HARI RAM versus HIRA SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 932 · Decided: 25-11-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
H 
.. 
932 
HARi RAM 
v. 
HIRA SINGH & ORS. 
November 25, 1983 
[S. MURTAZA.fAZAL,ALl, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY. 
AND ~.S. VERNKATARAMIAH, JJ.) 
Election LaW-secrecy and Sacrosanc; nature and mainten~n~es. thereof-:-
ln an election petition, whether a court, on an. interlocutory application pass an 
order directing the Returnin_g Offeer to prodUce the rnarked electotal ·Rolls, for 
ln&pection and.allow the election Petitioner 10· inspect the counterfoils-Condur{ 
of EleCfion_ RUies, 19611 Rule" 93 read with Section 165 pf J_he Evide1ice·Act. . 
In. the election held for the Metropolitan ·Council -from the NareJ.a 
Constitucpcy, 'th• appel1ant Hari Ram secured -12,369 votes· afld· was 
declared elected.' The respondent Hira Singh who secured 12,131 vofes filed 
an· eICction petition ·bef~re the Delhi High Court ~aking a nUmber of nllega· 
tion's against the aJ)pe1lailt. He preferred &D_ interl~cutory application praying. 
for ii directirin to the Returning Officer. to J'roduce. the. marked· eiectoral rolls. 
for inspection and afso .for allow.ing inspection of the . cbunte_r-foi!S; The-High · 
.Court granted bot~ the pra:Yers· and hen._ce this app~a1. 
Allowing thi;: apPeat, the Court·. 
HELD:· t.1 Befote allowing the prayers. ~t an interlocutQry stage, the 
High Court must e;a1nine whether proper foundation Was laid for inspection 
··and sufficient materials placed before it alld pass an ord€r Which would result 
. ·in adVefsely affecting the secrecy an·d ·sacrosanct natui'e Of thC electoraf 
.Process. Inspection Of ballot paper's a·nd c~u~1tcrfoi1s should b~ allowed very 
·-·sparingly and only when it is 3bsolute1y essenti~l to determine. the' issue. In 
the, garb of seeking inspection, the defe8.te~ .can.didate should not _be allowed 
to inake a· roving inquiry in ·order t~- fish out materials to set aside the election.· 
... 
· ... •· 
. 
~~ 
. 
-
·. Bhabhi v. Shea· Govl~d and Ors., (1975] Supl.J SCR 202, followed, • 
1.2 The ~pproach of the Hlgti Couft,. in the. ins,tarit case, at the very 
outset was legally incorrect. It wa·s ·.under a wrong impression that it· had 
ample powers to ditect production of any document under Section 165 of_ the 
· Indian Evidence Act and over-looked the· fact that_ the Representation of . 
.,. 
·.~ 
People Act was a special Act and provisions of the Evidence Act or the Code 
....J 
of Civil Procedure woutd:only apply wh_ere t11ey-are not ex.eluded. 
[93s·n~EJ 
__. 
.. 
2.1 
A perusal pf Rule 93 of the Conduct. of. Election ·Rules; 1961 
clearly shows ihat the Lca;islature intended to.make a clear distincdon between 
.. 
' 
HARi RAM v. HIRA SINGH (Faza/ Ali, J.) 
933 
one set of do"cuments and another. ·so far as tl}e ~ounterfoils arid .the marked . 
copy of the electoral rolls were cdncerned, there was a strict prohibition for 
opening these doCumertts~unless the cOu~t was fully_ satisfied. that a cost iron 
caSe was tntde oµt for the same; whereas documents mentiQ~ed in clauses "(a)· 
and (b) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 93 (as amended) eould be liberally allowed to 
be inspected. [937 D·El 
· 
· 
· 
Ram Sewak Yadav v. Huisain Ka111il .Kidwai & 01'S., [196416 SCR 238; 
applied. 
. 
,. 
2.2 In the .instant case, the attempt of the respondent petitioner for. 
inSpecting ·"marked electoral role hy making vague allegations was nothing but 
to fiah out material for challenging the election of the appellant and it -clearly • 
·violated the sanctity ·and secrecy-of the electo_ra1 process. 
(9~7 _G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION : 
.10063 oi.1983. 
Civil· Appeal No•.· 10062 & 
• 
Appeals by Special leave from the J udmeut a11d Order dated 
the 8th September & 19t.h September, 1983 of the De.lhi High Court 
A 
B 
c· 
in Election Petition No. 2/83. 
· 
· 
D 
F. s._ Nariman, S. P. Pandey and· N. N. 
Agarwal for the · 
Appellant. 
S. N. MarMa and K. C. Dua for th~ Respondent,· 
. 
The Judgpient of the Court was delivered by 
FAZAL Air. J. By ~n .Order dated 15th N;vember, i983 we had 
allowed the appeal of the appellant and set aside the order of the 
High Court witho.ut making any order as to costs. this election 
l!ipeal arises out of' an interlocutory by order passed by the Delhi 
· High Court on an application given by the respondent for directing 
. ihe Returning Officer to produce the marked· electoral rolls for inspec· 
· tion. The C9urt also granted further ~rayei of the respondent for 
allowing .inspection of the counterfoils. The High Court granted both 
the prayers and ·hence t

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