KALYAN KUMAR GOGOI versus ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 796 · Decided: 18-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2011) 1 S.C.R. 796 
A 
KALYAN KUMAR GOGOi 
v. 
~' 
ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 4820 of 2007) 
JANUARY 18, 2011 
B 
[J.M. PANCHAL AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: 
,........ 
c 
s. 100(i)(d)(iv)- Election petition -A/legation that change 
of venue of the polling station was illegal and deprived many 
voters from exercising their right due to chaos - Declaration 
sought to the effect that election of the returned candidate from 
constituency was void and order directing re-polling in the 
D polling station notified be made - Petition dismissed by hligh 
Court - On appeal held: Defeated candidate totally failed to 
~· -
I 
prove that the eleption of the returned candidate was materially 
affected because of non-compliance with the provisions of the 
1951 Act or Rules or orders made under it -
Evidence 
E 
adduced by the defeated candidate does not establish 
beyond reasonable doubt that about 200 to 300 voters had 
~gone away, without casting their votes when it was found that 
no arrangements were made for casting votes at the notified 
....... 
place - Non-compliance with the provisions of the 1951 Act 
and Rules of 1961 was by the officers, in charge of the .conduct 
F of the election and not by the elected candidates - Thus, order 
passed by the High Court upheld - Conduct of Election Rules, 
1961 - r. 15. 
s. 100 (i)(d)(iv) - Grounds for declaring election to be 
G void -
Result of election of returned candidate whether 
~ 
materially affected because of change of venue of the polling 
station - Standard of proof to be adopted - Held: It would be 
proof beyond reasonable doubt or beyond pale of doubt and 
not test of proof - Election of a returned candidate should not 
H 
796 
I 
KALYAN KUMAR GOGOi v. ASHUTOSH AGNIHOTRI 797 
AND ANR. 
normally be set aside unless there are cogent and convincing 
A 
~ reasons - Burden of proving that the votes not cast would 
have been distributed in such a. manner between the 
contesting candidates as would have brought about the defeat 
of the returned candidate lies upon one who objects to the 
validity of the election - Court has to see whether the burden 
B 
has been successfully discharged by the election petitioner. 
Election Laws -
Trial of election petition - Rule of 
~ appreciation of hearsay evidence - Application of -
To 
determine whether the result of the election of the returned c 
candidate was materially affected due to change of venue of 
the polling station - Held: Rule of appreciation of hearsay 
evidence would apply - Evidence - Hearsay evidence. 
Evidence: 
D 
-· '"T 
Hearsay evidence - Meaning of. 
)' 
,' 
Hearsay evidence - Not received as relevant evidence 
- Reasons for - Explained. 
The State Legislature Assembly Elections were held. 
E 
The respondent No. 2 was declared elected. The 
appellant-defeated candidate lodged a complaint before 
~ _,,_ 
the Returning Officer demanding re-poll at one of the 
polling station on the ground of shifting of the polling at 
a non-notified area and its subsequent shifting to the 
F 
notified place had materially affected the result of the 
election of respondent No. 2. The complaint was not 
entertained. The appellant then filed an election petition 
ulss. 80, 80(A) and 81 of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 seeking declaration that the election of G 
_,_ 
respondent No. 2, the returned candidate from the said 
constituency was void and to order directing repolling in 
Polling Station notified be made. The Single Judge of the 
High Court dismissed the election petition. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
H 
798 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.The heads of substantive rights in Section 
100(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are 
laid down in two parts: the first dealing with situations 
8 in which the election must be declared void on proof of 
certain facts and the second in which the election can 
only be declared void if the result of the election, insofar 
as it concerns the returned candidate, can be held to be 
materially affected on proof of some other facts. The 
C appellant-defeated candidate has totally failed to prove 
that the election of the respondent No. 2, who is returned 
candidate, was materially affected because of non-
compliance with the provisions of the Act of 1951, or 
Rules or Orders made under it. On the facts and in the 
circumstances of the

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