Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose out of an election petition challenging the election of the appellant, Mahadeo, who was declared elected to a seat in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly. The first respondent, Babu Udai Pratap Singh, was a defeated candidate. His name was inaccurately printed on the ballot papers as 'Udai Bhan Pratap Singh' even though his election symbol was correctly shown. Alleging that the misprinting materially prejudiced his prospects of securing votes from his supporters, the first respondent filed an election petition. The Election Tribunal set aside the appellant's election, and the High Court, on appeal, upheld that decision. The High Court rejected the contention that the misprinting contravened Rule 56(2)(g) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, holding that the 'design' of a ballot paper refers to its form, pattern, or outline and not its contents. However, it held that the misprinting rendered the appellant's election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the misprinting of a candidate's name on ballot papers could be a ground to declare an election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether it contravened Rule 56(2)(g) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that 'design' in Rule 56(2)(g) refers to the form, pattern, or outline of the ballot paper and not its contents, so the misprinting did not breach that rule. However, the Court held that the High Court and the Election Tribunal erred in concluding that the election was void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) merely because of the misprinting. It observed that the misprinting was an irregularity but did not per se render the election void; for that to happen, it must be shown that the irregularity materially affected the result. The Court thus allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the lower forums, and dismissed the election petition, thereby upholding the appellant's election.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - Rule 56(2)(g) - Interpretation of 'design' - The word 'design' refers to the form, pattern, or outline of the ballot paper and not its contents; therefore, misprinting of a candidate's name on the ballot paper does not contravene the rule (Paras 572 B-C). B) Election Law - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Section 100(1)(d)(iv) - Grounds for declaring election void - Mere misprinting of a candidate's name on ballot paper, without proof of material effect on the election result, is an irregularity that does not render the election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) (Para 572 E).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the misprinting of a candidate's name on ballot papers renders the election of the returned candidate void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; and whether such misprinting contravenes Rule 56(2)(g) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the High Court and the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the election petition. The appellant's election was upheld.
Law Points
- Under Rule 56(2)(g) of the Conduct of Election Rules
- 1961
- the word 'design' refers to the form
- pattern
- or outline of the ballot paper and not its contents
- so misprinting of a candidate's name does not contravene the rule. Mere misprinting of a candidate's name on ballot paper is an irregularity that does not render an election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- unless it is shown to have materially affected the result.
