1984 (3) TMI 432 - SC - Indian Laws

Election appeal - Powers of the Election Commission u/s Article 324 of the Constitution of India - validity of voting by machine - Golden rule on the interpretation of statutes - Word ballot - HELD THAT - To sum up therefore the legal and constitutional position is as follows (a) When there is no Parliamentary legislation or rule made under the said legislation the Commission is free to pass any orders in respect of the conduct of elections (b) where there is an Act and express Rules made thereunder it is not open to the Commission to override the Act or the Rules and pass orders in direct disobedience to the mandate contained in the Act or the Rules. In other words the powers of the Commission are meant to supplement rather than supplant the law (both statute and Rules) in the matter of superintendence direction and control as provided by Article 324 (c) where the Act or the Rules are silent the Commission has no doubt plenary powers under Article 324 to give any direction in respect of the conduct of election and (d) where a particular direction by the Commission is submitted to the government for approval as required by the Rules it is not open to the Commission to go ahead with implementation of it at its own sweet will even if the approval of the Government is not given. Thus we allow the appeal set aside the election of the respondent with respect to the 50 polling stations where the voting machines were used and we direct a repoll to be held in these 50 polling stations. We however do not touch or disturb the results of the votes secured in the other 34 polling stations which was done in accordance with law viz. the use of ballot papers. After the repoll the result of the election would be announced afresh after taking into account the votes already secured by the candidates including the Respondent. We make no order as to costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of voting by electronic machines.
2. Powers of the Election Commission u/s Article 324 of the Constitution of India.
3. Interpretation of the term "ballot" in the context of voting methods.

Summary:

Issue 1: Validity of Voting by Electronic Machines
The appellant challenged the election results of the No. 70 Parur Assembly Constituency in Kerala, where electronic voting machines were used in 50 out of 85 polling stations. The trial court upheld the validity of voting by machines, leading to this appeal. The Supreme Court held that the use of electronic voting machines was not permissible under the existing law, as the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 prescribed voting by ballot paper. The Court directed a repoll in the 50 polling stations where voting machines were used.

Issue 2: Powers of the Election Commission u/s Article 324
The appellant argued that the Election Commission's plenary powers under Article 324 of the Constitution allowed it to use electronic voting machines despite the lack of legislative backing. The Court disagreed, stating that Article 324 must be read harmoniously with Articles 325 to 329. The Court emphasized that the Commission's powers are meant to supplement, not supplant, the law. Therefore, the Commission cannot override the Act or the Rules by introducing new voting methods without legislative approval.

Issue 3: Interpretation of the Term "Ballot"
The Court examined whether the term "ballot" in Section 59 of the Act and Rule 49 of the Rules could include electronic voting machines. It concluded that the term "ballot" referred to the conventional method of voting by paper ballots, as understood at the time the Act and Rules were framed. The Court noted that the legislative intent was clear in prescribing ballot papers, and any change to include electronic voting would require legislative action.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the election results from the 50 polling stations where electronic voting machines were used, and ordered a repoll in those stations. The results from the remaining 34 polling stations, where voting was conducted by ballot paper, were not disturbed. The Court made no order as to costs.