LexARIKALA NARASA REDDY versus VENKATA RAM REDDY REDDYGARI & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 2 S.C.R. 291 ARIKALA NARASA REDDY v. VENKATA RAM REDDY REDDYGARI & ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos. 5710-5711 of 2012) FEBRUARY 4, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE ACT, 1951: s.87 - Election petition - Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Evidence Act, 1872 - Discussed. A B c ss.97, 100 - Election petition filed on the ground that 3 votes in favour of election petitioner were wrongly rejected and one vote of Returning Candidate ought to have been declared D invalid - Order for recounting of votes - Held: Election petition had raised dispute only about 4 votes and the case should have been restricted only to that limited question - High Court wrongly enlarged the 'scope of dispute by counting and recounting - On consideration of the alleged 4 votes in the E election petition, it was found that both parties got equal number of votes - In such a situation, matter required to be decided by draw of lots u/s.102 of the Act - Lots drawn in the presence of all parties in open court - Result in favour of appellant and he succeeded. F s. 94 - Secrecy of a ballot - Held: Is to be preserved in view of the statutory provision contained in s. 94 of the Act - Secrecy of ballot has always been treated as sacrosanct and indispensable adjunct of free and fair election - Such -principle G of secrecy is based on public policy aimed to ensure that voter may vote without fear or favour ?nd is free from_ any apprehension of its disclosure against his will. 291 H 292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 2 S.C.R. A ss.97, 100 - Election petition and Recrimination petition - Held: In a composite election petition wherein the petitioner claims not only that the election of the returned candidate is void but also that the petitioner or some other person be deC/ared to have been duly elected, s. 97 of the Act comes B into play and allows the returned candidate to recriminate and raise counter-pleas in support of his case, "but the pleas of the returned candidate u/s.97 have to be tried after a declaration has been made u/s. 100 of the Act." - If the returned candidate does not recriminate as required by s.97, then he c cannot make any attack against the alternative claim made by the election petitioner. ELECTION LAWS: Election dispute - Applicability of doctrine of equity - D Held: Statutory requirements relating to election law have to be strictly adhered to for the reason that an election dispute is a statutory proceeding unknown to the common law and thus, the doctrine of equity, etc. does not apply in such dispute - All the technicalities prescribed/mandated in election law E have been provided to safeguard the purity of the election process and courts have a duty to enforce the same with all rigours and not to minimize their operation - Representation of People Act, 1951. Recounting of votes - Essential conditions to be satisfied F - Discussed. Jurisdiction of court to order recount of votes - Held: Court cannot exercise discretion of ordering recounting of ballots just to enable the election petitioner to indulge in a roving G inquiry with a view to fish material for dealing the election to be void - The order of recounting can be passed only if the · petitioner sets out his case with precision supported by averments of material facts. H ARIKALA NARASA REDDY v. VENKATA RAM 293 REDDY REDDYGARI Instructions contained in the Handbook for Returning A Officer - Bir.ding effect - Held: It is a settled legal proposition that the instructions contained in the handbook for Returning Officer are issued by the Election Commission in exercise of its statutory functions and are therefore, binding on the Returning Officers. B CONDUCT OF ELECTIONS RULES, 1961: r. 73(2)(d) - Marking and writing on ballot papers - Held: r. 73(2)(d) provides that a ballot paper shall be invalid if "there is any mark or wring by which the elector can be identified. " - There must be some casual connection between the mark and the C identity of the voter and such writing or marking itself must reasonably give indication of the voter's identity - As to whether such marking or writing in a particular case would disclose the identity of the voter, would depend on the nature of writing or marking on the ballot involved in each case - D Therefore, such marking or writing must be such as to draw an inference about the identity of t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.