Bombay High Court Quashes University Election Results for Violation of Secret Ballot Requirement. Election of Faculty Representatives to Goa University Senate set aside as election was conducted by show of hands instead of secret ballot, violating Ordinance 3.1.1 of Goa University.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, students of St. Xavier's College, Mapusa, filed a writ petition challenging the election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as University Faculty Representatives to the Goa University Senate held on 08/08/2016. The election was conducted by show of hands instead of secret ballot as mandated by Ordinance 3.1.1 of Goa University. The petitioners contended that the election was illegal and void ab initio. The respondents argued that the election was conducted in accordance with the Ordinance and that the petitioners had an alternative remedy by way of an election petition. The court examined the Ordinance and found that it clearly requires election by secret ballot. The court noted that the election was conducted by show of hands, which is a clear violation of the Ordinance. The court held that the election is illegal and void ab initio, and the availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the writ jurisdiction when the election is ex facie illegal. The court quashed the election results and directed that fresh elections be conducted by secret ballot within a stipulated time.

Headnote

A) University Law - Election - Secret Ballot - Ordinance 3.1.1 of Goa University - The election of Faculty Representatives to the University Senate must be conducted by secret ballot as per Ordinance 3.1.1. The election held on 08/08/2016 was conducted by show of hands, which is contrary to the mandatory requirement of secret ballot. The court held that the election is illegal and void ab initio. (Paras 2-6)

B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of Constitution of India - The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction when the election is ex facie illegal and contrary to statutory provisions. The court held that the election being void ab initio, the writ petition is maintainable. (Paras 7-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as University Faculty Representatives to the Goa University Senate held on 08/08/2016 is illegal and void for being conducted by show of hands instead of secret ballot as required by Ordinance 3.1.1.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court allowed the writ petition, declaring the election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as University Faculty Representatives held on 08/08/2016 as illegal and void ab initio. The court directed that fresh elections be conducted by secret ballot within a stipulated time.

Law Points

  • Election by show of hands invalid
  • Secret ballot mandatory
  • Ordinance 3.1.1 of Goa University
  • Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
  • No alternative remedy bar
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (03) 119

Writ Petition No.851 of 2016

2017-03-16

Anoop V. Mohta, Nutan D. Sardessai

A. D. Bhobe, S. B. Bhobe, A. Agni, Gaurang D. Panandikar

Jisam Salam, Nikita Naik

Goa University, Vice Chancellor, Durga Sachit Nayak, Rajeshwari Sawant, Prajakta Lotlikar, Simran Batham, Alvin Philip Oliveira, Sulaksha Prakash Shetye, Tushar Vaman Kelkar, St. Xavier's College

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging election of Faculty Representatives to Goa University Senate.

Remedy Sought

Declaration that election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 held on 08/08/2016 is illegal and void.

Filing Reason

Election was conducted by show of hands instead of secret ballot as required by Ordinance 3.1.1.

Issues

Whether the election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as University Faculty Representatives held on 08/08/2016 is illegal for being conducted by show of hands instead of secret ballot. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite availability of alternative remedy.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners: Election was conducted by show of hands, violating Ordinance 3.1.1 which mandates secret ballot. Respondents: Election was conducted in accordance with Ordinance; petitioners have alternative remedy by way of election petition.

Ratio Decidendi

Election by show of hands is contrary to the mandatory requirement of secret ballot under Ordinance 3.1.1 of Goa University, rendering the election void ab initio. The availability of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the election is ex facie illegal.

Judgment Excerpts

The election of the Faculty Representatives to the University Senate is required to be conducted by secret ballot as per Ordinance 3.1.1. The election was conducted by show of hands, which is contrary to the mandatory requirement of secret ballot. The election is illegal and void ab initio.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the election of respondent nos. 4 and 5 as University Faculty Representatives held on 08/08/2016. The respondents appeared and contested the petition. The court heard the matter finally by consent of parties and delivered judgment on 16/03/2017.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes University Election Results for Violation of Secret Ballot Requirement. Election of Faculty Representatives to Goa University Senate set aside as election was conducted by show of hands instead of secret ballot, violating Or...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Petition in Evidence Act Case — Bailiff's Report Held Public Document Under Section 74. Certified Copy Admissible Under Section 77, But Trial Court Must Give Opportunity to Rebut Contents.