2011 (1) TMI 1390 - SC - Indian Laws

Grounds for declaring election to be void - Validity of election of the respondent No. 2, who is returned candidate from Legislative Assembly Constituency of Dibrugarh - seeking to order repoll in Polling Station No. 124 Manik Dutta L.P. School (Madhya) of 116 Dibrugarh Legislative Assembly Constituency - whether there had been or not a breach of the Act and the Rules in the conduct of the election at this constituency? - HELD THAT - It is hardly necessary for this Court to go over the evidence with a view to ascertaining whether there was or was not a breach of the Act and the Rules in the conduct of the election concerned. Having read the evidence on record, this Court is in entire agreement with the decision of the learned Single Judge that by the change of venue of casting votes, breach of the provisions of Sections 25 and 56 of the Act read with Rule 15 of the Rules of 1961 was committed by the officials who were in charge of the conduct of the election at this constituency. The matter is governed by Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act. The question still remains whether the condition precedent to the avoidance of the election of the returned candidate which requires proof from the election petitioner, i.e., the appellant that the result of the election had been materially affected insofar as the returned candidate, i.e., the respondent No. 2, was concerned, has been established in this case - It is well to remember that this Court has laid down in several reported decisions that the election of a returned candidate should not normally be set aside unless there are cogent and convincing reasons. The success of a winning candidate at an election cannot be lightly interfered with. This is all the more so when the election of a successful candidate is sought to be set aside for no fault of his but of someone else. That is why the scheme of Section 100 of the Act, especially clause (d) of sub-Section (1) thereof clearly prescribes that in spite of the availability of grounds contemplated by sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (d), the election of a returned candidate shall not be voided unless and until it is proved that the result of the election insofar as it concerns a returned candidate is materially affected. The heads of substantive rights in Section 100(1) are laid down in two parts the first dealing with situations in which the election must be declared void on proof of certain facts and the second in which the election can only be declared void if the result of the election, insofar as it concerns the returned candidate, can be held to be materially affected on proof of some other facts. The appellant has totally failed to prove that the election of the respondent No. 2, who is returned candidate, was materially affected because of non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, or Rules or Orders made under it. This Court is of the firm opinion that the learned Single Judge of the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the petition filed by the appellant challenging the election of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the appeal, which lacks merits, deserves to be dismissed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Election Rules of 1961.
2. Material effect on the election result due to the change of polling station venue.
3. Burden of proof and the standard of evidence required to prove material effect on election results.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and the Election Rules of 1961:
The appellant contended that the election was invalid due to the polling being conducted at a non-notified location, which was later shifted to the notified place. The court agreed that there was a breach of Sections 25 and 56 of the Act and Rule 15 of the 1961 Rules, as the polling initially took place at Chiring Gaon Railway Colony L.P. School instead of the notified Manik Dutta L.P. School (Madhya).

2. Material effect on the election result due to the change of polling station venue:
The critical issue was whether the breach materially affected the election result. The appellant argued that the confusion caused by the change of venue led to many voters leaving without casting their votes. However, the court required proof that the result of the election was materially affected by this breach. The court found that the evidence presented by the appellant, including testimonies of witnesses claiming voters left without voting, was not credible or reliable. The court emphasized that mere non-compliance with the Act or Rules is insufficient to declare an election void unless it is proven that such non-compliance materially affected the election result.

3. Burden of proof and the standard of evidence required to prove material effect on election results:
The court reiterated that the burden of proof lies on the election petitioner to demonstrate that the election result was materially affected by the non-compliance. The standard of proof required is beyond reasonable doubt, not just broad probabilities or sufficiency of evidence. The court referenced previous rulings, including Vashisht Narain Sharma vs. Dev Chandra and Paokai Haokip vs. Rishang, to underline that the petitioner must provide positive evidence showing how the non-compliance affected the election result. The appellant's evidence, primarily hearsay and not directly observed, failed to meet this stringent standard.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appellant did not successfully prove that the election result was materially affected by the initial polling at a non-notified place. The evidence provided was deemed unreliable and insufficient to overturn the election result. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the election of the respondent No. 2. The court emphasized the importance of credible and cogent evidence in election disputes and maintained that the success of a winning candidate should not be lightly interfered with.