JANAK SINGH versus RAM DAS RAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 11-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JANAK SINGH 
v. 
RAM DAS RA! AND ORS. 
JANUARY I I, 2005 
B 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND A.K. MATHUR. JJ.] 
Election Laws: 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rule 63-Re-c.ounting-Election 
C petition alleging irregularities and illegalities in counting of ballots-On facts, 
held, election petitioner or his counting agent could not make our case that 
votes cast in favour of election petitioner were counted less or had been 
reduced in a way materially affecting the result of election petition -Returning 
Officer deposed that he conducted the counting impartially and without any 
D illegality-Assistant Returning Officer supported that deposition-Re-counting 
rightly not allowed by High Court. 
Election-Conduct of Requirement of vigilance on local staff entrusted 
to conduct the elections-Posting of some para-military personnel inside the 
polling booths suggested-Some cameras should also be installed in the polling 
E booths. 
F 
Election-Conduct of-Improper use of funds allotted-Some funds 
utilised for entertaining the election observers-Strict instructions should be 
given to election observers not to accept undue hospitality of the State as that 
would compromise their objectivity and transparency. 
Respondent No. I was declared elected as member of the State 
-1( 
Assembly. Appellant, one of the contesting c3ndidates, filed petition 
challenging the election primarily on ground that the ballot papers were 
miscounted resulting in non-counting of valid votes cast in his favour. It 
G was also alleged that in course of counting, a petition for recounting was 
filed under Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, but no 
recounting was held, and that before the result was declared the appellant 
gave representation to the returning officer enumerating various 
irregularities and illegalities committed but all his efforts proved futile. 
The difference of votes between the appellant and the returned candidate 
! 
II 
360 
JANAK SINGH v. R.D. RAI 
361 
being very less, the appellant prayed that his election petition be allowed A 
and he be declared elected. 
Single Judge of High Court held that the appellant had failed to 
substantiate the allegation and dismissed the petition with costs. Hence 
the appeal. 
During course of arguments before this Court, the appellant also 
gave certain suggestions for consideration of the Election Commission in 
order to introduce maximum transparency and fairness in the elections. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: I. The view taken by the Single Judge of the High Court is C 
correct and there is no ground to interfere therewith. 1373-BI 
2. A scrutiny of the oral evidence shows that the appellant himself 
or his counting agent could not make out a case that the votes cast in 
favour of the election petitioner were counted less or had been reduced in 
such a way that it could materially affect the result of the election petition. D 
As against this respondent no.I, the returned candidate examined 12 
witnesses including himself, and alleged that there was no illegality in the 
conduct of election and that all the votes cast in favour of the candidates 
were duly counted. (367-H; 368-AJ 
3. The Returning Officer came in witness box and deposed that he E 
conducted the counting impartially and no illegality was committed, and 
that all allegations made by the election petitioner were frivolous and 
baseless. It was also alleged that when the counting was over, the election 
petitioner was pressing for recounting and for that he consultd the 
election observer and also the Election Commission of India and then he F 
declared its result. He also alleged that all the objections raised were duly 
considered and rejected by a reasoned order in the order sheet maintained 
by him. The Assistant Returning Officer was also examined and he 
supported what was deposed by the Returning officer. 1368-B-DI 
4. The counting of votes is regulated by the Conduct of Election G 
Rules, 1961. As per Rule 63 of the Rules, re-counting can be orJered 
provided there are good reasons for it. In the present case, the Single Judge 
of High Court found that the grounds sought to be raised before the 
Returning Officer and before the Election Commission were at variance. 
He further observtd that if at the time of the counting the election agent H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A raised objection and no good reasons were given by the Returning Officer 
for rejection then that

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