the
election petition on the ground of booth capturing, and double voting or
impersonation could be considered as facets of booth capturing. The learned Judge
could not be faulted for his order since impersonation is a link between the booth
capturing and improper reception. If purity of the election process is to be
maintained, and if the true result of the election is to be found out, the order which
is impugned in the petition was a necessary order.

Consideration of the rival submission

14. The order impugned in the present appeal has been passed on the
second application in this behalf which was Misc. Case No. 05(AP)/2010 filed on 29th
10
June, 2010 after the recording of the evidence of the first respondent. It is material
to note that in his evidence the first respondent did not dispute that he had not
made any averment in the election petition regarding double enrollment of some
voters of the two constituencies. He also accepted that one has to object to such
double entries when that draft electoral roll is published, but he explained his
inaction in this behalf by stating that he did not know that such double enrollment
had taken place. With respect to impersonation, he cited the instance of only one
person, namely Markio Tama who had expired, but he could not state as to who
voted in his place. He accepted that the polling agents have to object when such
impersonation takes place, but explained inaction of his polling agents by saying
that his polling agents were not allowed to enter into the polling booths and the
candidates appointed by the opposite party acted as fake polling agents for him. He
however, accepted that such plea was not taken in the election petition. He also
accepted that his complaint about double voting was only about 2 polling stations,
and that he did not mention all the 8 polling stations in his complaint. He had to
accept that he did not mention the names of persons involved in the booth
capturing. The first respondent had emphasized the fact that in Ruhi he got only 3
votes as against appellant getting 697 votes. In Roing he got only one vote as
against appellant getting 1196 votes. He further had to accept that there were two
circles in Tali constituency, namely, Tali and Pipsorang. Ruhi and Roing were falling
in Tali circle where appellant did get most of the votes. As against that in Pipsorang
circle the respondent No.1 got most of the votes. Thus in Vovia polling station, the
appellant got no vote at all and if we see the pleadings we find that the first
11
respondent got 365 votes. In Zara polling station, the appellant got only 7 votes as
against 335 votes of the first respondent. There are two more noteworthy polling
stations. Thus, in Keba polling station the first respondent got 346 votes as against
the appellant’s one vote, and in Tedung polling station the first respondent got 361
votes as against only 5 votes of appellant. The first respondent had to accept that
the securing of less votes may be due to the less attachment of the candidate to the
people of a particular area, and may be one of the reasons to loose the election. He
has also accepted that there were micro observers in all the polling stations with
digital cameras.

15. In this Misc. Case No.05(AP)/2010 the first respondent once again
prayed for calling for the voters counterfoils in Form 17-A from 38 polling stations of
Itanagar Assembly Constituency. In para 2 of this application he now stated that
30% of the voters’ of Tali Constituency from 8 polling stations had cast their votes in
Itanagar, and in their place double voting was effected. Thus, in this second
application, the first respondent’s grievance of such double voting came down from
80% to 30%. The question is as to whether the learned Judge was right in allowing
this second application for getting this additional record on the background of the
material that had then come on the record.

16. To begin with, one must note that in an election petition, one has to
plead the material facts at the outset, and the failure to plead the same is fatal to
the election petition. For reference one may see the judgment of a bench of three
judges of this Court in Hari Shanker Jain Vs. Sonia Gandhi reported in [2001
(8) SCC 233]. Besides, no evidence can be led on a plea which is not raised in the
12
pleadings and no amount of evidence can cure the defect in the pleadings as held in
para 7 of Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh reported in [2000 (8) SCC 191].

17. (i) In the present case the election petition filed by the first respondent
made the grievance of booth capturing which is a corrupt practice covered under
Section 123 (8) of the Act of 1951. Committing a corrupt practice is a ground to
declare an election void under Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act. Booth capturing is
also made an offence under Section 135 A of the Act, and the term `booth capturing’
is spelt out in the explanation to that section.

