9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to issue writs against decisions of Election Tribunals. 2. Interpretation of Rule 47(1)(c) of Act No. XLIII of 1951 as mandatory or directory. 3. Validity of Election Commission's approval of ballot papers with incorrect distinguishing marks. 4. Scope of enquiry under Section 100(2)(c) of Act No. XLIII of 1951 regarding the material effect on election results. 5. Application of Article 227 to Election Tribunals. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 226 to issue writs against decisions of Election Tribunals: The Supreme Court held that High Courts have jurisdiction under Article 226 to issue writs against decisions of Election Tribunals. Article 226 confers on High Courts the power to issue appropriate writs to any person or authority within their territorial jurisdiction in absolute and unqualified terms. Election Tribunals functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Courts fall within the sweep of that power. The limitation on this power must be founded on some provision in the Constitution itself, specifically Article 329(b), which bars the initiation of proceedings for setting aside an election otherwise than by an election petition. However, once proceedings have been instituted by an election petition, the requirements of Article 329(b) are fully satisfied, allowing the High Courts to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226. 2. Interpretation of Rule 47(1)(c) of Act No. XLIII of 1951 as mandatory or directory: The Court determined that Rule 47(1)(c) is mandatory. The rule states that "a ballot paper contained in a ballot box shall be rejected if it bears any serial number or mark different from the serial numbers or marks of ballot papers authorized for use at the polling station or the polling booth at which the ballot box in which it was found was used." The Court reasoned that the use of the word "shall" indicates a mandatory requirement, and the practical bearing of the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions supports this interpretation. The Court rejected the argument that the rule should be construed as directory to avoid disfranchising voters due to the polling officer's mistake. 3. Validity of Election Commission's approval of ballot papers with incorrect distinguishing marks: The Court held that the Election Commission's approval of the ballot papers with incorrect distinguishing marks was not valid. Rule 28 requires that ballot papers contain a serial number and distinguishing marks as decided by the Election Commission. The Commission's approval of the ballot papers after the polling did not constitute a valid change of the distinguishing mark under Rule 28. The approval was a condonation of defects in specific ballot papers rather than a prescription of a new distinguishing mark for the election as a whole. Therefore, the 301 ballot papers without the correct distinguishing marks were liable to be rejected under Rule 47(1)(c). 4. Scope of enquiry under Section 100(2)(c) of Act No. XLIII of 1951 regarding the material effect on election results: The Court clarified that Section 100(2)(c) requires two cumulative conditions to be satisfied before an election can be set aside: (1) improper reception or refusal of a vote or non-compliance with election rules, and (2) that the result of the election was materially affected by such improper reception or non-compliance. The Tribunal had found a breach of Rule 47(1)(c), satisfying the first condition. However, the Tribunal's decision that the election result was not materially affected was based on extraneous considerations, such as the mistake of the polling officer and its effect on the result. The Court held that the enquiry under Section 100(2)(c) must be limited to the matters raised in the election petition and that the Tribunal's consideration of irrelevant factors was an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 5. Application of Article 227 to Election Tribunals: The Court held that Election Tribunals are subject to the superintendence of the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution. This superintendence is both judicial and administrative. Article 227 goes further than Section 224 of the Government of India Act, 1935, by restoring the position under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915. Under Article 227, the High Court can annul the decision of the Tribunal and issue further directions. Therefore, the application for a writ of certiorari and other reliefs was maintainable under Articles 226 and 227. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the decisions of the High Court and the Tribunal, and set aside the entire election. The Election Commission was directed to hold a fresh election. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs throughout.
|
