Case Note & Summary
The case arose out of an election petition filed by the first respondent, an elector, challenging the election of the appellant to the Lok Sabha from the Shahabad Parliamentary Constituency in the 1967 general election. The appellant, a Jan Sangh nominee, was the successful candidate, while the ninth respondent, a Congress nominee, was the nearest rival. The election petition not only sought to declare the appellant's election void but also prayed for the ninth respondent to be declared elected. The challenge was based, inter alia, on alleged irregularities in the counting and scrutiny of votes. Specifically, it was alleged that only one counting agent was permitted per table whereas three persons were counting simultaneously, making it impossible to detect errors; about 5,000 votes of the Congress candidate were improperly rejected despite protests from his election agent; and invalid votes were counted in favour of the returned candidate. Schedule E to the petition set out certain figures of improperly rejected and accepted votes, but the petition did not disclose the basis for these figures, nor was it stated that any written objection had been filed during the counting or that a request for recount had been made. The verification appended to the petition stated that the allegations were made on the basis of information received from workers and counting agents of the Congress nominee, without identifying those sources or the basis of their knowledge. Before the trial commenced, the election petitioner filed an application seeking inspection of the ballot papers. In support, he filed an affidavit claiming that on one of the counting days, he had acted as a counting agent and thus had personal knowledge of the irregularities. The High Court allowed the application, relying solely on the allegations in the election petition and the supporting affidavit. The returned candidate appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, holding that inspection of ballot papers can only be ordered if the election petition contains an adequate statement of material facts affording a basis for the allegations, and the tribunal is prima facie satisfied that such inspection is necessary to do complete justice. The Court found that the petition was based on hearsay, lacked details of the material facts such as the basis of the figures, and that no contemporaneous objections or recount request had been made during the counting process. The mere assertion of some figures, without supporting material facts, was insufficient to justify breach of the secrecy of the ballot. The Court accordingly directed that the election petition should proceed without inspection of the ballot papers.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Inspection of Ballot Papers - Conditions for Ordering Scrutiny - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - In an election petition challenging the election on grounds of counting irregularities, the Supreme Court held that inspection of ballot papers can be ordered only if the petition contains an adequate statement of material facts and the tribunal is prima facie satisfied that inspection is necessary. The Court found that the election petitioner had failed to disclose material facts such as the basis for the figures of rejected/accepted votes, that no objections were filed during counting, and no recount was sought. Held that the High Court erred in permitting inspection based on mere allegations and hearsay. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in permitting the inspection of ballot papers solely on the basis of the allegations in the election petition and the affidavit, without adequate material facts and without being prima facie satisfied that inspection was necessary.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order permitting inspection of ballot papers, and held that the application for inspection should have been rejected. The court directed that the election petition must be decided without inspection, as the conditions for ordering inspection were not satisfied.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- secrecy of ballot papers must be maintained
- inspection of ballot papers can be ordered only if election petition contains an adequate statement of material facts
- the election tribunal must be prima facie satisfied that inspection is necessary to decide the dispute and do complete justice.
