Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal arising from an election petition concerning a seat in the U.P. Legislative Council from the Rohilkhand Graduates Constituency. The election was held on April 22, 1962, under the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote, with 14 candidates and a total of 4412 votes cast. The first preference threshold was 2207 votes. Since no candidate secured the minimum at the first count, subsequent counts were conducted. Satya Ketu, the respondent, was declared elected by a margin of 47 votes after the final count. Shyam Sunder, the appellant and a candidate, filed an election petition alleging that invalid votes had been counted in favour of Satya Ketu because ballot papers bearing the Roman numeral I instead of the Arabic numeral 1 violated Rule 73(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. The Election Tribunal scrutinised the ballot papers, divided them into categories, and held that those marked with Roman numeral I were invalid. It concluded that 491 votes cast for Satya Ketu were invalid, allowed the petition, declared Satya Ketu's election void, and declared the appellant duly elected. Satya Ketu appealed to the Allahabad High Court. In the High Court, the appellant raised a preliminary objection that the appeal should be dismissed because it was not accompanied by a copy of the decree containing details of costs as directed by the Tribunal. The High Court overruled the preliminary objection, holding that no decree is required under Sections 98 and 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. On the merits, the High Court held that Rule 73(2) does not require the figure 1 to be in Arabic form; the Roman numeral I is valid. The High Court counted 460 of the 491 votes as valid, with the result that Satya Ketu still won by 16 votes, and accordingly allowed the appeal and dismissed the election petition. The appellant then obtained a certificate from the High Court and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the scheme of Part VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Sections 79 to 122. It observed that there is no provision for passing a decree by an election tribunal; Section 98 specifically directs the tribunal to make an order, not a decree. The use of the word 'decree' by the Tribunal was an error; what may be prepared is a memorandum of costs, which can be executed under Section 122. The procedure under Section 90(1), which adopts the Code of Civil Procedure as nearly as may be, does not import a requirement of decree. Therefore, in an appeal under Section 116-A, only a copy of the judgment of the Tribunal is necessary. On the second issue, the Supreme Court interpreted Rule 73(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. It held that the rule does not mandate that the figure 1 be in Arabic form; marking figure 1, whether in one form or another including the Roman form, is full compliance. Additional words like 'st' or 'one' after the Roman I do not invalidate the vote because the figure I shows the first preference. Consequently, 460 votes were valid, Satya Ketu maintained a lead of 16 votes, and the election petition was rightly dismissed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's judgment.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Appeal Under Section 116-A - No Decree Required to be Filed - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 98, 116-A, 120, 122 - The High Court rightly dismissed preliminary objection that appeal was not accompanied by copy of decree. Part VI of Act does not provide for passing of decree by Election Tribunal; Section 98 requires order, not decree. Use of word 'decree' by Tribunal was error; only memorandum of costs may be prepared. Held that appeal maintainable without decree copy, only copy of judgment is necessary. (Paras not mentioned) B) Election Law - Validity of Ballot Paper - Roman Numeral I as First Preference - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 73(2) - Rule 73(2) does not require figure 1 to be in Arabic form; where figure 1 is marked on ballot paper, whether in one form or other including Roman form, it is full compliance. Additional words like 'st' or 'one' after Roman I do not invalidate vote. Held that ballot papers marked with Roman numeral I are valid, and 460 votes counted in favour of returned candidate. (Paras not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an appeal under Section 116-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be accompanied by a copy of a decree of the Election Tribunal; Whether ballot papers marked with Roman numeral I instead of Arabic numeral 1 as first preference are invalid under Rule 73(2) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's judgment. It held that no decree is required to be filed with an appeal under Section 116-A of Representation of the People Act, 1951; only a copy of the judgment of the Election Tribunal is necessary. It further held that Rule 73(2) of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 does not require the figure 1 to be marked in Arabic form; use of Roman numeral I is valid, and additional words after I do not invalidate the vote. Consequently, 460 votes were counted as valid, Satya Ketu maintained a lead of 16 votes, and the election petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Appeal under Section 116-A of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 requires only copy of judgment of Election Tribunal
- not decree
- Election Tribunal passes order under Section 98
- What may be prepared is memorandum of costs executable under Section 122
- Rule 73(2) does not require Arabic numeral 1
- Roman numeral I is valid
- Additional words after figure I do not invalidate vote.