(ii) Section 135 A alongwith the Explanation reads as follows:
135A. Offence of booth capturing – [(1)] Whoever
commits an offence of booth capturing shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which [shall not be less than one year
but which may extend to three years and with fine, and where such
offence is committed by a person in the service of the
Government, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five
years and with fine.
Explanation – For the purpose of [this sub-section and
section 20B], “booth capturing” includes, among other things, all or
any of the following activities, namely:-

(a) seizure of a polling station or a place fixed for
the poll by any person or persons making
polling authorities surrender the ballot papers
or voting machines and doing of any other act
which affects the orderly conduct of elections;

(b) taking possession of a polling station or a
place fixed for the poll by any person or
persons and allowing only his or their own
supporters to exercise their right to vote and
[prevent others from free exercise of their
right to vote];

(c) [coercing or intimidating or threatening directly
or indirectly] any elector and preventing him
13
from going to the polling station or a place
fixed for the poll to cast his vote;

(d) seizure of a place for counting of votes by any
person of persons, making the counting
authorities surrender the ballot papers or
voting machines and the doing of anything
which affects the orderly counting of votes;

(e) doing by any person in the service of
Government, of all or any of the aforesaid
activities or aiding or conniving at, any such
activity in the furtherance of the prospects of
the election of a candidate.

(2) An offence punishable under sub-section (1) shall be
cognizable.
18. As far as impersonation or double voting is concerned, such actions
would amount to improper reception of votes which is a separate ground for
declaring an election to be void under Section 100 (1) (d) (iii) of the said Act. This
ground was not pleaded in the petition, nor was any issue framed thereon for the
trial. As can be seen from the explanation to Section 135 A, the main element of
booth capturing is use of force or intimidation. As against that impersonation or
double voting involves cheating or deception. Thus, these two grounds deal with
two different aspects of corrupt practices. That being the position, the question is
as to whether the respondent No.1 could have been permitted to lead any evidence
in this behalf without raising the ground in this election petition. This is particularly
on the background that the earlier application I.A. No.6/2010 calling for the register
of voters’ counterfoils (Form 17-A) from the 38 polling stations of Itanagar had not
been entertained at that stage under the order dated 31.03.2010 which was prior
to recording of evidence.
14
19. The evidence which had come on record clearly showed that the first
respondent received overwhelming votes in some polling stations, whereas the
appellant received similarly overwhelming votes in other polling stations. The
statement of the first respondent that the appellant had appointed fake polling
agents for the first respondent was a clear after thought, since if it was so, he would
pleaded the same in the election petition itself. He has not mentioned the names of
the persons allegedly involved in booth capturing. Even with respect to
impersonation, the only instance pointed out was that of one Markio Tama, but it
was not stated in the petition or in evidence as to who voted in his place. It is thus
obvious that having failed to place any material with respect to either booth
capturing or impersonation, the first respondent was trying to make fishing and
roving inquiry to improve his case by calling for the record of the voters register
from Itanagar Constituency, in support of his grievance of double voting. In the
absence of any evidence with respect to the persons who at the instance of the
appellant allegedly captured the booths or made double voting or impersonation in
Tali Constituency, no such inference could have been drawn against the appellant.
The learned Single Judge, therefore, was clearly in error in allowing the second
application made by the first respondent.

20. Besides, the ground of improper reception requires a candidate to
show as to how the election in so far as it concerns the returned candidate was
materially affected, in view of the requirement of Section 100 (1) (d) of the Act of
1951. First respondent has stated that there were some 1304 double entries of
voters. The allegation of respondent No.1 on evidence was only with respect to
15
Roing and Ruhi polling station. The votes received by the appellant in both these
polling stations put together come to 1873. The appellant has won with a margin of
2713 votes. That being so the second application could not have been entertained
even on that ground in the absence of prima facie case that the result of the
election had been materially affected.

21. The learned Judge has referred to and relied upon the judgments of
this Court in Hari Ram Vs. Heera Singh (supra) and Fulena Singh Vs. Vijoy Kr.
Sinha (also supra) to hold that in a rare case an order of production of such record
concerning the voters register could be passed. Learned Judge however made no
attempt to apply the principles laid down in those cases to the facts of the present
one, as can be seen from the narration above. In Hari Ram, (which is a decision of
three judges) the situation was almost similar. The High Court had passed an
interlocutory order directing the Returning Officer to produce the marked electoral
rolls for inspection, which was on the background that the first respondent had won
that election by a very small margin of 238 votes. In para 3 of the judgment, this
Court accepted the contention on behalf of the appellant as well founded that the
High Court erred in allowing the prayers at an interlocutory stage without examining
whether proper foundation was laid for inspection which would otherwise result in
adversely affecting the secrecy and sacrosanct nature of electoral process. In para
6 of Hari Ram, this Court observed as follows:-

