Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arose out of an election petition filed by the appellant, Ajit Singh, challenging the election of respondent No.1, Bansi Singh, from Ateli Constituency No.89 in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Election held in 1991. The election was conducted as per schedule with polling on May 20, 1991, but counting was postponed from May 26, 1991 to June 16, 1991 due to the assassination of Shri Rajiv Gandhi on May 21, 1991. Bansi Singh, a Congress-I candidate, was declared elected after securing the highest votes. The appellant, who secured the next highest votes, filed an election petition under Section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, seeking a declaration that the election of respondent No.1 be declared void and that the appellant be declared returned. The petition alleged various irregularities in counting, including the placement of a high fence around counting tables that prevented counting agents from observing the process, improper rejection of ballot papers, and acceptance of 110 postal ballots received after the original counting date. The High Court, after considering the evidence, dismissed the election petition by judgment dated September 15, 1992, holding that counting was properly done and no irregularity was committed. In the Supreme Court, the appellant's counsel mainly challenged the High Court's findings on two grounds: first, that the fencing and seating arrangements for counting agents violated Rules 53, 55 and 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, thereby vitiating the counting; and second, that acceptance of 110 postal ballots received between May 27 and June 16, 1991 was improper because Rule 27(1) and Form 13-D required postal ballots to reach the Returning Officer before the original counting time of 12 noon on May 26, 1991. The Court examined the factual context and found that there was reasonable apprehension of disturbances at the time of counting given the large number of candidates, and that the Returning Officer was justified in placing police officials and erecting a fence. It observed that counting agents were seated on benches in rows on a first-come-first-served basis and that those in the first row could see the counting; the central table also allowed visibility. The Court thus held that the precautionary measures taken by the Returning Officer did not render the counting process invalid. On the postal ballot issue, the Court referred to Rules 27(1), 51, 54A(2) and Section 59 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and noted the appellant's reliance on English law and the decision in Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari, (1970) 1 SCR 852. However, the provided text ends before the Court's final determination on the postal ballot issue and the overall appeal. No final order is available in the excerpt.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Counting of Votes - Access of Counting Agents - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rules 53, 55, 56 - The appellant challenged the counting process on the ground that a high fence around counting tables prevented counting agents from properly observing counting and rejection of ballots. The Supreme Court held that the Returning Officer's placement of a fence and seating of agents in rows on a first-come-first-served basis was justified due to reasonable apprehension of disturbances and large number of candidates; such precautionary measures did not invalidate the counting. B) Election Law - Postal Ballots - Time for Receipt of Postal Ballots - Representation of People Act, 1951, Section 59; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rules 27(1), 51, 54, 54A(2), Form 13-D - The appellant contended that 110 postal ballots received after May 26, 1991, the original fixed date for commencement of counting, but before the postponed counting date of June 16, 1991, should not have been counted. The Court referred to the relevant rules regarding postal ballot receipt and the Returning Officer's power to alter counting dates; the provided excerpt ends before a final determination on this issue.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the counting of votes was vitiated by the fencing of the counting hall and inadequate access to counting agents; whether acceptance of 110 postal ballots received after May 26, 1991 but before the postponed counting date of June 16, 1991 was improper and materially affected the election result.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's challenge to the fencing and seating arrangements, holding that the Returning Officer's precautionary measures were justified and did not invalidate the counting process. The final overall decision on the appeal is not included in the provided text.
Law Points
- Rule 53 Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961 specifies persons allowed at counting place
- Rule 55 provides for scrutiny and opening of ballot boxes and requires Returning Officer to give counting agents reasonable opportunity to inspect ballot papers before rejection
- Rule 56 gives minute details of counting procedure
- Rule 27(1) requires postal ballot to reach Returning Officer before hour fixed for commencement of counting
- Rule 51 vests Returning Officer with power to fix and alter date/time for counting
- Rule 54A(2) prohibits opening covers received after expiry of time fixed and counting such votes
- Section 59 Representation of People Act
- 1951 provides manner of voting to be prescribed
- Election law in India is patterned on English law
- Returning Officer's precautionary measures such as fencing and first-come-first-served seating of counting agents are justified when there is reasonable apprehension of disturbances and large number of candidates
