A.C. JOSE versus SIVAN PILLAI & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 74 · Decided: 05-03-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

n 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
G. 
74 
• 
A.C. JOSE 
• 
v. 
SIVAN PILLAI & QRS. 
. March 5, 1984 
(S. MuRTAZA FAZAL Au, A. VARAOARAJAN 
ANO RA
0NOANATH MISRA, JJ.). 
_Constitution of lndia-1950, Articles 324; 327 and 329. 
. 
. 
-
~ The Reprer'entation of t~e PeOple Act 1951, Section 59. 
-
-
' 
' 
. 
' 
• 
· .• The Conduct of Election Rules 1961; Rule 49 Elections-Voting-Carting 
· . oj ballots _by use. of :electronic' machine-Whether valid Cznd legal. 
Wo~ds and P_hrases: uBal/ot'-;-Meaning of. 
. 
.__ 
The first ~reswn4eot was elected to the State. Legislative A;~embly. 
Voting in the ConStituency was by the conventional method provided in the 
Conduct of Election Rules-1961, the votes. cast manually; 
3.nd also by the 
mechaiiical proCess, viz., the use of 'electroniC' machines. 
The appellant Challenged the _election of the first respondent: The 
tTial court upheld the validity of.voting by· machines and held. that the first 
resP_Ondent was duly., elected. , 
In appeal. to -Jhis Coo;t, it was contended on behalf'of the appella~l 
that voting by, mechanical· process was not permissible either uD.der the Re-Pre.: 
sentation 'of the People Act 1951, or under the Conduct of Election Rules 
1961. 
Allowing the appea.1, 
. 
.. 
HELD : 1. The order of the Election Coinmission dirCciing casting 
· of ballots by machines in some of the polling stations, was without jurisdiCtion 
. and could n.ot- have been resorted to~ [900] _ 
.· 
2. When the Representation of the People Act 1951 and the Conduct 
of Election Rules 1961, prescribed a particular method of voting the Commll-
sion could not innovate a new method arid c?ntend that use of the meChani· 
ca_l pi:ocess_wa~ not Covered.by the existing law and, therefore, did fnbt -·coma.· 
·.·in conflict with the law in the field. The Act and the Rules complit.ely 
excluded the mechani~al process' which,' if resorted to, wOUid- defeat in a large.· 
measure the mandatory requirements of the RUies. [86G, SSF] 
• 
.. . 
11 
' > 
A.C. Josi! v. s. PiLLAi 
3. (a) When there is no· Parliamentary legislation orrule made under · • 
the said legislation, the Commission is free to pas-s any orders in respect of the 
CondUct of elections. [86 HJ 
· · 
· • 
· 
~ 
. 
. 
. 
. 
. ' 
(b) Where there is an ACt and tber"e are express Rules made thereunder, 
·it is not open to the Commission to Over-ride the Act or the Rules and pass 
Orders in direct disObedience to the mandate _contained in the Act or the Rule! • 
. The PowerS of the Commission are•meant to supplement rather than supPiant 
the Jaw (bOth statut.e 'and Rules) in the matter Of superintendence, direct~on_ and 
Sontrol as provided by Article 324. [87 A-Bl 
· 
' 
(c)-- Where the Act or the Rules are silent, the Commission his no 
doubt plenary powers under Article 324 tO give any direction in respect· of. the 
conduct o~ elect.ion. [87C] · 
. 
. 
. 
(d) ·Where a partiCular directi9n by the Commission is ~ubmitted to th~ 
governriient for approval, as ·rtquired by the RuleS, it .is .not open to the 
Commissio.n to go ahead with implemen~ation of it at its own sweet will even if 
the approval Or the Government ~snot given. [870] 
.. 
B 
c· 
4. ·It is a w"ell-settled rule of interpretation of 'statutes that words; 
Pii.ra~es o! Sentences of· a statute should o"rdinarily be underStood in their· 
D· 
03.tural, ordinary, pOpuiar and grammatiCal sense unless such a· construction -
leads to absurdity. [880] 
· · · 
5. Legisiatures must be deemed·to be aware of the modern tendencies . 
in various den1ocratic countrie.s .. of the wo'rld where the· mechanical system has -
bCen intioduced and if despite the plain nleaning of the word· •ballot' they did ~ 
not choose to extend the ·definition given as far back as- 1950, 'it may be safely, 
presumed
0that Parliainent intended to use the word •bJllot
9 in its popular rather_ · 
than a technical sense. [89G] 
· 
E 
.. 
6. The word •ballof _h3s been derived from the wotd 'ballota' which 
.existed at a- time when there was no question. of any system of voting-by-·.' 
machine. Even in .1951 when the Act was passed or the-Rules were made~ the-
.sYstem of voting by machine was not in vogue in this country .. In· these circ~-
. P-i 
stances the word 'ballot" in its strict sense would not include voting by the use 
of voting rOachines; [89FJ 
. . 
. 
. 
. 
. 
Sadiq Ali & Anr. v. Election Commission of India & Ors • ."[1972] 2 S.C.R; 
318; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Cheif_Election Commissioner,· New_ 
JH/hl & Ors,,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.