Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an election petition filed under Sections 80 to 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election to the Haryana Legislative Assembly from the 67-Toshan Legislative Assembly seat held in June 1987. The returned candidate, Shri Dharamvir of Lokdal (B), polled 32,547 votes against 30,361 votes polled by Shri Bansi Lal of the Indian National Congress. A total of 3,128 votes were invalidated, of which 2,799 ballot papers contained double markings. The election petitioners alleged that the returned candidate was guilty of corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) by creating an atmosphere of terror during counting, threatening and intimidating counting agents of other candidates, and putting unauthorized rubber stamps and duplicate markings on ballot papers cast in favour of the rival candidate to invalidate them. It was further alleged that the returned candidate manhandled the Returning Officer to obtain his assistance in furtherance of his election prospects, constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(7). The High Court of Punjab and Haryana framed eleven issues, of which issues 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 were material. It examined 15 witnesses for the election petitioners and 9 witnesses for the returned candidate. The High Court placed reliance on the testimony of official witnesses, namely PW10 Shri Sunil Shourie, PW11 Shri Yashpal Sharma and PW12 Shri R.S. Mann, who were present in the counting hall on duty and whose statements were corroborated by contemporaneous documents. It found that the Returning Officer PW9 M.L. Sarwan was a self-confessed liar who had prepared incorrect and ante-dated reports and was under pressure to help the returned candidate. The High Court rejected the evidence of RW4, Secretary of the Election Commission of India, as his report was not produced. On analysis, the High Court held that supporters of Lokdal (B) candidates created an atmosphere of awe, terror and hooliganism during the first round of counting; counting agents of the Congress (I) candidate were terrorized and many left the hall; duplicate markings were put on ballot papers cast in favour of Bansi Lal, rendering thousands of votes invalid. The High Court found the returned candidate guilty of corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(7) and held that the Returning Officer improperly rejected valid votes and permitted tampering, and that Form 20 was prepared on imaginary figures. Accordingly, the High Court by judgment dated 2 June 1989 set aside the election of the returned candidate and disqualified him for a period of six years. The returned candidate filed Civil Appeal No. 2886 of 1989 before the Supreme Court under Section 116-A of the Act; the election petitioners filed Civil Appeal No. 2888 of 1989; and the Returning Officer filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12196 of 1989 against observations made against him. The extracted text does not contain the Supreme Court's final order.
Headnote
A) Electoral Law - Corrupt Practice of Undue Influence - Direct or indirect interference with free exercise of electoral right - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(2) - The High Court found that the returned candidate's agents and supporters with his consent put double marks, stamps, seals or thumb impressions on votes cast in favour of the rival candidate, thereby invalidating them. This act created an atmosphere of terror and hooliganism during counting and amounted to undue influence. Held that the returned candidate was guilty of commission of corrupt practice of undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Act (Paras 3-5). B) Electoral Law - Obtaining or Procuring Assistance of Returning Officer - Furtherance of election prospects through assistance of returning officer - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(7) - The High Court found that the returned candidate, his agents and supporters manhandled the Returning Officer and thus obtained or procured his assistance for the furtherance of election prospects. Held that the returned candidate was guilty under Section 123(7) of the Act (Paras 3-5). C) Electoral Law - Improper Rejection of Valid Votes - Effect of improper rejection on election result - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iii) - The High Court found that the Returning Officer improperly rejected valid votes cast in favour of the rival candidate and permitted tampering with those votes. Held that the election was liable to be set aside on these grounds (Paras 2-5). D) Electoral Law - Preparation of Form 20 - Accuracy of election result record - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The High Court found that the election result in Form 20 had been prepared on the basis of imaginary figures. Held that the election result was liable to be set aside (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the returned candidate, his counting agents and supporters with his consent committed corrupt practices of undue influence under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; whether they obtained or procured assistance of the Returning Officer under Section 123(7); whether the Returning Officer improperly rejected valid votes and permitted tampering of ballot papers; and whether Form 20 was prepared on imaginary figures making the election liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
Not mentioned in the extracted text; the High Court had set aside the election of the returned candidate and disqualified him for six years.
Law Points
- Undue influence under Section 123(2) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- Obtaining or procuring assistance of Returning Officer under Section 123(7)
- Improper rejection of valid votes under Section 100(1)(d)(i) and (iii)
- Preparation of Form 20 on imaginary figures vitiates election result
