J. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO versus V. JAGAPATHI RAO AND NINE OTHERS

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 786 · Decided: 18-12-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
J. CHANDRASEKHARA RAO 
v. 
V. JAGAPATHI RAO AND NINE OTHERS 
DECEMBER 18, 1992 
[A.M. AHMADI, M.M. PUNCHHI AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Election Law : Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 100 
(J)(C), JOO(l)(d)(i), JOO(J)(d)(iv)-Election Petition-Court to decide on 
C Positive and Affinnative evidence-Not on speculation and suspicion-f'osi· 
tive and reliable evidence-Burden of proof on petitioner-Courts not to set 
aside the election on sunnises and conjectures-Probable distribution of 
wasted votes-Demonstrated pattern-Consideration of. 
The petitioner and Respondents 1 to 9 contested for an Assembly 
D seat. Respondent No. 1 won the election by securing 37248 votes whereas 
the petitioner secured 36821 votes and Respondent No. 2 secured 9569 
votes. 
The petitioner filed a Election Petition before the High Court chal-
E lenging the election of Respondent No. 1 on the grounds, namely, that 
Respondent No. 2 who was under 25 years of age and was not eligible to 
contest the ·election; that the difference in votes secured by the petitioner 
and Respondent No. 1 was only 427 and that the votes polled by Respon· 
dent No. 2 were more than 22 times the difference between the number of 
votes secured by the Respondent No. 1, the returned candidate, and his 
F 
nearest rival the petitioner, and that the result of the election in so far as 
it concerned the returned candida~e was materially affected by the non· 
compliance with the provisions of the Constitution of India and the 
Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
G 
The High Court rejected the contentions and dismissed the Election 
Petition. 
Being aggrieved by the High Court's decision the appellant 
preferred the present appeal. 
· H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
-786 
J. C. RAO 1·. V.J. RAO 
787 
HELD : 1. A decision in the election petition can be given only on A 
positive and affirmative evidence and. not merely on speculation and 
suspicion, however strong they are. [796-G] 
2. It is for the election petitioner to prove by positive and reliable 
evidence that either improper acceptance of the nomination of the can-
didate or on account of the non-compliance of the provisions of the 
Constitution or the Act, Rules or Order, etc. that the wasted votes would 
have been distributed in such a manner among the remaining candidatt's 
that any candidate other than the returned candidate would have polled 
the highest number of votes. Such a burden of proof may be difficult, say 
impossible, but the courts cannot set aside the election of the returned 
candidate on surmises and conjectures unless establ.ished by positive 
evidence that the election of the returned candidate has been materially 
affected. (796-H; 797-A,B] 
B 
c 
Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram & Others, (1984) 1 SCR 966, V.ashist 
Narain Shanna v. Dev Chandra and Others, (1955) S.C.R. 509, Paokai D 
Haokip v. Rishang and others, AIR 1969 S.C. 663 = (1969) 1 S.C.R. 637; 
Sarnam Singh v. Pushpa Devi and others, (1988) Suppl. S.C.C. 65; Samant 
N. Ba/akrishna, etc. v. George Fernandez and others etc., AIR 1969 S.C.1201, 
Smt. Lata Devi (Mali) v. Harn Rajwar, AIR 1990 S.C. 19 and Shiv Charan 
Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh and others, AIR 1988 SC 637 = (1988] 2 E 
S.C.R. 713, relied on. 
3. The demonstrated pattern of voting can be taken into considera-
tion for reaching the conclusion with regard to the probable distribution 
of wasted votes among the validly nominated candidates. [797-C] 
Paokai Haokip v. Rishang and others, AIR 1969 SC 663 = (1969] 1 
S.C.R. 637, relied on. 
·CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 4115 
F 
(NCE) OF 1991. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.9.1991 of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in Election Petition No. 6 of 1990. 
P.P. Rao, B. Rajeshwar Rao, Vimal Dave and Ms. Neelam Kalsi for 
the Appellant. 
H 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
K. Madhava Reddy, D. Prakash Reddy, G. Prabhakar, Ms. Rani 
Chhabra (NP) and S.C. Patel (NP) for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. This is an appeal against the decision of 
B 
the learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 12th 
September, 1991 whereby Election Petition No. 6 of 1990 filed by the 
appellant 'herein was dismissed. 
c 
We find it convenient to refer to the parties as they were before the 
High Court. 
The petitioner and respondents 1 to 9 contested for membership of 
Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly from 254 Karimnag

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