LexBHABHI versus SHEO GOVIND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
202
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
BHABHI
v.
SHEO GOVJND & ORS.
April 21, 1975
[N. L. UNTWALJA ANDS. MURTAZA FA7AL ALI, JJ.J
R epr('sentatio11 of People A ct-Election-!nspecfion
of
ln1llot
papers-
Princip!es.
The appellant \Vas elected to the U.P. Legislative Assembly. The appel-
lant defeated respondent No. 1 by a margin of 94 \'Otes.
The respondent
No. l in his election petition made an application for. inspection of the ballot
papers on the ground that there were improper reception and rejection of
votes. That the election staff was suffering from seriou<J physica1 strain as
they had to work without any rest.
There \Vere arithmetical mistakes in the
counting. That the staff was drowsy and \Vas dozing.
The respondent no. 1 made an application praying for a sample inspec-
tion of the ballot papers. He examined some \Vitncsses and counting agents,
and fifed some affidavits.
The appellant also produced some evidence.
The
respondent did not give serial number of a single ballot paper which is <;aid
to have been impfoperly accepted or rejected.
Nor did be file an applica1io11
for recounting of votes.
The High Court without going into the merits of the application ordered
a samp-Je 'inspection of the balIDt paper.
The lfigh Court did not give any
finding whether the evidence Dr the 01ateriat adduced by the respondent no. 1
was sufficient for the prin1a facic satisfaction of the High Court.
HELD : An order for inspection could not be granted a.;; a matter of
routine, but only under special circumstances.
Inspection of bat1ot paper
should not be allowed in such a way so as to make a roving or fishin~ inquiry
in order to disco,·er material for declaring-.the election void.
f205F-G, 206Dl
The following conditionss are imperative before. a Court can grant inspection
or sample inspection of the ballot pepers :-
(I) That it is important to maint1in the secrecy
\vhich is sacrosanct and should not be allowed to be
frivolous, vague and indefinite allegations;
of the ballot
violated
on
{2) That before inspection is a1Jovved, the alJegations made against
the elected candidate must be clear and specific and n1ust be sup-
ported by adequate statements of matCTial facts;
(3) The Court must be prbna facie sati<;fied on the materials pro~
duced before the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for
a recount;
(4) That the discretion conferred
on the Court should not be
exercised in such a way so as to enable the applicant to indulge in a
roving inquiry \Vith a view to fish materials for declaring the election
to be void; ancl
i__
(5) That on the special facts of a given case sample inspection
may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prinio facie satis-
faction of the Court regarding the truth of the allegations made for n
r@count, and not for the purpose of.fishing out material~
[230E-H, 231A-B]
•
, -
'
.Further held that what appeared to have weighed \vith the High Court
\Vas the solitarv circumstance that the appc1lant had succeeded by a narro\V
m::i.rgin 0:nd thit was a sufficient ground for ordering sample inspection.
The
Court. however was unable to ugrec \\ith this broad staten1ent of the la\v
by the High C~urt because if a person is duly elected even by a narrow
f""
. .
BHABHI v. Sl!EO GOV!ND (Fazil Ali, J.)
203
margin of votes lhere is no presumption that there has been illegality or
A
irregularity in the election.
This is a fact which has t<>: be proved by .a
person who challenges the election of the duly elected candidate.
After all in
a large democracy such as our's wheue we have a multip~1ty. system,
\Vh~1:e
the numbe1· of voters is huge and diverse, where the voting JS free and
~air
and where in quite a few cas.es the conte~t is. close and nee~ to neck, a marginal
victory by a ~uccessful can<l1d_ate over .hlS nval .can ~omettmes ~ tr~ted as ~
tren1endous tnumph so as to give a feehng of satJsfactlOn to the v1ctonous candi-
date.
The Court cannot lightly ·brush aside the succc~s of .the duly .elected
B
candidate on an election petition b<ised on vague and 1ndefin1te allegations or
frivolous and flimsy grounds.
[212B-C DE]
Held further in the instant case, the High Court while passing the order
of sample inspe~tion made no attempt to apply the above principles.
The
High Court actually noticed some of the important decisions and yet did not
apply them.
The High Court did not record any satisfaction.
Allowing the
appeal, theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.