“6. To begin with, the High Court seems to have been under
the impression that the Court had ample powers to direct
production of any document Under Section 165 of the Indian
Evidence Act. In doing so with due deference, the High Court
overlooked that the Representation of People Act was a special Act
16
and provisions of the Evidence Act or the CPC would only apply
where they are not excluded. Thus, at the very outset, with due
respect, the approach of the High Court was legally incorrect…….”
In Hari Ram also there was a grievance that there were a number of
dead persons for whom votes were cast. No details and particulars were given that
votes were actually cast for dead persons. This Court held that it was nothing but a
fishing inquiry and it clearly violated the sanctity and secrecy of the electoral
process.

22. (i) Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 governs the production
and inspection of election papers. Sub-rule 1 thereof is relevant for our purpose and
it reads as follows:-

“93. Production and inspection of election papers –
(1) While in the custody of the district election officer or, as the
case may be, the returning officer –
(a) the packets of unused ballot papers with counterfoils
attached thereto;

(b) the packets of used ballot papers whether valid,
tendered or rejected;

(c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot papers;

(d) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll
or, as the case may be, the list maintained under sub-
section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 152; and

[(dd) the packets containing registers of voters in form 17-
A;]

(e) the packets of the declaration by electors and the
attestation of their signatures;

shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or
produced before, any person or authority except under the order of
a competent court.”
17
(ii) Sub-rule (dd) above has been added in this rule by notification dated
24.3.1992. Form 17-A mentioned therein is related to Rule 49 (L) which is
concerning the procedure about the voting by voting machines. Sub-rule 1 (a) of
Rule 49 (L) requires the polling officer to record the electoral roll number of the
elector as entered in the marked copy of the electoral roll in a register of voters
which is maintained in Form 17-A.

23. This rule (as it then stood) came to be construed by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in Ram Sewak Vs. H.K. Kidwai reported in AIR 1964 SC
1249. This Court held in para 7 as follows:-

“7. An order for inspection may not be granted as a
matter of course : having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy
of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in granting an
order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled :
(i) that the petition for setting aside an election contains an
adequate statement of the material facts on which the petitioner
relies in support of his case; and
(ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order to
decide the dispute and to do complete justice between parties
inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.
But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be
granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported
by material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The
case of the petitioner must be set out with precision supported by
averments of material facts. To establish a case so pleaded an
order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice
require, be granted. But a more allegation that the petitioner
suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception,
refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an
order for inspection.”
The judgment in Ram Sewak has been followed all through out, and
the proposition with respect to inspection have been repeated in a catena of
18
decisions of this Court, namely that inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils
should be allowed very sparingly, and only when it is absolutely essential to
determine the issue. As held by this Court in Bhabhi Vs. Sheo Govind reported in
AIR 1975 SC 2117, discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in
such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to
fish materials for declaring the election to be void.

24. The impugned judgment has relied upon the judgment of this Court in
Fulena Singh (supra). In that matter also there was an allegation of double
voting, and the inspection of register of voters in Form 17-A was sought. In para 13
of the judgment the Court noted the submission on behalf of the respondent that
the registers of voters in Form 17-A do not enjoy the same immunity as that of the
other papers mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) and (e) of Rule 93 (1). This Court did
not accept that submission, and held that inspection of election papers mentioned in
detail in the entire Rule 93 (1) is not a matter of course unless a clear case is made
out. The Court, therefore, disallowed the inspection of register of voters in Form
17-A. Thus, the reliance on Fulena Singh (supra) in the impugned judgment was
also wholly erroneous

25. This being the position, in our view the order passed by the learned
Single Judge is illegal and unsustainable. We are, therefore, required to set-aside
the same.

26. Accordingly, we pass the following order:-
19
(i) The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 14.09.2010
passed by the learned Single Judge of Gauhati High Court in Misc. Case (E.P.)
No.05(AP)/2010 in Election Petition No.01(AP)/2009 is hereby quashed and set-
aside.

(ii) The Misc. Case (E.P.) No.05(AP)/2010 is hereby dismissed.

(iii) Parties will bear their own costs.
………………………………….J.

( Deepak Verma )

…………………………………..J.

( H.L. Gokhale )
New Delhi
Dated: February 2, 2012

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,886,956 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: