Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1086 (KER)

Noushad v. Rajan

2013-12-05

P.N.RAVINDRAN

body2013
JUDGMENT P.N. Ravindran, J. 1. The petitioner and respondents 1 to 4 herein contested in the elections held on 23.10.2010 to Ward No. 16 of Chelannur Grama Panchayat. The results were declared on 31.10.2010. The petitioner secured 411 votes, the first respondent secured 408 votes, the second respondent secured 25 votes, the third respondent secured 3 votes and the fourth respondent secured 22 votes. 15 votes were declared invalid. Aggrieved by the result of the election the first respondent herein filed Election (O.P.) No. 123 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Principal Munsiff-I of Kozhikode seeking a declaration that the election of the petitioner herein is null and void and to declare him elected. He contended that the names of 8 voters named in the Election Petition appear in the electoral roll of Ward No. 16 of Chelannur Grama Panchayat as also in other Wards of the very same Grama Panchayat or in other Grama Panchayats, that they have voted twice, that they have cast their votes in favour of the petitioner herein and therefore, their votes are liable to be declared void in view of S. 76(3) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. He contended that if the votes cast by the said eight voters are excluded, he is entitled to be declared elected. Upon receipt of notice, the petitioner herein entered appearance and filed written objections resisting the petition. During the trial, both sides adduced oral and documentary evidence in support of their rival contentions. After the evidence was closed and arguments of both sides were heard, the first respondent herein filed I.A. No. 2625 of 2013 to re-open the evidence, accompanied by I.A. No. 2626 of 2013 to extricate the ballot papers in respect of the eight voters named in Paragraph IV of the Election Petition. He contended that the ballot papers, counter foils and the marked copy of the electoral rolls are already in court and in order to prove his case that the eight persons named in Paragraph IV of the Election Petition have voted twice and cast their votes in favour of the petitioner herein, it is necessary to extricate the ballot papers used by the said eight voters in the presence of the parties and their respective counsel. The petitioner opposed the said applications by filing separate counter statements. The petitioner opposed the said applications by filing separate counter statements. He contended that the ballot papers can be extricated and excluded only after the court enters a finding that all or any of the eight persons named in the Election Petition have voted twice. The petitioner contended that as such a finding has not been entered, the applications are liable to be rejected. The Trial Court considered the rival contentions and allowed I.A. No. 2626 of 2013 by Ext. P8 order passed on 3.9.2013 and directed the ballot papers to be verified in the presence of the learned counsel on both sides. By Ext. P7 order passed on the same day, I.A. No. 2625 of 2013 was allowed and the evidence re-opened. The said orders are under challenge in this Original Petition filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. 2. I heard Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. K.B. Sivaramakrishan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. Sri. P.V. Kunhikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the court below erred in directing the ballot papers to be looked into without first entering a finding that all or any of the eight persons named in the Election Petition have voted twice. The learned counsel contended that extrication and examination of the ballot papers could have been ordered only after entering a finding that all or any of the eight persons named in the Election Petition have voted twice and in the absence of such a finding, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Indulekha v. Preetha Kumari & Ors. 2010 (2) KLTSN 21 (C. No. 26) : 2010 (2) KHC 113 ), in support of his contention. 3. Per contra Sri. K.B. Sivaramakrishan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, contended relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors. 2010 (2) KLTSN 21 (C. No. 26) : 2010 (2) KHC 113 ), in support of his contention. 3. Per contra Sri. K.B. Sivaramakrishan, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent, contended relying on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors. ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ) and the decision of the Apex Court in Achahanandan v. Francis 2001 (1) KLT 740 (SC), that the Court seized of an election dispute can order inspection of the ballot papers if it 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 and that the only restriction on the power of the court considering an Election Petition to order inspection of the ballot papers is that it cannot be granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not supported by material facts or to fish put evidence to support such pleas. Relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Smt. Rekha Rana v. Jaipal Sharma 2009 (3) KLT Suppl. 