A. NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR versus GEORGE MASCRENE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 437 · Decided: 11-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A. NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR 
A 
v. 
GEORGE MASCRENE AND OTHERS 
APRIL 11, 1994 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
B 
f 
Election Law-Representation of the People Ac~ 1951/Conduct of Elec-
tion Rules, 1961-Sections 62 (4), 94/Rule 93--Purity of elections-Secrecy of 
ballot-Conflict of-Purity of elections to prevail-Inspection of Votes for the 
purpose of eliminating impurity in elections-Valid. 
c 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872--Section 73--Power of Court in comparing 
signatures-<:an be exercised-Matters of expediency-Court to compare sig-
natures-Larger public interest. 
The Appellant and Respondent No. 1 contested for Seat No. 138 of D 
the Kovalam Assembly, Kerala. The Appellant was declared elected by the 
Assistant Returning Officer. Even after a recount on the request of the 
+ 
Respondent No. 1, the Appellant was declared to have been elected having 
) 
secured 21 votes in excess of Respondent No. 1. 
Respondent No. 1 moved an election Petition challenging the election E 
of the Appellant on the ground that he had obtained more valid votes than 
the appellant and that several voters have dishonestly voted more than 
once since their names had been registered in more than one constituency. 
Respondent No. 1 had also given a list of such names. 
The Appellant contested the Election Petition and he also filed a F 
'\ 
I 
recrimination petition alleging that wrong votes had been cast in favour 
of Respondent No. 1 
The High Court ordered inspection of the relevant ballot papers and 
found that Respondent No. 1 had secured more valid votes than the G 
petitioner and declared him to be elected. 
On Appeal, the Appellant contended that the High Court had vio-
..... 
lated the principle of "Secrecy of ballot" in allowing an inspection and that 
too on an oral application; that there was no cause pleaded to permit the 
"fishing or roving" enquiry into the ballot papers, that the pleadings in the H 
437 
438 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A election petition were insuffident to justify inspection and that the High 
Court should not have taken the task of comparing signatures rather than 
leaving it to the expert opinion; 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
B 
HELD : 1. The existence of the principle of "secrecy of ballot" cannot 
be denied. It nndoubtedly is an indispensable adjunct of free and fair 
electio1ts. Bot this right of the voter is ·not absolute. It most yield to the 
principle of "purity of election" in the larger public interest. Section 94 of 
the Representation of People Act, 1951 cannot be pressed into service to 
C suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud on the election 
process. (443-E-G; 444-D] 
' 
Raghbir Singh Gill v. Gurcharan Singh, (1980] 3 SCR 1302, distin-
guished. 
D 
2. The High Court committed no error in permitting inspection in 
ihe facts and circumstances. However, the Court should not be understood 
to approve of the High Court giving oral directions in such serious matters 
without insisting on a formal application setting out how a prima facie 
foundation was laid for the grant of such relief. [pp. 446-G-H; 447-A] 
E 
3. As regards double voting/impersonated voting, on the pleading of 
the parties as such; a case for inspection at the stage when it was done had 
been made out. (447-H, 448-AJ 
Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kidwai, (1964] 6 SCR 238 at 247-250; 
Hariram v. Hira Singh and others, (1984] 1 SCR 932; R Narayanaswamy v. 
F 
S. Semmalai, (1980] 2 SCC 537; Jagjit Singh v. Kartar Singh, AIR (1966) SC 
773 and J.B. Singh v. K. Bishan, (1970] 1 SCR 852, referred to. 
4. When larger public interest is served by expeditious disposal of 
an Election Petition, then the course adopted in comparing signatures by 
G the High Court is perfectly sound. (449-D] 
Fakhruddin v. State of M.P., AIR(l967) SC 1326; State v. Pali Ram, 
(1979] 1 SCR931 andMurari Lal v. State of MP., (1980] 2 SCR249, relied 
-( 
on. 
..1..-. 
H 
5. The High Court rightly allowed the Election Petition declaring the 
AN. NADAR v. GEORGE MASCRENE (PUNCHHI, J.] 
439 
Election Petitioner-First respondent as the duly elected member of Kerala A 
Legislative Assembly instead of the Appellant, setting aside the election of 
the later. [456-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4947 of 
1991. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.91 of the Kerala High 
t-
Court in Election Petition No. 3 of 1991. 
Prashant Bhushan for the Appellimt. 
B 
Kapil Sibal, M.A. Firoz, M.M. George, D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.