2004 (4) TMI 531 - SC - Indian Laws

Extent of jurisdiction of election tribunal to direct recounting of votes - Held that - It is expected that the statutory remedies provided for shall be availed of. If such an opportunity is availed of by the Election Petitioner; he has to state the reasons therefor. If no sufficient explanation is furnished by the Election Petitioner as to why such statutory remedy was not availed of, the Election Tribunal may consider the same as one of the factors for accepting or rejecting the prayer for recounting. An order of the prescribed authority passed in such application would render great assistance to the Election Tribunal in arriving at a decision as to whether a prima facie case for issuance of direction for recounting has been made out. Thus we are of the opinion that the judgment of the High Court does not call for any interference. The appeal as also the contempt petition are accordingly dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Extent of jurisdiction of the election tribunal to direct recounting of votes.
2. Validity of the High Court's reliance on previous Supreme Court decisions.
3. Adequacy of the appellant's pleadings and evidence.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules governing election recounts.
5. Evaluation of the learned Munsif's order for recounting.
6. Determination of whether Rule 79 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995, is mandatory or directory.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent of Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to Direct Recounting of Votes:
The primary question was whether the election tribunal had the jurisdiction to direct the recounting of votes. The appellant contested the election for Mukhiya and alleged irregularities in the vote count. The election tribunal directed recounting, which initially favored the appellant. However, the High Court found the appellant's pleadings vague and inadequate, thus reversing the tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing that recounting orders require a prima facie case, material facts, and specific irregularities.

2. Validity of the High Court's Reliance on Previous Supreme Court Decisions:
The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in *Ram Rati (Smt.) Vs. Saroj Devi and Others* which mandated filing an application for recounting before the returning officer. The appellant argued that this decision was overruled by a 3-Judge Bench in *Sohan Lal Vs. Babu Gandhi and Ors.*, which held that such an application was not mandatory. The Supreme Court agreed with the appellant but noted that the High Court's overall analysis of the pleadings and evidence was still valid.

3. Adequacy of the Appellant's Pleadings and Evidence:
The appellant's pleadings were found to be vague and lacking material facts necessary for a recount. The High Court and the Supreme Court both noted that the appellant failed to provide specific instances of irregularities or evidence of a formal application for recounting to the returning officer. The Supreme Court stressed that the appellant did not meet the high standard of proof required for recounting.

4. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Rules Governing Election Recounts:
Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, and Rule 79 of the Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995, govern the recounting process. The appellant was aware of his right to file an application for recounting but failed to prove that such an application was made and rejected. The Supreme Court emphasized that statutory remedies should be availed of, and the absence of such an application could be a factor in denying recounting.

5. Evaluation of the Learned Munsif's Order for Recounting:
The learned Munsif's order for recounting was found to lack cogent reasons and a proper analysis of the evidence. The Supreme Court noted that the order did not specify how the alleged irregularities materially affected the election result. The learned Munsif's reference to certain documents showing interpolation was not sufficient to justify recounting without a detailed analysis.

6. Determination of Whether Rule 79 of Bihar Panchayat Election Rules, 1995, is Mandatory or Directory:
The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 79, which allows candidates to apply for recounting, is mandatory or directory. The Court concluded that while not filing an application for recounting does not automatically preclude the election tribunal from ordering a recount, such an application serves a salutary purpose. The absence of an application could be a significant factor in deciding whether to grant a recount.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and the contempt petition. The Court emphasized that the appellant failed to meet the stringent requirements for ordering a recount, including providing specific and material facts and evidence. The decision reinforced the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and the high standard of proof required for recounting votes in election disputes.

← Previous Next →