561 (SC) : AIR 2009 SC 2946 , the learned counsel contended that the factum of casting of votes by a particular elector could be proved only on the basis of marked electoral rolls, more so, when the names of the voters who are alleged to have double voted are specifically mentioned in the Election Petition, that from the marked electoral rolls it is only possible to ascertain whether or not a vote had been cast in the name of a voter from a particular polling booth, but it is never possible to decipher therefrom as to who is the beneficiary of the said vote as there is no indication on the electoral roll showing for whom the voter had cast his vote, that secrecy of the ballot is not thereby lost and therefore, as it is necessary to inspect the ballot papers for the purpose of deciding whether all or any of the eight persons named in the Election Petition have cast their votes in favour of the petitioner herein, no exception can be taken to the impugned orders. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. 4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The case set out in the Election Petition filed by the first respondent, who challenges the election of the petitioner herein is that the eight persons named in para. IV of the Election Petition, whose names appear in the electoral roll of different Wards of the same Panchayat/different Panchayats, had voted twice and they had cast their votes in favour of the petitioner. Seven out of the said eight persons were summoned and examined as P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10. After the evidence on both sides was closed, arguments were heard and orders were reserved in the Election Petition, the first respondent herein filed I.A. Nos. 2625 and 2626 of 2013; the former praying for inspection of the ballot papers, which had already been produced and the latter for re-opening the evidence for the purpose of extricating the ballot papers already produced. The said applications were allowed by the impugned orders on the short ground that for an effective adjudication of the dispute, the ballot papers have to be verified. 5. The order passed on I.A. No. 2626 of 2013 in Election O.P. No. 123 of 2010, which is produced and marked as Ext. P8 reads as follows:- "Petition filed under S. 151 of C.P.C. Respondent opposed. Heard. Secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct. But purity of elections shall prevail over the secrecy of ballot. When the petition averments is with regard to double voting, Ballot paper has to be looked into to ascertain whether the vote has to be declared void. For an effective adjudication, Ballot papers have to be verified. Hence I.A. allowed and Ballot papers will be opened in the presence of both counsel and parties - 10.9.2013." 6. The order allowing I.A. No. 2625 of 2013 which is produced and marked as Ext. P7 reads as follows:- "Petition filed under Section 151 of C.P.C. Heard both sides, vide detailed order in I.A. 2626/2013, evidence reopened." 7. It is evident from Ext. P8 order that I.A. No. 2626 of 2013 was allowed on the short ground that when the averments are with regard to double voting, for an effective adjudication, the ballot papers have to be verified. Consequently I.A. No. 2625 was also allowed. It is evident from Ext. P8 order that I.A. No. 2626 of 2013 was allowed on the short ground that when the averments are with regard to double voting, for an effective adjudication, the ballot papers have to be verified. Consequently I.A. No. 2625 was also allowed. The court below has not entered a finding that on the evidence before it, it is prima facie satisfied that there has been double voting by all or any of the eight persons named in the Election Petition. 8. The Apex Court has in I. Vikheshe Sema v. Hokishe Sema ( AIR 1996 SC 1842 ), held that the mere inclusion of the names of voters at more than one place would not ipso facto render all those votes void. It was held that if the name of a voter is included at more than one place whether in more than one constituency or at more man one place in the same constituency, he has the right to choose as to where he may vote, but this right can be exercised by him only once, the reason obviously being that every voter has only one vote and he has a right to vote only once and no more. The Apex Court held that if he chooses to vote at more than one place, it is only then that the vote of that person, wherever he has voted, would be regarded as being void. 9. In Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors. ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ), a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court held as follows:- "7. 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, the Court would be justified in granting an order for inspection provided two conditions are fulfilled: (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. But 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. But 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. To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require, be granted. But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order for inspection." It was held that by the mere production of the sealed boxes containing ballot papers before the Election Tribunal pursuant to its order, the ballot papers do not become part of the record and they are not liable to be inspected unless the Tribunal is satisfied that such inspection is in the circumstances of the case necessary in the interests of justice. The Apex Court held that an order for inspection cannot be granted as a matter of course, that having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy of the ballot papers, the Tribunal would be justified in granting an order for inspection only if 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 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. 