1973 (4) TMI 124 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of improper vote counting and invalid votes.
2. Request for recounting of votes.
3. Compliance with Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act.
4. Jurisdiction and procedural requirements in election petitions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Improper Vote Counting and Invalid Votes:
The respondent filed an election petition challenging the election of the appellant, alleging various infractions in the conduct of the election. Key allegations included improper mixing and rapid counting of ballot papers, introduction of unauthorized ballot papers, and unjustified invalidation of votes. The respondent claimed that these errors led to incorrect counting and requested the ballot papers be arranged according to serial numbers and recounted to reveal any discrepancies.

2. Request for Recounting of Votes:
The learned Judge ordered a recount of the votes based on several findings:
- Overworked personnel led to improper counting.
- Complaints of hasty counting suggested inaccuracies.
- Unlawful entry of a minister caused disturbances affecting counting accuracy.
- The Assistant Returning Officer's rapid checking indicated improper scrutiny.
- The Returning Officer's failure to implement a recount order vitiated the result.
- A test check showed valid votes were wrongly invalidated and vice versa.

The recount was conducted under strict supervision, revealing significant counting errors. The initial majority of 127 votes in favor of the appellant was reduced to 75 votes after recounting.

3. Compliance with Section 97 of the Representation of the People Act:
The respondent also sought a declaration that he was duly elected. The appellant did not file a recrimination petition under Section 97, which would have allowed him to contest the respondent's claim by proving that the respondent's election would have been void if he had been the returned candidate. The appellant's failure to file the required notice and security under Section 97 precluded him from challenging the validity of votes received by the respondent.

4. Jurisdiction and Procedural Requirements in Election Petitions:
The court emphasized that election petitions are statutory proceedings with specific procedural requirements. The appellant's failure to comply with Section 97 meant he could not challenge the votes in favor of the respondent. The court reiterated that justice in election disputes must be administered according to the statutory framework, and deviations from procedural requirements cannot be overlooked.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the decision to declare the respondent elected due to the appellant's non-compliance with Section 97. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the respondent. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in election disputes and the limited jurisdiction of election tribunals.