JASWANT SINGH versus VIRENDER SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 336 · Decided: 09-11-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, FAIZAN UDDIN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JASWANT SINGH 
v. 
VIRENDER SINGH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 9, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN-UDDIN, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 136-Represeniation of the People Act, 
1951-Section 116A-Appeal-Election Petition-Allegations regarding 
commission of irregularities and ill(!galities during counting-Order of 
recount-Challenged-SLP dismissed-Returned candidate bound by order 
of Supreme Court-He cannot be permitted to reagitate issue of recounting 
again. 
ELECTION-Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 100-
Election Petition-Alleged tampering with . election material after 
declaration of result-Not a ground for avoiding an election-Post 
declaration irregularities or illegalities-No ground to avoid an election. 
ELZCTION-Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 116 A-
Repoll-Whether it is within province of Supreme Court to order a repo/1-
Question left open-Besides, allegations contained in petition did not make 
out any case for ordering a partial repoll. 
Contempt of Courts Act, 
197 I-Section 2-Contempt-Election 
Petition-Order for recount-Application seeking stay of further arguments 
to enable appellant to move Supreme Court-Transfer Petition-Aspersions 
cast on the trial judge of the High Court in discharge of his judicial 
function-Aspersions derogatory, scandalous and uncalled for-Appellant, 
an advocate-USP. of objectionable and intemperate language-Contempt 
of Court-Unqualified regre: expressed pleading 'lack ofunderstanding'-
Accepted-Appellant was found to be genuinely repentent-However, a 
strong admonition and warning issued 
The appellant and respondents were the candidates for the 
elections to the Haryana Legislative Assembly. Respondent No. 1 was 
declared elected. The appellant filed an election petition u/s 81/83 of 
Representation of the People Act, challenging the election of 
respondent No. l. The challenge was based mainly on the ground of 
commission of irregularities and illigalities during the counting. The 
appellant complained that the method adopted by the Returning 
336 
~-··· 
JASWANT SINGH v. VIRENDER SINGH 
337 
Officer was contrary to the guidelines contained in th~ Handbook for A 
Returning Officers issued by the Election Commission of India. It was 
alleged that there had been erasures, cuttings, over-writings and 
tampering with the figures of various votes pol!ed by different 
candidates and also in respect of the rejected ballot papers. According 
to the appellant, the result prepared by the Returning Officer was 
inaccurate and the irregularities committed during the counting of B 
votes and preparing of Forms XVI and XX had materially affected the 
result of the election in so far as the returned candidate was concerned. 
The appellant prayed for the election of respondent No. 1 to be 
declared void and set aside. He prayed for a recount and for a 
declaration that he be declared as duly elected. 
The respondent No. 1 raised some preliminary objections to the 
maintainability of the election petition. It was stated that some of the 
allegations contained in the election petition were scandulous while 
others were vague and the same did not disclose any cause of action. 
The Trial Court held that the over-writings, cuttings and erasures D 
had made Forms XVI and XX suspicious and the correctness of the 
record doubtful An order was made directing recount of votes. The 
returned candidate challenged this order of recount in Supreme Court 
through a special leave petition, alleging that no ground had been made 
out for ordering recount or inspection of the ballot papers because the 
petition was deficient in material facts and particulars and that the 
impugned order directing a recount/inspection violated the secrecy of 
the 
ballot 
papers. 
This 
petition 
was 
dismissed 
and 
the 
inspection/recount was, thereafter, carried out and a report was 
submitted to the High Court. The partial recount falsified the 
allegations made by the election petitioner in the petition. 
F 
After the report of the designated officer was submitted, the 
election petitioner filed an application before the High Court quoting 
some 'observations; of the Judge made during the hearing and 
objecting to the manner in which the two sealed envelopes containing 
ballot papers, on which objections had been raised by both sides during G 
the recount, were handled by the Court and sought stay of further 
arguments to enable the petitioner to approach the Supreme-Cou

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