10. In Dominic v. Gopalakrishnan ( 1993 (2) KLT 88 ), Chief Justice M. Jagannadha Rao, as His Lordship then was, speaking for the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- "9. The various principles applicable to the nature of pleadings and evidence to secure a fresh scrutiny and recount were adverted to by one of us (Jagannadha Rao, C.J.) in T. Penchalaiah v. Election Court (1991 (1) ALT 669), in a case again under the Panchayat Act and there too, the result of the illegal recount made by the court which went in favour of the election petitioner, was held to be no justification. It was also pointed out that there are four types of pleadings - (i) the first category of cases where the allegations in the election petition are absolutely vague (as in Ram Sewakv. It was also pointed out that there are four types of pleadings - (i) the first category of cases where the allegations in the election petition are absolutely vague (as in Ram Sewakv. H.K. Kidwai ( AIR 1964 SC 1249 ) and other cases); (ii) The second category where details are given but held to be not sufficient, as in Beliram v. Jai Behari Lal ( AIR 1975 SC 283 ) and S. Narayanan v. S. Semmalal ( AIR 1980 SC 206 ); (iii) The third and important category where facts are stated in the petition in great detail but are seen to have been given only for the purpose of satisfying principles laid down in rulings of Supreme Court as the basis of facts is not set out and no contemporaneous documents (such as objections raised during the counting) are referred to in the pleadings, (as in Jatendra Bahadur v. Krishna Behari ( AIR 1970 SC 276 ); Chandra Singh v. Shivaram ( AIR 1975 SC 403 ); Baldev Singh v. Teja Singh ( AIR 1975 SC 693 ); and (iv) The fourth category of cases is one where details of facts are set out in the pleadings substantiated by contemporaneous or acceptable material which could raise a justifiable claim for leading evidence as in (Nathuram Mirdha v. Gurdhan Soni (1968) Elec. Law Rep. 16); P. Malai Charm v. M. Ambalam ( AIR 1973 SC 2077 ); Manphul Singh v. Surinder Singh ( AIR 1973 SC 2158 ) and AIR 1979 SC 502; and Bhabi v. Sheo Gobind ( AIR 1975 SC 2117 ). It is only in the fourth class of cases that the court could venture to proceed further. 10. But, even in a case coming under the fourth category above mentioned, the evidence led must lead to a preliminary order that a compulsive case is made by the petitioner prima facie proving his case regarding irregularities in the scrutiny and counting and that fresh scrutiny and recount was necessary." 11. In Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene (1994 (1) KLT 887 (SC)) the Apex Court overruled the contention that in the absence of evidence as to the source of knowledge of double voting, it was dangerous to allow an enquiry into the allegation of double voting and held as follows:- "14. Another argument put forth by Mr. In Neelalohithadasan Nadar v. George Mascrene (1994 (1) KLT 887 (SC)) the Apex Court overruled the contention that in the absence of evidence as to the source of knowledge of double voting, it was dangerous to allow an enquiry into the allegation of double voting and held as follows:- "14. Another argument put forth by Mr. Prashant Bhushan was that the pleadings in the election petition were insufficient to justify inspection in as much as except for mentioning that there had been double voting by 19 persons nothing else was stated about the basis on which the election petitioner came to the conclusion that these names, which apparently had appeared twice in the electoral roll, belonged to one and the same person and that those persons had in fact voted twice. It was also commented that no material facts, in the form of affidavits by single persons or polling agents alleging that they had seen and heard about those persons having voted twice was filed in support of the petition. It is maintained that in the absence of evidence of these particulars being pleaded as to the source of knowledge of double voting it was dangerous to allow enquiring into such an allegation on the bare allegation of double voting. We have pondered over this matter but regretfully do not accept the argument of the learned counsel. If a name has been registered twice enabling a person to take the advantage of voting in two different polling stations, S. 62 mandates that if he polls both these votes then both votes are void. A void vote cast is a vote void ab initio. In the nature of things the void taint in the election would have to be traced to the election papers for without that bare oral evidence would be of no use, and at best would be word against word, making application of S. 62(4) well neigh impossible. A void vote cast is a vote void ab initio. In the nature of things the void taint in the election would have to be traced to the election papers for without that bare oral evidence would be of no use, and at best would be word against word, making application of S. 62(4) well neigh impossible. If the election petitioner on some information, material or otherwise is able to entertain the belief that a particular voter, double registered, is known to have voted twice, he can certainly plead to that fact on his own entertained belief and need not ordinarily resort to be giving details of the sources of his information or knowledge or the entertainment of his belief because registration of double vote is by itself the