1980 (5) TMI 108 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Noncompliance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and associated rules.
2. Improper reception of votes.
3. Commission of corrupt practices.
4. Secrecy of ballot under Section 94 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
5. Tampering with postal ballot papers.
6. Interpretation of Section 94 in the context of free and fair elections.
7. Grounds for declaring the election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Noncompliance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and associated rules:
The election petitioners contended that the election of the appellant was materially affected by noncompliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the rules made thereunder. The High Court found that the tampering of four postal ballot papers was a significant noncompliance that impacted the election results.

2. Improper reception of votes:
The election petitioners alleged that four postal ballot papers were tampered with to favor the appellant, which constituted improper reception of votes. The High Court held that these four votes were improperly received in favor of the returned candidate and improperly refused to the unsuccessful Akali candidate, which materially affected the election result.

3. Commission of corrupt practices:
The petitioners alleged corrupt practices by the appellant and his agent, including obtaining assistance from persons in the service of the Punjab Government. However, the High Court found that the allegations of corrupt practices were not proved and decided this issue in favor of the returned candidate.

4. Secrecy of ballot under Section 94 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The appellant argued that Section 94 of the Act, which ensures the secrecy of the ballot, was violated by allowing witnesses to disclose for whom they voted. The Court interpreted Section 94 as a privilege for the voter, which can be waived by the voter if they choose to disclose their vote voluntarily. The Court held that the privilege ends when the voter voluntarily discloses their vote, and there is no violation of Section 94.

5. Tampering with postal ballot papers:
The High Court found that four postal ballot papers were tampered with to alter the first preference votes from the Akali candidate to the appellant. This finding was based on the testimony of witnesses and expert evidence. The tampering was crude and evident, leading to the conclusion that the votes were improperly received in favor of the appellant.

6. Interpretation of Section 94 in the context of free and fair elections:
The Court emphasized that secrecy of ballot is an indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections but must yield to the larger principle of ensuring free and fair elections. The Court held that Section 94 enacts a qualified privilege in favor of the voter, which can be waived by the voter to ensure the integrity of the election process.

7. Grounds for declaring the election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The Court held that the improper reception of votes and the tampering of postal ballot papers fell within the grounds for declaring the election void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act. The Court found that the result of the election was materially affected by the improper reception and refusal of votes, leading to the setting aside of the appellant's election and declaring the unsuccessful Akali candidate elected.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the election of the returned candidate was set aside based on the findings of improper reception of votes, tampering with postal ballot papers, and the interpretation of Section 94 in the context of ensuring free and fair elections. The unsuccessful Akali candidate was declared elected, and the costs were awarded to the respondents.