Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the election of six Members to the Rajya Sabha by the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, held in June 1986. The appellant, who contested the election, was declared to have lost, prompting him to file an election petition after the High Court dismissed his initial challenge. The appellant contended that a ballot paper marked in green ink was wrongly rejected, while three ballots favoring the first respondent were improperly accepted. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, particularly focusing on the interpretation of 'article supplied for the purpose' in the context of voting. The court noted the distinction between direct elections and the indirect elections for the Rajya Sabha, concluding that the rules were correctly applied. The court held that the rejection of the appellant's ballot was valid as it did not comply with the rules, which required the use of the supplied pen. Conversely, the acceptance of the three ballots for the first respondent was justified as they clearly indicated the voter's intention. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed without costs.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Validity of Ballot Papers - Rejection of Ballot Paper - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 39A(2)(b) - The appellant's ballot paper was rejected for being marked with green ink instead of the blue ink pen supplied, which was held valid as per the rules. The court emphasized that the intention of the voter must be expressed in accordance with the prescribed manner, and thus the rejection was justified (Paras 777-780). B) Election Law - Acceptance of Ballot Papers - Validity of Votes - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 37A(2) - The three ballot papers marked opposite the name of the first respondent were accepted as valid since they indicated a clear intention to vote for him, despite not being marked in the designated column. The court upheld the returning officer's decision, affirming the principle that the intention of the voter should be discernible (Paras 781-782).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the rejection of the appellant's ballot paper and acceptance of certain ballot papers for the first respondent were valid under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the rejection of the appellant's ballot paper was valid and the acceptance of the three ballots for the first respondent was justified. No order as to costs was made.
Law Points
- Election law
- preferential voting
- ballot paper validity
- interpretation of election rules
- intention of voter