starting point; the exercise of both votes being the second. The election petitioner had specifically mentioned and in clear cut terms that 19 persons had double voted. The question was not resoluble merely on oral evidence, whether they had or had not, except to put those persons into the witness box, hear their version and confront them with the election papers. The sphere of enquiry at that stage is to the voting and not for discovering the name of the person to whom the vote was cast. That inevitably has to be found out after double voting or impersonated voting has been found out leading to the new step to trace them and nullify them. On the pleading of the parties as such, on both sides, a case for inspection at the stage when it was done had been made out. We thus find no error committed in the approach of the High Court." In that case, an inspection of the ballot papers was ordered by this Court trying the Election Petition after evidence was let in by both sides and this Court had entered a finding that there was impersonation of voters in the election and many a voter had cast votes in more than one polling station. This Court held that the ballot papers enumerated in the judgment deserve to be picked out from the respective boxes to be rejected as void. This Court assigned ministerial work to the Joint Registrar of this Court and ordered that the votes be deducted from the total votes polled by the respective candidates. 12. This Court held that the ballot papers enumerated in the judgment deserve to be picked out from the respective boxes to be rejected as void. This Court assigned ministerial work to the Joint Registrar of this Court and ordered that the votes be deducted from the total votes polled by the respective candidates. 12. In Achuthanandan v. Francis ( 2001 (1) KLT 740 (SC)) the Apex Court after a review of the case law on the point held that the election petitioner must produce trustworthy material in support of the allegations to enable the court to record satisfaction of a prima facie case having been made out for grant of the prayer and that the court must come to the conclusion that it was necessary and imperative to grant the prayer for inspection to do full justice between the parties so as to completely and effectually adjudicate upon the dispute. It was held that the power to direct inspection and recount shall not be exercised by the court to show indulgence to a petitioner who was indulging in a roving enquiry with a view to fish out material for declaring the election to be void, that by mere production of the sealed boxes of ballot papers or the documents forming part of record of the election proceedings before the court, the ballot papers do not become a part of the court record and they are not liable to be inspected unless the court is satisfied that it is necessary to direct inspection and recount. From the principles laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court referred to above it is evident that an inspection of the ballot papers can be had only after the court trying the Election Petition enters a finding that it is prima facie satisfied that the petitioner has made out the case pleaded by him. It is evident from the decisions referred to above that the ballot papers cannot be inspected for the purpose of finding out whether the case set out by the election petitioner is true or not. The ballot papers can be inspected only for the purpose of recounting or for excluding the votes cast by voters who had voted twice and not for the purpose of entering a finding as regards the question whether any particular voter had voted twice. The ballot papers can be inspected only for the purpose of recounting or for excluding the votes cast by voters who had voted twice and not for the purpose of entering a finding as regards the question whether any particular voter had voted twice. Such a finding has to be entered by the court having regard to the pleadings and the evidence, oral and documentary before it like the marked copy of the electoral rolls, the counter foils of ballot papers and other records relating to the election. After entering a finding on that issue, if the finding were to be in favour of the petitioner in the Election Petition, the court trying the Election Petition will certainly be justified in ordering an inspection of the ballot papers in the presence of the learned counsel on both sides by the Chief Ministerial Officer and such other staff as the court may choose to appoint. In the instant case, before entering a finding that all or any of the eight persons named in the Election Petition had cast their votes twice, the court trying the election petition ordered inspection of the ballot papers. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in the decisions referred to above, such a course of action cannot be sustained. I accordingly hold that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. For the reasons stated above, I allow the Original Petition, set aside the orders dated 3.9.2013, passed by the Court of the Principal Munsiff-I, Kozhikode on I.A. Nos. 2625 and 2626 of 2013 in Election O.P. No. 123 of 2010 and dismiss the said applications. Needless to say, nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way, of the court trying the Election Petition from ordering an inspection of the ballot papers at a later stage if it finds that all or any of the eight persons named in paragraph IV of the Election Petition have cast their votes twice.