LexKATTINOKKULA MURALI KRISHNA versus VEERAMALLA KOTESWARA RAO & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 1063 KATTINOKKULA MURALI KRISHNA A .i v . • VEERAMALLA KOTESWARA RAO & ORS . (Civil Appeal No. 7701 of 2009) NOVEMBER 23, 2009 ,., [D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] B ELECTION LAW: Re-counting of votes - Panchayat elections - HELD: Since an order for inspection and re-count of ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as c a matter of course - Requirements for recount of votes - Explained - Election· Tribunal as also High Court lost sight of parameters to be applied while considering the petition seeking re-counting of votes - Doctrine of prejudice is an irrelevant factor for ordering re-count - Similarly, narrow margin of votes D between returned candidate and election petitioner does not .... per se give rise to a presumption that there had been an irregularity or illegality in counting of votes - Order of recount passed by Election Tribunal, as upheld by High Court, set aside - Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 - s. 233. Election petition - Material facts - HELD: Have to be E stated clearly in the election petition and then proved by cogent evidence - In the instant case, even the basic material facts as could have made the Election Tribunal record a prima facie satisfaction that recount of ballot was necessary, were missing in the petition. F EVIDENCE: ·Election petition - Onus to prove allegations of irregularity,· impropriety or illegality in the election process - HELD: Is on the election peti~ioner and not on the Election Officer- Election G Law. WORDS AND PHRASES: Expression 'material facts' - Connotation of in the context of Election law. 1063 H 1064 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A Respondent no. 1 filed an election petition u/s 233 of ~ the Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, challenging ., the election of the appellant to the post of Sarpanch of the \-- Gram Panchayat, primarily on the grounds of illegality is counting of votes and in rejection of votes polled in his - B favour as invalid. The Election Tribunal though found both the material issues in favour of the returned candidate, yet ordered recounting of votes, as, in its opinion, it would not cause any prejudice to the returned candidate. The High ... Court affirmed the order. Aggrieved, the returne~ candidate filed the appeal. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The salutary principle laid down in the Election Law is that since an order for inspection and re- count of the ballot papers affects the secrecy of ballot, such an order cannot be made as a matter of course. D Undoubtedly, in the entire election process, the secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct and inviolable except where strong .,.. prima facie circumstances to suspect the purity, propriety and legality in the counting of votes are made out. It would be trite to state that before an Election Tribunal can permit E scrutiny of ballot papers and order re-count, two basic requirements must be satisfied, viz., (i) the election petition· seeking re-count of the ballot papers must contain an adequate statement of all the material facts on which the allegations of irregularity or illegality in counting are F founded, and (ii) on the basis of evidence adduced in support of the allegations, the Tribunal must be, prima facie, satisfied that in order to decide the dispute and to Clo complete and effectual justice between thP ;.,arties, making of such an order is imperatively necessary. [para 11] [1073-A-C] G Suresh Prasad Yadav Vs. Jai Prakash Mishra & Ors. - I - (1975) 4 SCC 822; P.K.K. Shamsudeen Vs. K.A.M. Mappillai Mohindeen and Ors. (1989) 1 SCC 526; Vadivelu Vs. Sundaram & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 355, Mahendra Pal Vs. Ram Dass Ma/anger & Ors. (2002) 3 sec 457 I M. Chifinasamy Vs. H KATTINOKKULA MURALI KRISHNA v. VEERAMALLA1065 KOTESWARA RAO & ORS. KC. Palanisamy & Ors. (2004) 6 SCC 341, Baldev Singh Vs. .A ,i Shinder Pal Singh & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 341 and Pothula Rama Rao Vs. Pendyala Vf)nakata Krishna Rao & Ors. (2007) 11 sec 1, relied on. -< 1.2. Broadly stated, material facts are primary or basic facts which have to be pleaded by the election petitioner B to prove his cause of action and by the defendant to prove his defence. But, as to what could be said to be material facts would depend upon the facts of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down. [Para 11] [1073-C-D] c ' 1.3. In the i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.