1999 JTR(SC) 587
1999 AIR(SC) 2167 ; 1999 AIR(SCW) 2180 ; 1999 4 JT 24 ; 1999 3 Scale 522 ; 1999 4 SCC 508 ; 1999 2 UJ 1173 ; 1999 KHC 1184 ; 1999 4 Supreme 412 ; 1999 5 Supreme 26
1999(5) Supreme 26
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Dr. A.S. Anand, CJI., M. Jagannadha Rao & M. Srinivasan, JJ.
Sri M. Omkar -Appellant
versus
Revuri Prakash Reddy & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10409 of 1996
Decided on 4-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : R. Santhanan Krishan, Advocate for S.U.K. Sagar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 : P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocate, P. Venkat Reddy, B. Narayan Reddy, Ajay Taleseera, Jamshed, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 5 & 8 : Suniol Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 10 : K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Santhi Narayan, Advocates.
Act Referred :REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT : .
(A) The case pertains to the adjudication of an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, challenging the validity of an election to the Legislative Assembly. The primary legal contention revolves around the adherence to the procedural guidelines and instructions issued by the Election Commission of India, specifically the Chief Election Commission Order dated 13th April 1991. These instructions mandate that if a polling station records 90% or more votes and a vast majority favor one candidate, the Returning Officer must set aside the ballot papers in a sealed cover and seek directions from the Election Commission before proceeding with the count to prevent potential electoral fraud or irregularities.
(B) The court emphasized that allegations of irregularities in the counting process must be supported by specific evidence and that a vague application for a recount, lacking concrete details of the alleged mischief or errors, is insufficient to justify the overturning of a declared election result.
Facts of the case:
An election petitioner, having lost a Legislative Assembly seat by a narrow margin, challenged the result alleging irregularities in the counting of votes. The petitioner claimed that the Returning Officer violated Election Commission instructions by counting votes from four polling stations where polling exceeded 90% without reporting the matter to the Commission or setting aside the ballot boxes. A request for a recount was made by the petitioner after the result was declared, which was rejected by the Returning Officer as being vague.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Returning Officer had indeed followed the prescribed procedure by submitting a report to the Election Commission and proceeding with the count only after receiving specific instructions through the District Collector. Furthermore, the court observed that the application for a recount was hopelessly vague and did not disclose any specific facts to justify such a request. There was no evidence of malpractice or material irregularity that affected the election result.
Issues:
1. Whether the Returning Officer violated the Election Commission of India's instructions regarding the counting of votes in polling stations with over 90% turnout.
2. Whether the election result was materially affected by any irregularities in the counting process.
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a recount of the votes based on the application submitted.
Ratio Decidendi:
An election result cannot be set aside based on vague allegations of irregularity. Where evidence proves that the Returning Officer complied with the Election Commission's instructions by reporting abnormal polling and obtaining necessary directions, the charge of procedural violation fails. A recount will not be granted if the application requesting it is devoid of specific details and fails to justify the necessity of such a process.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; the judgment of the High Court dismissing the election petition was upheld.
(A) The case pertains to the adjudication of an election petition filed under the Representation of the People Act, challenging the validity of an election to the Legislative Assembly. The primary legal contention revolves around the adherence to the procedural guidelines and instructions issued by the Election Commission of India, specifically the Chief Election Commission Order dated 13th April 1991. These instructions mandate that if a polling station records 90% or more votes and a vast majority favor one candidate, the Returning Officer must set aside the ballot papers in a sealed cover and seek directions from the Election Commission before proceeding with the count to prevent potential electoral fraud or irregularities.
(B) The court emphasized that allegations of irregularities in the counting process must be supported by specific evidence and that a vague application for a recount, lacking concrete details of the alleged mischief or errors, is insufficient to justify the overturning of a declared election result.
Facts of the case:
An election petitioner, having lost a Legislative Assembly seat by a narrow margin, challenged the result alleging irregularities in the counting of votes. The petitioner claimed that the Returning Officer violated Election Commission instructions by counting votes from four polling stations where polling exceeded 90% without reporting the matter to the Commission or setting aside the ballot boxes. A request for a recount was made by the petitioner after the result was declared, which was rejected by the Returning Officer as being vague.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Returning Officer had indeed followed the prescribed procedure by submitting a report to the Election Commission and proceeding with the count only after receiving specific instructions through the District Collector. Furthermore, the court observed that the application for a recount was hopelessly vague and did not disclose any specific facts to justify such a request. There was no evidence of malpractice or material irregularity that affected the election result.
Issues:
1. Whether the Returning Officer violated the Election Commission of India's instructions regarding the counting of votes in polling stations with over 90% turnout.
2. Whether the election result was materially affected by any irregularities in the counting process.
3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to a recount of the votes based on the application submitted.
Ratio Decidendi:
An election result cannot be set aside based on vague allegations of irregularity. Where evidence proves that the Returning Officer complied with the Election Commission's instructions by reporting abnormal polling and obtaining necessary directions, the charge of procedural violation fails. A recount will not be granted if the application requesting it is devoid of specific details and fails to justify the necessity of such a process.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; the judgment of the High Court dismissing the election petition was upheld.
