2011 (3) TMI 1755 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the votes polled in the District Court campus at Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram.
2. Maintainability of the suit filed by the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association.
3. Compliance with election rules and procedures.
4. Allegations of malpractice, rigging, and tampering during the election process.
5. Possible remedies and actions to address election irregularities.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the votes polled in the District Court campus at Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram:
The judgment invalidated all votes polled in the District Court campus at Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram due to severe election malpractices. Reports from Special Observers indicated that the polling officer at Nagercoil marked votes for a particular candidate and volunteers cast votes on behalf of absent voters. Similar irregularities were reported at Padmanabhapuram, where voters were allowed to vote without showing identity cards, and dual voting occurred. The actions were deemed to constitute tampering under Rule 25(2) of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules, leading to the invalidation of all votes from these booths.

2. Maintainability of the suit filed by the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association:
The court rejected the contention that the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association lacked locus standi to file the suit. The Association, registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, was found to have the right to ventilate the grievances of its members. The court emphasized that a society of professionals can file a suit for the collective interests of its members, and public interest litigations are not confined to constitutional courts but have their origins in civil procedure rules.

3. Compliance with election rules and procedures:
The judgment highlighted multiple violations of election rules. Rule 20 mandates that voters mark their preferences in secrecy, which was not followed at Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram. Additionally, the requirement for voters to produce photo identity cards and have indelible ink marked on their fingers was ignored. The court noted that these violations amounted to tampering with the ballot boxes, justifying the invalidation of the votes under Rule 25(2).

4. Allegations of malpractice, rigging, and tampering during the election process:
The judgment detailed the extensive malpractices reported by Special Observers, including pre-marked ballot papers, multiple voting by the same individuals, and failure to verify voter identities. The court found these actions to be deliberate and defiant, undermining the democratic process. The involvement of the independent Poll Observer in these malpractices was particularly noted, indicating a severe breach of trust and responsibility.

5. Possible remedies and actions to address election irregularities:
The court considered two options: countermanding the poll and ordering a re-poll or invalidating the votes. Given the extraordinary nature of the violations and the repeated misconduct by the Nagercoil Bar, the court opted for the latter. The judgment emphasized that the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules did not provide for re-polling, and the only available remedy under Rule 25(2) was to invalidate the tampered ballot boxes. The court also noted the lack of specific provisions for re-polling in the rules, unlike the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which governs parliamentary and state legislative elections.

Conclusion:
The judgment comprehensively addressed the issues of election malpractice and procedural violations, leading to the invalidation of votes from Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram. It upheld the maintainability of the suit by the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association and emphasized the importance of adhering to election rules to ensure a fair and democratic process. The court's decision to invalidate the votes was based on the severe and deliberate nature of the reported irregularities, with no provision in the rules for ordering a re-poll.