AJIT SINGH versus BANSI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 12-07-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AJIT SINGH 
v. 
BANSI SINGH AND ORS. 
JULY 12, 1995 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.) 
Election Law-Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961-Rules 54, 54A and 
27 as amended by notification issued on 27.1.1971-lnterpretation of-Postal 
ballot-Valid if received before commencement of counting of vote~Rule 27 
C validates receipt of postal ballot upto the hour fu:ed for commencement of 
counting of votes. 
D 
E 
F 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Section Bl-Election Peti-
tion-Appeal-Scope of powers of Supreme Court to interfere with finding of 
fact. 
Engagement of relation/proteges of returned candidate in duties of 
counting ballot papenr-No evidence about improper conduct-Election result 
not liable to be set aside. 
The appellant filed an Election Petition u/s 81 of the Representation 
of People Act, 1951, praying that the election of the returned candidate, 
respondent No. 1 should be declared void and the petitioner having 
secured the next highest score should be declared as returned. The validity 
of election was challenged on the ground of various irregularities com-
mitted in counting the ballot papers. The High Court dismissed the 
election petition on recording a finding that the counting had been proper-
ly made. This appeal had been directed against the judgment of the High 
Court. 
The appellant challenged the impugned decision of the High Court 
G mainly on four grounds, namely, (i) the fencing was made in the hall where 
ballot papers were counted and the Assistants counting the ballot papers 
sat inside the fence but the election agents were compelled to sit outside 
the fence and as all such election agents could not sit at the front row and 
many of them including the agent of the election petitioner on occasions 
had to sit at the back benches and there was hardly any opportunity to see 
H Hie counting of votes and the rejection of invalid ballots, and also that the 
34 
........ 
1. 
ATIT SINGH v. BANSI SINGH 
35 
police was present inside the counting hall; (ii) improper acceptance of the A 
postal ballots beyond the date fixed for such acceptance in form 13-D had 
adversely affected the election result; (iii) although the complaints relating 
to irregularities in the counting of votes were made by the election 
petitioner and his agent, the Returning Officer failed to consider the same, 
and (iv) rejection of ballot papers at the level of counting assistants and 
supervisors and non consideration of such rejected ballot papers by the 
Returning Officer. The appellant also alleged that he had specifically 
pointed out that some of the counting assistants/supervisors were the 
relations of the returned candidates but the Returning Officer did not 
remove them from the duty. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. In the instant case, there was reasonable apprehension 
of disturbances at the time of counting of votes and Returning Officer had 
B 
c 
justification to place police officials in the counting hall so as to avoid any D 
disturbance. Large number of candidates contested the election and if 
election agents of a large number of candidates were to be admitted at the 
place of counting the ballot papers, the Returning Ofiicer had no alterna-
tive but to place benches in rows so that the election agents could sit in 
such benches placed in row on the basis of first-cum-first sit. It had been 
clearly established by evidence that whoever had occupied the first row of E 
the benches on the basis of coming first was allowed to sit there and 
whenever such person left his seat the other persons sitting in the second 
or third row had come and occupied the said seat. Placing of fence, in the 
'r 
facts and circumstances of the case, was necessary to prevent any un-
toward situation developing at the time of counting. Such precautionary F 
measures taken by the Returning Officer, could not be held to be unjus-
tified thereby rendering the counting process invalid. In the central table 
Returning Officer and the candidates were allowed to sit and from such 
place, the process of counting could be seen by the persons sitting at the 
> 
central table. [41-E-G] 
G 
1.2. Rule 27 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 makes the postal 
ballot valid if they are received before the commencement of counting of 
votes. The right to franchise by postal ballot should not be defeated on 
technicality or narrow interpretation of the rules and instructions issued. 
Rule 27 dealing with the return of the

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