Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India considered an appeal by certificate under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution against a Bombay High Court judgment issuing a writ of quo warranto declaring the election of Dr. Balkrishna Pandurang Apte as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Poona void. The dispute arose after the death of the sitting Vice-Chancellor, H. V. Pataskar, on 21 February 1970. The Chancellor nominated an acting Vice-Chancellor until an election could be held under Section 11 of the Poona University Act, 1948. The Executive Council recommended a panel of three candidates: Dr. Apte, Principal Kulkarni, and Principal Suru. At the election held on 9 May 1970, 148 valid votes were cast using proportional representation by single transferable vote. Dr. Apte received 58 first preference votes, Principal Suru 53, and Principal Kulkarni 37. Kulkarni was eliminated on the first count, and his second preference votes were distributed, resulting in a tie at 70 votes each between Dr. Apte and Principal Suru on the second count. Dr. Apte was declared elected because he had a higher first count, and Principal Suru was excluded. The election was challenged in the Bombay High Court on three grounds: that the tie should have been resolved by drawing lots; that votes of four college principals were invalid because their colleges were not duly affiliated on the election date; and that the meeting recommending the panel was invalid. The High Court upheld the first ground and issued quo warranto, rejecting the other two. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the principles of proportional representation by single transferable vote. It held that drawing of lots is not a common law principle and is permissible only when a specific statutory provision exists. The Court found that Rule 75(4) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and Statute No. 158 framed under the Poona University Act embody the principle of exclusion by reference to the original count. The High Court's reliance on Rule 81(13) was misplaced because Rule 81(3) applies only when more than one seat remains to be filled. The Court also rejected the argument that the four college principals' votes were invalid. It found that the colleges were in fact affiliated before the election, and the delay in publishing the notification did not detract from the sanction previously granted. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and writ of quo warranto, and upheld the election of Dr. Apte as Vice-Chancellor.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Proportional Representation by Single Transferable Vote - Resolution of Tie at Second Count - Poona University Act, 1948, Section 56; Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 75(4) - When two continuing candidates tie after distribution of eliminated candidate's votes in a single-seat election, the candidate with lower first preference votes must be excluded; drawing of lots is not permissible absent a specific statutory provision. The Court reasoned that statutory provisions and legislative principles support exclusion by reference to the original count, and that decision by lot rests on chance rather than reason. Held that the High Court erred in directing a draw of lots and that the candidate with lower first count votes was properly excluded (pp. 603-606). B) Election Law - Interpretation of Rule 81(3) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 81(3) does not apply to single-seat elections where only one vacancy remains; it applies only when more than one seat is to be filled. The High Court's reliance on Rule 81(13) to require a draw of lots was erroneous. Held that the relevant statutory rules support exclusion by original count, not lot (pp. 605). C) University Law - Affiliation of Colleges - Poona University Act, 1948, Sections 11, 56 - Delay in publication of an affiliation notification does not invalidate prior affiliation or the votes of principals from affiliated colleges. The Court found that the four colleges were in fact affiliated before the election date; the delay was administrative and did not affect voting rights. Held that the votes were valid (p. 607). D) Election Law - Chancellor's Jurisdiction - Poona University Act, 1948, Section 60 - The defeated candidate's petition to the Chancellor showed that the University had its own procedure for correcting election disputes. Where discretion exists between two principles of exclusion, the Court would not command the University to exercise discretion in a specific way. Held that the University's internal procedure was relevant and the Court declined to impose a particular method (p. 606E).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tie between two continuing candidates with equal votes at the second count in an election by proportional representation by single transferable vote should be resolved by drawing of lots or by excluding the candidate with lower first preference votes; whether votes of four college principals were invalid because of delayed publication of affiliation notification
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment and writ of quo warranto, and upheld the election of Dr. Balkrishna Pandurang Apte as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Poona. It held that the tie at the second count was not to be resolved by drawing of lots but by excluding the candidate with the lower first preference votes; the votes of the four colleges were valid despite delay in publication of affiliation notification.
Law Points
- In single transferable vote election for single vacancy
- tie at subsequent count resolved by excluding candidate with lower first preference votes
- drawing of lots only when specific statutory provision exists
- delay in publication of affiliation notification does not invalidate prior affiliation or votes
- Rule 81(3) of Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961 applies only when more than one seat remains to be filled
- Statute 158 and Rule 75(4) embody exclusion by original count
- Section 60 of Poona University Act
- 1948 provides Chancellor's jurisdiction for election disputes
