Hari Ram Vs. Hira Singh & Ors
[1983] INSC 190 (25 November 1983)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 396 1984 SCR (1) 932 1984
SCC (2) 36 1983 SCALE (2)1107
CITATOR INFO :
R 1992 SC1163 (5,9)
ACT:
Election Law-Secrecy and Sacrosanct nature
and maintenances thereof-In an election petition, whether a court, on an
interlocutory application pass an order directing the Returning Officer to
produce the marked electoral Rolls for inspection and allow the election
petitioner to inspect the counterfoils-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, Rule 93
read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act.
HEADNOTE:
In the election held for the Metropolitan
Council from the Narela Constituency, the appellant Hari Ram secured 12,369
votes and was declared elected. The respondent Hira Singh who secured 12,131
votes filed an election petition before the Delhi High Court making a number of
allegations against the appellant. He preferred an interlocutory application
praying for a direction to the Returning Officer to produce the marked
electoral rolls for inspection and also for allowing inspection of the
counter-foils. The High Court granted both the prayers and hence this appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Before allowing the prayers at an
interlocutory stage, the High Court must examine whether proper foundation was
laid for inspection and sufficient materials placed before it and pass an order
which would result in adversely affecting the secrecy and sacrosanct nature of
the electoral process. Inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils should be
allowed very sparingly and only when it is absolutely essential to determine
the issue. In the garb of seeking inspection, the defeated candidate should not
be allowed to make a roving inquiry in order to fish out materials to set aside
the election. [934 A-C] Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind and Ors., [1975] Supl.] SCR 202,
followed.
1.2 The approach of the High Court, in the
instant case, at the very outset was legally incorrect. It was under a wrong
impression that it had ample powers to direct production of any document under
Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act and over-looked the fact that the
Representation of People Act was a special Act and provisions of the Evidence
Act or the Code of Civil Procedure would only apply where they are not
excluded. [935 D-E]
2.1 A perusal of Rule 93 of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 clearly shows that the Legislature intended to make a
clear distinction between 933 one set of documents and another. So far as the
counterfoils and the marked copy of the electoral rolls were concerned, there
was a strict prohibition for opening these documents unless the court was fully
satisfied that a cost iron case was made out for the same; whereas documents
mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 93 (as amended) could
be liberally allowed to be inspected. [937 D-E] Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain
Kamil Kidwai & Ors., [1964] 6 SCR 238; applied.
2.2 In the instant case, the attempt of the
respondent petitioner for inspecting marked electoral role by making vague
allegations was nothing but to fish out material for challenging the election
of the appellant and it clearly violated the sanctity and secrecy of the
electoral process.
[937 G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal
Nos. 10062 & 10063 of 1983.
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment
and Order dated the 8th September & 19th September, 1983 of the Delhi High
Court in Election Petition No. 2/83.
F. S. Nariman, S. P. Pandey and N. N. Agarwal
for the Appellant. S. N. Marhva and K. C. Dua for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI. J. By an order dated 15th November, 1983 we had allowed the appeal
of the appellant and set aside the order of the High Court without making any
order as to costs. This election appeal arises out of an interlocutory by order
passed by the Delhi High Court on an application given by the respondent for
directing the Returning Officer to produce the marked electoral rolls for
inspection. The Court also granted further prayer of the respondent for
allowing inspection of the counterfoils. The High Court granted both the
prayers and hence this appeal.
The appeal arises out of the election held
for the Metropolitan Council from the Narela Constituency. As a result of the
poll the appellant Hari Ram secured 12369 votes and Hira Singh (respondent)
12131 votes. Thus the appellant was declared elected. The respondent-petitioner
had made a number of allegations against the appellant but in the present
appeal we are only concerned with the interlocutory prayer made by the
respondent for inspection of marked electoral rolls and the counterfoils.
934 In support of the appeal, Mr. Nariman
submitted that the High Court gravely erred in allowing the prayers at the
interlocutory stage without examining whether proper foundation was laid for
inspection and sufficient material placed before the Court in order to allow
the prayer which would result in adversely affecting the secrecy and sacrosanct
nature of the electoral process. In our opinion, the contention of the
appellant is well founded and must prevail.
It is now well settled by a long course of
decisions of this Court that inspection of ballot papers and conterfoils should
be allowed very sparingly and only when it is absolutely essential to determine
the issue. This Court has further laid down that in the garb of seeking
inspection the defeated candidate should not be allowed to make a roving
inquiry in order to fish out materials to set aside the election. In the case
of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind & Ors.(1) this Court clearly observed thus:-
"Thus on a close and careful consideration of the various authorities of
this Court from time to time it is manifest that the following conditions are
imperative before a Court can grant inspection, or for that matter sample
inspection, of the ballot papers:
(1) That it is important to maintain the
secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be
violated on frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;
(2) That before inspection is allowed the
allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear and specific and
must be supported by adequate statements of material facts;
..... ..... ..... .....
