2003 (11) TMI 626 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of election tribunal for inspection and recounting of votes.
2. Allegations of irregularities in counting votes.
3. Requirement of material facts in election petitions.
4. High Court's judgment on recounting of votes.
5. Submissions by the appellant and respondents.
6. Statutory provisions and legal precedents on recounting of votes.

Detailed Analysis:

Jurisdiction of Election Tribunal for Inspection and Recounting of Votes:
The primary issue in this appeal is the extent to which an election tribunal can exercise its jurisdiction to direct the inspection of ballot papers and recounting of votes under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court was correct in ordering a recount based on the allegations of irregularities in the counting process.

Allegations of Irregularities in Counting Votes:
The election petitioner alleged several irregularities in the counting process, categorized under five heads:
- Category 1: Rejection of valid votes due to inadvertent thumb impressions.
- Category 2: Rejection of valid votes due to polling officer's rubber stamp impressions.
- Category 3: Rejection of valid votes cast on the border.
- Category 4: Rejection of valid votes due to the wrong instrument used by voters.
- Category 5: Rejection of postal votes cast in favor of the petitioner.

The petitioner claimed that these irregularities cumulatively affected the election outcome, given the narrow margin of 2847 votes between the returned candidate and the petitioner.

Requirement of Material Facts in Election Petitions:
The appellant argued that the allegations in the election petition were general and vague, lacking specific material facts as required under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court emphasized that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts, and a recount can only be ordered if there is a prima facie case supported by adequate material facts.

High Court's Judgment on Recounting of Votes:
The High Court had directed a recount based on the evidence presented by the petitioner. However, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had erred in accepting the evidence of PWs 1 to 7 without proper verification of the material facts. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court should not have accepted the evidence when the election petition lacked specific details such as the names of counting agents, the centers where irregularities occurred, and the tables at which objections were raised.

Submissions by the Appellant and Respondents:
The appellant contended that the High Court committed a manifest error by accepting vague and general allegations without proper evidence. The respondents argued that the election petition contained sufficient material facts to justify a recount and that the High Court's judgment should be upheld.

Statutory Provisions and Legal Precedents on Recounting of Votes:
The Supreme Court referred to several legal precedents, including Ram Sevak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai, Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, and others, to emphasize the necessity of maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers and the stringent requirements for ordering a recount. The Court reiterated that a recount cannot be ordered based on vague allegations and must be supported by precise material facts.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had misdirected itself in law by ordering a recount without a proper foundation of material facts in the election petition. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to dispose of the election petition expeditiously, preferably within three months.