Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, members of the Standing Committee of Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur, challenged a resolution passed on 2 January 2010 in a special meeting allotting subject committees. The sole ground was that voting should have been by secret ballot, which they argued was the best democratic process. They relied on decisions in Janendrakumar Phoolchand Daftari v. Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra (AIR 1994 SC 586) and Maruti Bandu Patil v. Village Panchayat (AIR 1981 Bom 378). The respondents, including the State of Maharashtra and Zilla Parishad, opposed the petition. The court examined Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Rules, 1962, which governs the procedure for elections. Sub-rule (3) explicitly states that the presiding officer shall record voting by show of hands and record the names of councillors voting in favour. The court found that the rule does not provide for secret ballot. It held that secret ballot is not a necessary attribute of democracy unless the statute mandates it. The court distinguished the cited precedents, noting that they dealt with different contexts where secret ballot was required by specific rules. The petition was dismissed, upholding the resolution passed by show of hands.
Headnote
A) Local Self-Government - Zilla Parishad - Subject Committee Allotment - Voting by Show of Hands - Rule 6 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads [(President, Vice President and Chairman of Subjects Committees)] and Panchayat Samitis [(Chairman and Deputy Chairman)] [(Reservation of offices and Election)] Rules, 1962 - Petitioners challenged resolution allotting subject committees on ground that voting should have been by secret ballot. Court held that Rule 6(3) expressly provides for voting by show of hands and recording of names of councillors voting in favour. Secret ballot is not a necessary attribute of democracy unless statute so requires. Petition dismissed. (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether voting for allotment of subject committees in Zilla Parishad must be by secret ballot as a democratic process, or whether show of hands as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Rules, 1962 is valid.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. The resolution passed by Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur on 2.1.2010 allotting subject committees is upheld.
Law Points
- Secret ballot not mandatory unless statute prescribes
- Show of hands valid mode of voting
- Rule 6 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Rules 1962
- Democratic process not synonymous with secret ballot
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 142
Writ Petition No. 1384 of 2010
S.A. Bobde, A.B. Chaudhari
Mr. Sandeep Marathe for Petitioner, Mr. T.R. Kankale A.G.P. for Respondent No.1, Mr. A.S. Kilor for Respondent No.2, Mr. M.V. Mohokar for Respondent No.3
Tulshiram s/o Timaji Shrirame and Sudhakar s/o Laxman Kundojwar
The State of Maharashtra, Zilla Parishad Chandrapur, Dy. Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad Chandrapur, Divisional Commissioner Nagpur
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging resolution of Zilla Parishad allotting subject committees.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to quash the resolution passed on 2.1.2010 allotting subject committees, on the ground that voting should have been by secret ballot.
Filing Reason
Petitioners contended that voting by show of hands was not democratic and secret ballot was required.
Issues
Whether voting for allotment of subject committees in Zilla Parishad must be by secret ballot as a democratic process, or whether show of hands as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Rules, 1962 is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that voting ought to have been by secret ballot as it is the best democratic process, relying on Janendrakumar Phoolchand Daftari v. Rajendra Ramsukh Mishra and Maruti Bandu Patil v. Village Panchayat.
Respondents opposed the petition and prayed for its dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
Secret ballot is not a necessary attribute of democracy unless the statute or rules specifically mandate it. Rule 6(3) of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads Rules, 1962 prescribes voting by show of hands, and the court cannot substitute its own method. The precedents relied upon by petitioners are distinguishable as they involved specific rules requiring secret ballot.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the resolution passed by Zilla Parishad, Chandrapr, in the special meeting conducted on 2.1.2010 in the matter of allotment of subject committees.
The only ground of challenge raised before us by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the voting in the meeting in which allotment of subject committees was made ought to have been taken by secret ballot as that is the best known democratic process.
We have gone through the concerned rule providing for modality of holding election for allotment of the subject committees. Rule 6 of The Maharashtra Zilla Parishads [(President, Vice President and Chairman of Subjects Committees)] and Panchayat Samitis [(Chairman and Deputy Chairman)] [(Reservation of offices and Election)] Rules, 1962 reads thus : ... (3) The Officer presiding shall, announce the name of each contesting candidate in the alphabetical sequence and shall record voting by show of hands.
Procedural History
The writ petition was filed in 2010 challenging a resolution passed on 2.1.2010. The court reserved judgment on 16.8.2010 and pronounced on 21.9.2010.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Zilla Parishads [(President, Vice President and Chairman of Subjects Committees)] and Panchayat Samitis [(Chairman and Deputy Chairman)] [(Reservation of offices and Election)] Rules, 1962: Rule 6