(5) That the discretion conferred on the
Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to
indulge in a roving inquiry with a view to fish (out) materials for declaring
the election to be void; and 935 (6) That on the special facts of a given case
sample inspection may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie
satisfaction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for a
recount, and not for the purpose of fishing out materials." After going
through the judgment of the High Court and the application of the
respondent-petitioner for inspection of the documents concerned, we are
satisfied that no case for inspection was at all made out and the High Court
erred in allowing the prayers of the respondent and acted against the settled
principles as extracted above.
To begin with, the High Court seems to have
been under the impression that the Court had ample powers to direct production
of any document under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. In doing so with due
deference, the High Court overlooked that the Representation of People Act was
a special Act and provisions of the Evidence Act or the Code of Civil Procedure
would only apply where they are not excluded. Thus, at the very outset, with
due respect, the approach of the High Court was legally incorrect.
Furthermore, in the case of Ram Sewak Yadav
v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors.(1) this Court while interpreting the
provisions of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the
Act, made the following observations:- By rule 93 of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961, it is provided that:
"(1) While in the custody of the
returning officer- (a) the packets of unused ballot papers;
(b) the packets of used ballot papers whether
valid, tendered or rejected;
(c) the packets of the marked copy of the
electoral roll or, as the case may be, the list maintained under sub-section
(1) or sub- section (2) of section 152; and 936 (d) the packets of the
declarations by electors and the attestation of their signatures;
shall not be opened and their contents shall
not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under
the order or a competent court or tribunal.
(2) All other papers relating to the election
shall be open to public inspection subject to such conditions and to the
payment of such fee, if any, as the Election Commission may direct.
(3) Copies of the returns by the returning
officer forwarded under rule 64 or as the case may be under sub-rule (3) of
rule 84 shall be furnished by the chief electoral officer of the State
concerned on payment of a fee of two rupees for each such copy.
The rule makes a clear distinction between
ballot papers and other election papers; ballot papers may be inspected only
under the order of a competent court or tribunal, but other documents are,
subject to certain conditions, open to public inspection." The Court
further observed :
"The Returning Officer is not a party to
an election petition, and an order for production of the ballot papers cannot
be made under O.11 Code of Civil Procedure. But the Election Tribunal is not on
that account without authority in respect of the ballot papers. In a proper
case where the interests of justice demand it, the Tribunal may call upon the
Returning Officer to produce the ballot papers and may permit inspection by the
parties before it of the ballot papers...
An order for inspection may not be granted as
a matter of course: having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the
ballot papers, Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection
provided two conditions are fulfilled:
937 (i) that the petition for setting aside
an election contains an adequate statement of the material facts on which the
petitioner relies in support of his case; and (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie
satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete justice
between the parties inspection of the ballot papers is necessary.
An order for inspection of ballot papers
cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by
material facts or to fish out evidence to support such pleas. The case of the
petitioner must be set out with precision supported by averments of material
facts." A perusal of this rule clearly shows that the Legislature intended
to make a clear distinction between one set of documents and another. So far as
the counterfoils and the market copy of the electoral rolls were concerned,
there was a strict prohibition for opening these documents unless the Court was
fully satisfied that a cast-iron case was made out for the same; whereas
documents mentioned in clauses (a) & (b) of sub-rule 2 of Rule 93 (as
amended) could be liberally allowed to be inspected.
We are afraid that the High Court has not
kept these principles in view while allowing the prayers of the respondent. The
main ground put forward by the respondent was that there were a number of dead
persons for whom also votes were cast. Despite this allegation no details and
particulars were given nor was it even mentioned whether the Polling Agent of
the respondent had made any note of the fact that votes were actually cast for
dead persons and the number of these votes. The allegations made by the
respondent-petitioner in his application for inspection are frightfully vague.
There is no allegation as to whether any vote was cast for the dead persons and
this is what the respondent sought to find out by inspecting the marked
electoral rolls. It is manifest that this attempt of the respondent was nothing
but to fish out the material for challenging the election of the appellant and
it clearly violated the sanctity and secrecy of the electoral process.
Thus, the High Court was clearly wrong in
allowing such prayers for inspection. As far as the inspection of counterfoils,
was concerned, even the respondent did not press for the same realising that he
had not made out any strong case for such an action.
938 For the reasons given above, we,
therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court dated
19th September, 1983 and reject the prayers for inspection of marked rolls and
counterfoils. There will be no order as to costs.
Back
