1984 (10) TMI 248 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Improper Rejection of Ballot Papers
2. Recounting of Votes
3. Validity of Recounting Order
4. Requirement of Recrimination Application u/s 97(1) of the Representation of People Act, 1951

Summary:

Improper Rejection of Ballot Papers:
Respondent 1 alleged that the Returning Officer improperly rejected about 100 ballot papers cast in his favor during recounting, influenced by the Naib Tehsildar. The High Court found that the Returning Officer's discretion was influenced by the Naib Tehsildar, which led to the improper rejection of valid votes cast for respondent 1.

Recounting of Votes:
Respondent 1 prayed for recounting of all votes and setting aside the appellant's election. The High Court ordered recounting of only the rejected ballot papers, appointing the District Judge (Vigilance), Punjab, to supervise the recount. The recount revealed that respondent 1 gained 14 votes and the appellant gained 8 votes.

Validity of Recounting Order:
The High Court initially ordered a recount of the rejected ballot papers for both the appellant and respondent 1. This order was challenged but upheld by the Supreme Court. However, the High Court later did not take into account the 8 votes gained by the appellant due to the absence of a recrimination application u/s 97(1) of the Act.

Requirement of Recrimination Application u/s 97(1):
The appellant did not file a recrimination application u/s 97(1), which precluded him from challenging the validity of votes cast in favor of respondent 1. The High Court held that without such an application, the appellant could not benefit from the 8 votes found to be wrongly rejected in his favor. The High Court declared respondent 1 to be duly elected, as the improper rejection of votes materially affected the election result.

Separate Judgment by Sabyasachi Mukherjee, J.:
Justice Mukherjee expressed reservations about the majority view in Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal and emphasized that procedural rules should not thwart the democratic process. He opined that the appellant, having received more valid votes after recounting, should not be declared the loser merely due to the absence of a recrimination application. He suggested that the majority view in Jabar Singh's case should be reconsidered by a larger bench. Justice Mukherjee would have allowed the appeal, recognizing the appellant's majority of valid votes.