Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, including the Shivaji University Teachers Association (SUTA) and several individual voters from Kavathe Mahankal taluka in Sangli district, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging the summary revision of electoral rolls undertaken by the Election Commission of Maharashtra. The petitioners contended that the Election Commission had not issued individual notices to each voter before deleting or modifying entries in the electoral rolls, which they argued violated principles of natural justice and the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950. The respondents, including the Chief Election Officer, Maharashtra, and the District Collector, Sangli, defended the revision, stating that a general notice had been published in the locality and that the procedure followed was in accordance with Section 23 of the Act and the Election Commission's guidelines. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the procedure for summary revision. It noted that Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, read with the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, does not mandate individual notice to each voter. Instead, the law requires a general notice to be given, inviting claims and objections within a specified period. The court observed that the Election Commission had followed the prescribed procedure by publishing a notice in the concerned area and that the petitioners had not demonstrated any specific prejudice caused to them. The court further held that the principles of natural justice are not violated as long as an opportunity is given to voters to file objections, which was done in this case. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the summary revision of electoral rolls.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Revision of Electoral Rolls - Summary Revision - Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 - The court considered whether individual notice to each voter is mandatory before summary revision of electoral rolls. The court held that the Election Commission's practice of issuing a general notice and inviting claims and objections is sufficient and does not violate principles of natural justice. The petition challenging the revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Election Commission is required to issue individual notices to each voter before carrying out summary revision of electoral rolls under Section 23 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.
Final Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the summary revision of electoral rolls without individual notice to each voter is valid and does not violate principles of natural justice.
Law Points
- Summary revision of electoral rolls
- No individual notice required
- Section 23 Representation of the People Act
- 1950
- Principles of natural justice
- Election Commission's power
