BASANAGOUDA versus DR. S. B. AMARKHED AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 397 · Decided: 31-03-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
-
BASANAGOUDA 
v. 
DR. S. B. AMARKHED AND ORS. 
MARCH 31, 1992 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.1 
. Election: 
Representation of the People Act, 1951/Conduct of Election Rules, 
1961: 
Sections 87, JOO(J)(b) & (d), 135A/Rule 93: 
A 
B 
c 
Corrupt practice-Booth capturing-Allegations must be specifically 
pleaded with material particulars-Production of documents sought-Coun's 
discretion to examine expediency, justness and relevancy of documents in the D 
light of clear pleadings-Need for maintaining secrecy of ballot~Suggestion 
to Rule making auihority-To have fresh look into the mandatory language 
of Rule 93(1) bringing it in conformity with section 135A. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 11 Rule 14, Order 16 Rule 6: 
Production of documents-Election matter~Reievant considerations 
for ordering production-What are. 
E 
The appellant was declared elected as a member of the State Assemb-
F 
ly. The Respondent, who was the nearest unsuccessful candidate filed an 
Election Petition before the High Court, challenging the election of the 
appellant. One of the grounds alleged was that the appellant had indulged 
in booth capturing and rigging of booths in certain polling booths, with 
the connivance of police officials and election agents of the appellant. It 
was also alleged that the appellant and his supporters prevented the voters G 
from exercising their franchise by threatening them; that the ballot papers 
were seized from the officials and were marked in favour of the appellant; 
and that the appellant's supporters forged the signatures/thumb impres-
sions on the counter foil of ballot papers. The High Court framed 4 issues, 
the main among them being the alleged capturing and rigging of polling H 
397 
398 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A booths. 
A 
The respondent also filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 
read with Order XVI Rule 6 CPC seeking production of certain d<><:uments 
by the District Election Officer. The High Court allowed the petition and 
summoned the documents. Accordingly, the documents were produced by 
B 
the Returning Officer. 
The present appeal is against the said order of the High Court. 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the respondent 
-
c 
laid no factual foundation in the election petition with material particulars 
~ 
of the alleged capturing of the booths and rigging; that there were no 
pleadings at all and no case has been made out for opening the ballot boxes 
~--
and examining the used ballots; and that the High Court di~ not ap-
predate the legal implication arising from its order. 
D 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that it would be 
impossible for a candidate to plead allegations with precision particularly 
when his election agents and the officials including the Police connived 
with the other candidate; that unless the election material is summoned 
and perused it would be difficult to substantiate such plea; and that the 
order challenged being an interlocutory one it could be assailed in the 
E 
regular appeal, after the Election retition was decided. 
~ 
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The High Court was wrong in holding that though no -
F 
factual foundatio~ has been laid in the election petition, but since there 
were allegations of booth-capturing and rigging in various paragraphs of 
the petition it was necessary to summon and examine the documents asked 
for by the respondent. The examination of marked ballot papers and other 
1 
used ballot papers can in no way substantiate the allegations of booth-cap· 
turing. Neither the names of persons nor any other details were given in 
G the election petition. Only bare allegations were made that votes of dead 
persons and those who had left the constituency had been cast. In the 
circumstances the High Court grossly erred in permitting the summoning 
of items (a) to (c) and (e) of para I of the applkation. As regards the other 
-1 
items, there is no need to interfere with the High Court's order. [407B-D] 
H 
2. The power to order production of documents is coupled with discre-
-
. 
.. ( 
BASANAGOUDA~DR.AMARKHED 
399 
tion to examine the expediency,justness and the relevancy of the documents A 
to the matter in question. These are relevant considerations which the 
Court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summon the 
documents in possession ~f the party to the election petition. At the same 
time the election petition proceeding
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.