Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the election to the Punjab Legislative Council from the Hoshiarpur Local Authorities Constituency held in April 1968. The appellant, Kabul Singh, was declared elected by a margin of one vote over the first respondent, Kundan Singh. The first respondent challenged the election by way of an election petition before the High Court, alleging that the vote of Hari Singh was void because his name had been included in the electoral roll on April 5, 1968, just two days before polling, and after the last date for filing nominations (March 12, 1968). The appellant filed a recriminatory petition contending that the votes of Tarsem Singh, Harjinder Singh, and Balwant Singh were also void. Tarsem Singh was alleged to have become a government servant and thus disqualified, while Harjinder Singh and Balwant Singh had their names included in the electoral roll after the last date for nominations. The High Court referred the question regarding Hari Singh's vote to a Full Bench, which by majority held the vote void under Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. Thereafter, the single judge held that the votes of Hari Singh, Harjinder Singh, and Balwant Singh were all void. After excluding these void votes and recounting, the High Court found that the first respondent had secured more valid votes and accordingly set aside the election of the appellant and declared the first respondent as duly elected. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the inclusion of names in the electoral roll after the last date but upon applications made before that date did not render the votes void, and that the court could not exclude votes not challenged by the opposite party. He also contended that Tarsem Singh’s vote should be declared void due to disqualification. The Supreme Court rejected all contentions. It held that Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act is mandatory and prohibits any inclusion after the nomination deadline, irrespective of the date of application, relying on Baidyanath Panjiar v. Sita Ram Mahto. The Court further held that an election petition and recriminatory petition form one inquiry, so void votes can be excluded even if not specifically challenged. On Tarsem Singh’s vote, the Court found that the disqualifications under Section 16 of the 1950 Act are exhaustive and do not cover becoming a government servant; thus, his vote was valid. The Court also noted the finality of the electoral roll under Section 30 of the 1950 Act, which ousts civil court jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the High Court’s decision declaring the first respondent elected was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Electoral Roll - Finality and Prohibition on Late Inclusion - Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 23(3) - Section 23(3) takes away the power to include new names after the last date for making nominations. Inclusion of any name after that date renders the vote void, regardless of whether the application for inclusion was made before or after that date. Held, the vote of a person so included is invalid. (848 G) B) Election Law - Election Petition - Recriminatory Petition and Scope of Enquiry - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The election petition and recriminatory petition are parts of one enquiry. The court can examine validity of votes raised in the recriminatory petition, and if found void, exclude them in determining the election result, even if not challenged by the opposite party. Held, such exclusion is mandatory. (848 D) C) Election Law - Right to Vote - Disqualifications - Representation of the People Act, 1950, Section 16; Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 62 - A person entered in the electoral roll is entitled to vote unless disqualified under Section 16 of the 1950 Act. Disqualification due to government service is not enumerated, so such a person's vote is valid. The entries in the electoral roll are final, and civil courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate on eligibility to register. Held, the vote of Tarsem Singh was valid. (850 E)
Issue of Consideration
Whether votes of persons whose names were included in electoral roll after last date for filing nominations are void under Section 23(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1950; Whether court can exclude such votes in a recount when validity is raised in recriminatory petition; Whether a voter who becomes a government servant after inclusion but before polling is disqualified from voting under the Act
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the votes of Hari Singh, Harjinder Singh, and Balwant Singh were void under Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act, and on recount, the first respondent was declared elected. The vote of Tarsem Singh was valid.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 23(3) of 1950 Act prohibits inclusion of names after last date for nominations
- electoral roll is final after nomination deadline
- void votes must be excluded in recount
- recriminatory petition is part of same enquiry
- civil courts cannot adjudicate on entitlement to register in electoral roll
- right to vote is determined solely by provisions of the Act
- disqualifications for voting are exhaustive under Section 16 of 1950 Act
