2000 (8) TMI 1122 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Improper reception of votes by ineligible electors.
2. Non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and election laws.
3. Whether the election petition made out a ground for declaring the election void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Detailed Analysis:

Improper Reception of Votes by Ineligible Electors:
The appellant, an elector, filed an election petition under Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, challenging the election of the respondent on the grounds that a large number of ineligible persons were registered and enrolled as electors, leading to the improper reception of votes which materially affected the election result. The appellant argued that many voters included in the electoral roll were not eligible as they were teaching in unrecognized educational institutions, contrary to the provisions of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, 1992. Objections were raised by Dr. P.N. Sharma and Dr. Ram Padmadeo regarding the inclusion of ineligible electors, but the authorities did not address these objections before the election.

Non-Compliance with Provisions of the Constitution and Election Laws:
The appellant alleged that the election was vitiated by non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution, the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and relevant rules and orders. The Assistant Electoral Registration Officer-cum-District Magistrate, Patna, refused to consider the objections regarding ineligible electors, citing lack of time and improper proforma submission. This inaction allegedly favored the ruling party and led to the inclusion of ineligible voters, which the appellant claimed materially affected the election outcome.

Grounds for Declaring Election Void under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The central question was whether the averments in the election petition constituted a ground for declaring the election void under Section 100 of the 1951 Act. The relevant grounds under Section 100(1)(d) include improper acceptance or rejection of any vote or non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Act. The appellant's counsel argued that votes cast by ineligible persons, even if enrolled in the electoral roll, constituted improper reception of votes and non-compliance with the law, thus affecting the election result.

Judicial Analysis and Precedents:
The Supreme Court referred to several precedents, including the Constitution Bench decision in Hariprasad Mulshanker Trivedi vs. V.B. Raju, which held that the electoral roll is conclusive regarding qualifications but not disqualifications under Section 16 of the 1950 Act. The Court reiterated that erroneous inclusion in the electoral roll cannot be challenged in an election petition unless it pertains to disqualifications under Section 16. The Court also cited Nripendra Bahadur Singh vs. Jai Ram Verma, emphasizing that the finality of the electoral roll cannot be challenged post the last date for nominations.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the inclusion of ineligible persons in the electoral roll by the authorized authority cannot be a ground for setting aside an election under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or (iv) of the 1951 Act. A person enrolled in the electoral roll is entitled to vote unless disqualified under Section 62(2) to (5) of the 1951 Act. The Court upheld the Designated Election Judge's decision to strike out the relevant paragraphs of the election petition and dismissed the appeal, noting that the respondent did not appear, and no order as to costs was made.