Judgment
The appellant who contested the election as a Marxist (Communist Party of India) candidate for a seat to the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly in the elections held on December 5, 1994, lost to respondent No. 1, who had contested the election as a candidate fielded by Telugu Desam Party by a narrow margin of 87 votes. The appellant filed an election petition challenging the election of respondent No. 1 alleging irregularities during counting and sought a recount of votes. The election petition was contested by respondent No. 1 and from the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
(1) Whether there are any discrepancies in the counting of votes in round Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 9 as alleged as well as in the result sheet supplied?
(2) Whether the Returning Officer has violated the instructions of the Election Commission of India in proceeding with the counting of votes, if so, to what effect?
(3) Whether the result of the election has been materially affected due to any material irregularities?
(4) Whether the election petitioner is entitled to seek recount of votes?
2. After evidence was led by the parties, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the election petition with costs. Hence, this appeal.
3. The only grievance projected by learned counsel for the appellant before us is that the Returning Officer had violated the instructions of the Election Commission of India with regard to the counting of votes particularly in polling station Nos. 28, 35, 191 and 200, viz., Ramavaram, Advi Rangapur, Musmi, Dubbagudem. According to the learned counsel, the votes polled in these polling stations were more than 90% but the Returning Officer ignored the instructions issued by the Election Commission regarding counting of votes from such polling stations and that the irregularity so committed had materially affected the result of the election in so far it concern the returned candidate. The instructions on which the learned counsel has relied upon are contained in the Chief Election Commission Order dated 13th April, 1991. Those instructions inter alia provide that if the Returning Officer, at the stage of counting of votes, finds that in a particular polling station 90% votes have been cast and out of those votes, 90% have gone in favour of one candidate and the votes cast in favour of the other candidate are very negligible, “he should keep aside the ballot papers contained in the ballot boxes used in that particular polling booth in a sealed cover”. Further the Returning Officer is prohibited from declaring the result in such a case and he should seek orders from the Election Commission and only after receipt of the instructions from the Election Commission, should be proceed further in the matter of counting of votes. It is asserted that these instructions were violated by the Returning Officer and he counted the votes without following the procedure prescribed in the instructions.
4. In paragraph 7 of the election petition, which projects this grievance, it is alleged as under:
“As per the instructions of the Election Commission of India, the cases of polling stations where 90% or more polling has been recorded the Returning Officer has to report to the Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission for Commission’s decision. Till the decision of the Commission is communicated, the Returning Officer shall not open the ballot boxes of those Polling Booths/Stations for counting but at the same time, shall proceed with the counting of votes in respect of other polling booths/stations. In the instant case, though abnormal polling, i.e., 90% and above was recorded in 4 polling stations, the Returning Officer with an oblique motive of helping Respondent No. 1, without reporting to the Election Commission and setting apart the said ballot boxes, allowed to mix up the said votes along with other ballot papers.” (Emphasis ours)
5. Thus, it is seen that the gravamen of the charge is that the Returning Officer “without reporting to the Election Commission and setting apart the said ballot boxes, allowed to mix up the said votes along with other ballot papers” and counted the same. The Returning Officer was examined as a court witness-CW-1. According to his evidence, on finding that more than 90% of polling was recorded in the four polling stations, he submitted a report to the Election Commission regarding it vide Ex. C-1 and after receiving instructions from the Election Commission, through the District Collector to the effect that those votes were to be counted, the needful was done. It is, thus, obvious that the allegations that the Returning Officer counted the votes without reporting the matter to the Election Commission or without obtaining obstruction is not correct.
6. The evidence of the returning Officer reveals that during counting there was no complaint of any mal-practice or irregularity in the matter of counting votes. After the result was declared an application for recount was made by the appellant which was found to be vague. A bare reading of the application dated 10.12.1994, Annexure-D, demonstrates the vagueness of the allegations. That application reads :
“To
The Returning Officer, 266,
Narasampet L.A.C.
Sir,
There has been lot of mischief committed by our staff at the time of counting i.e. on 9.12.1994 to get me defeated and to help the T.D.P. candidate to become successful. Similarly several irregularities have taken place in deciding the doubtful votes. The difference rather margin between me and the successful T.D.P. candidate Sri R. Parkash Reddy is about 100 votes.
Hence, I request you to issue orders for recounting immediately and hold up the result till the recounting takes place.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
Sd/-
(M. Omkar)
Candidate
From 266 Narasampet L.A.C.
7. The applicationis hopelessly vague and the Returning Officer rightly rejected it holding that the facts disclosed in the application did not justify the recounting of votes. We agree.
8. On the basis of the factual matrix, as noted above the only grievance projected before us by the learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge, does not stand any scrutiny. The election petition was rightly dismissed and we are not persuaded to take a different view.
9. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(C.R.) Appeal dismissed.
************
Parallel Citations of other Journals :
Sri M. Omkar v. Revuri Prakash Reddy & Ors., 1999(5) Supreme 26 : 1999(2) CCC 143 : (1999) 4 SCC 508 : AIR 1999 SC 2167 : 1999(2) UJ 1173
00047