LexJITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH versus KRISHNA BEHARI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8~2
JITENDRA BAHADUR SINGH
v.
KRISHNA BEHARI & ORS.
August 13, 1969
[K. S. HEGDE A:-ID A. N. RAY, ]].]
Election-Pe1ition for setting aside election-Application for scrutiny
of bal/oi papers-When can be ordered.
The first respondent, an elector, challenged the election of the appellant
to the Lok Sabha.
He alleged in£er alia, in the
election-petition that :
(I) only one counting agent of the. defeated candidate was permitted at
each table where three persons were counting simuhaneomly, and hence,
it was impossible 'for the counting agent to detect the wrong acts of the
counting staff \\·ho had adopted an attilude hostile to the defeated candi-
date; and (2) several votes of the defeated candidate were improperly re-
jected ignoring the protesls of the election agent cJf. that candidate, while
invalid votes and votes of the defeated candidale were counted in favour
of the appellant. The Schedule to the petition gave some figures elf such
improper rejection and improper acceptance.
In the verification
to the
petition it was stated that the allegations were made on the basis of in-
formation received from the \1:orkcrs and the counting agents of the de-
feated candidate and that lhe electiOn-petitioner believed the informalion
to be correct.
It v.•as hov..·evcr not stated in the petition \\1ho the workers
\vere and what was the basis of their information. 1'o v.Titten objection
was filed during the counting, ei1hcr to the acccp1ance or the rejection ell
any vote, nor "'as any such application made for a recount.
Before the trial of the clcclion-pelition !he elec1ion-petitioner filed an
application for permission 10 inspect the packets of ballot papers contain-
ing the accepted as \\'Cit as rejected votes of the candida1cs. In the affidavit
in !l.Upport of the petition he averred !hat on one of the days df counting.
he \\'as the counting agent o·t the
defe<'ted candidate arid had personal
knowledge of such improper rejection and acccprance. No other affidavit
of persons who could have had personal knowledge of the matter \\'as filed.·
The High Court allo\\·ed rhe applicJtion and permitted scrutiny solely on
the basis of the allegation<; in the election pi:tition and the affidavit
in
support of the application seeking scrutiny.
Jn appeal to this Court,
B
c
D
E
F
HELD : In view of the importance of maintaining the secrecy of the
balJot papers, scrutiny can only be ordered if the election-petition con-
tains an adequate statement o·( the material facts on v.·hich the petitioner
relies, that io;, tire material facts disclosed rnusr afford an adequate hasi.r
G
for the al/egatinns: and, the clec1ion tribunal mu'5t be prima facie satisfied
that in order to decide the dispute and to do complete juo;1ice berween the
partic~ inspecrion of the ballo1 papers is ncccssJry. {855 G-H; 856 AJ
In the prc'ient case, the High Court stated that it was so satisfied on
the mere statement of some figures in the petition and affidavil.
It a1so
did not give any reason in support of its satisfaction a5 to the need for
H
inspection. (857 G-HJ
( 1) The petitioner had not stated
that
any o( the counting agents
appoinlcd by the defeated candidate or his election agent, in accordance
I
,
·-
•
1
•
J. B. SINGH v. K. BEHAR! (Hegde, J.)
853
A
with the rules, had been refused admission to the place of counting.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
Therefore, the allegation that enough number of counting agents were not
permitted was not supported by any statement o'f material facts. [857 B-C]
(2) Similarly, with regard to the rejection of the votes
polled
in
favour of the de'feated candidate, under the rules, before a vote is reject-
ed tbe agents of the candidates must be permitted to examine the con-
cerned ballot paper, and therefore, the serial numbers of the concerned
ballot papers could have been noted.
The election petition, however,
is
silent as to the inspection and notes of the ballot papers and other mate-
rial facts such as raising objections and asking for a ·recount. [857 C-El
Therefore, the scrutiny of the ballot papers was sought on the basis
of mere assertions and allegations which were neither accompanied by a
statement of material facts nor were they supported by any evidence; and
hence, the High Court should have rejected the application for scrutiny.
r857 Fl
Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kami[ Kidwai, [19641 6 S.C.R. 238 and
Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, A.LR. Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.