Case Note & Summary
This appeal arose from an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the returned candidate from Jhajjar constituency in Haryana Vidhan Sabha election held on March 11, 1972. The election petitioner (respondent in the Supreme Court) had lost by a narrow margin of 265 votes and alleged large-scale impersonation and double voting. He sought inspection of counterfoils of ballot papers to prove his allegations by comparing signatures and thumb impressions. The returned candidate won the election, but the election petition alleged that 28 votes were cast by impersonating dead voters, 710 absentee voters were impersonated, 158 government servants were impersonated, and 149 persons registered at two or more places polled twice or more. On December 1, 1972, the petitioner filed an application proposing a procedure: produce genuine voters, show them the counterfoils, and test genuineness of signatures. The High Court on January 5, 1973 allowed inspection of two counterfoils to confirm the evidence of P.W. 17. The returned candidate's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed in Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh, AIR 1973 SC 2158, where the Court observed that the procedure suggested was clear and reasonable. On December 17, 1973, the High Court allowed two finger-print experts to compare thumb impressions on counterfoils. On December 18, 1973, the returned candidate filed a civil miscellaneous application seeking to revoke that permission, contending that counterfoils are secret documents and no prima facie case existed. The High Court, after examining evidence already recorded, classified the cases into seven lists: List A had 5 dead voters; List B had 126 voters whose own testimony showed impersonation; List C had 4 proved by P.Ws. 17 and 472; List D had 15 who deposed against petitioner but were shown by other evidence; List E had 13 hostile witnesses; List F had 48 not examined but proved by others; List G had 63 multiple voting cases. By order dated February 4, 1974, the High Court found prima facie personation in about 310 cases and allowed inspection of counterfoils for those voters. The returned candidate appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The main legal issue was whether inspection of ballot papers or counterfoils could be allowed without a stringent prima facie case and whether the High Court acted arbitrarily. The appellant argued that counterfoils are secret, inspection would violate ballot secrecy, and the order amounted to a fishing enquiry; the High Court did not assess quality of evidence but relied on volume. The respondent argued that he had made out a prima facie case through the classified evidence and that inspection was necessary. The Supreme Court referred to Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and Shashi Bhushan v. Balraj Madhok, which established that inspection of ballot boxes may be ordered in the interest of justice but only when allegations are supported by material facts and prayer is bona fide; no roving or fishing enquiry. Secrecy of ballot must yield to doing justice. The Court found that the High Court had correctly applied this principle: it classified the evidence into categories with names of witnesses, and its view that the evidence if unrebutted would prove impersonation meant it found a prima facie case. Therefore, there was no arbitrariness. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order permitting inspection of counterfoils of ballot papers for approximately 310 voters.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Inspection of Ballot Papers and Counterfoils - Conditions for Allowing Inspection - Representation of the People Act, 1951 (sections not specified) - The court considered whether an election petitioner could inspect ballot papers/counterfoils to prove impersonation and double voting. It held that such inspection could be allowed only if a prima facie case is made out; allegations must not be vague or indefinite, must be supported by material facts, and the prayer must be bona fide. The court reaffirmed that while secrecy of ballot is important, doing justice is more important, and care must be taken to prevent roving or fishing enquiries. Held, inspection of counterfoils was rightly permitted after the High Court found prima facie personation in about 310 cases. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Election Law - Judicial Review of Prima Facie Determination - Appellate Interference with High Court's Order - Representation of the People Act, 1951 (sections not specified) - The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court applied its mind to the quality of evidence before allowing inspection. It held that the High Court's classification of voters into seven lists, based on witness testimony, showed a proper assessment and was not arbitrary; the High Court found prima facie case that required further investigation. Held, no ground to interfere with the order allowing inspection of counterfoils. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an election petitioner can seek inspection of counterfoils of ballot papers to prove allegations of impersonation and double voting, and what conditions must be satisfied before such inspection is allowed; whether the High Court correctly found a prima facie case before permitting inspection of counterfoils for 310 voters
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order dated 4 February 1974 allowing inspection of counterfoils of ballot papers for approximately 310 voters after finding prima facie case of personation
Law Points
- Inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils in election petitions is permissible only after a prima facie case is made out
- allegations must be supported by material facts and not vague
- prayer must be bona fide
- secrecy of ballot is not absolute and must yield to interests of justice
- roving or fishing inquiries are impermissible
- appellate court will not interfere unless High Court's order is arbitrary
