Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an interlocutory order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Election Petition No.1 of 2006, where the first respondent challenged the election of the appellant. The first respondent alleged that he was defeated by a narrow margin due to irregularities, specifically claiming that approximately 600 voters were enrolled in multiple places, leading to double voting. The appellant denied these allegations and filed a written statement. As the trial progressed, the first respondent sought inspection of the registers of voters in Form 17A to substantiate his claims of double voting. The appellant opposed this, arguing it would lead to a roving inquiry and that the inspection should only occur after both parties presented their evidence. The trial judge allowed the inspection without providing sufficient reasoning, prompting the appellant to appeal. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order lacked justification and could adversely affect the trial of the election petition. The court emphasized that inspection of election papers is not automatic and requires a clear case to be established. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the application for consideration alongside the main election petition, urging for expeditious disposal. The court requested the trial judge to resolve the matter within four months, ensuring that the decision would be uninfluenced by the Supreme Court's observations. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Inspection of Election Papers - Permissibility of Inspection - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 93 - The court held that inspection of election papers is not a matter of course and requires a clear case to be made out. The High Court's order permitting inspection was set aside due to lack of reasoning and potential prejudice to the main election petition. (Paras 10-12) B) Election Law - Double Voting Allegations - Burden of Proof - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 93 - The court noted that the election petitioner had adduced evidence regarding double voting but the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasoning for allowing inspection. The appeal was allowed to ensure proper adjudication of the election petition. (Paras 11-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in allowing inspection of registers of voters in Form 17A under Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order allowing inspection of the registers and remitted the application for consideration alongside the main election petition, requesting expeditious disposal within four months.
Law Points
- Election law
- inspection of election papers
- double voting
- Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961
