M. CHINNASAMY versus K.C. PALANISAMY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 17 · Decided: 21-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

M. CHINNASAMY 
A 
v. 
K.C. PALANISAMY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 21, 2003 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] B 
Election Laws : 
Representation of the People Act, 1951; Section 83: 
Parliament Election-Allegation of irregulatities in counting of votes C 
in a constitutency-Rejected by Returning Officer-Election petition-
High Court directed Election Authorities to allow inspection, recounting 
of ballot papers and to pass appropriate orders-On appeal, Held : 
Requirement of material facts in pleadings should have been followed 
strictly-Findings of Returning Officer not supported by material D 
particulars-Since documents in support of evidence not produced, High 
Court ought to have drawn adverse inference against election petitioner-
High Court erred in directing recounting without satisfying itself whether 
magnitude of errors in scrutiny/recounting of ballot papers would materially 
affect election results and whether prima facie case has been made out and E 
to take into consideration consequences emanating thereji·om-High Court 
ought to have proceeded cautiously with circumspection having regard to 
maintaining secrecy of ballot papers-Civil Procedure Code, 1908-0rder 
VI Rule 2. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : 
F 
Election petition-Allegation of irregularities in counting of votes-
Onus to prove-Held : Lies on the Election Petitioner-Degree· of proof 
must be of a very high standard and has to be discharged before issuing 
direction for recounting. 
G 
Evidence at variance with or beyond pleadings-Adducing of-Held: 
Neither permissible nor admissible in evidence. 
The question which arose for consideration in this appeal was as 
/ 
to what extent an election Tribunal could exercise its jurisdiction to H 
17 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A direct inspection of the ballot papers and recounting of votes polled 
while disposing ofan election petition in terms of Representation of the 
People Act, 1951. 
It was contended for the Appellant-Returned candidate that 
B allegations made in the election petition were general, vague and 
evidence submitted in support thereof were wholly inadmissible; that 
a manifest error has been committed by the High Court in accepting 
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in absence of material 
particulars in the election petition; that the High Court did not follow 
the correct test while directing recounting of votes; and that the 
C Election Tribunal can not direct a roving enquiry on the basis of 
general and bald allegations. 
On behalf of Respondent-Election Petitioner, it was submitted 
that it is not necessary to disclose the particulars of material facts but 
D material facts in concise form in an Election Petition;.and that since 
election agent of the petitioner alleged h regularities in counting of 
votes in all the segments of the Parliamentary constituency, 'he rule 
of pleading would not require disclosure of the detailed particulars. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I.I. It is trite that an order of recounting of votes can be 
passed only when the following ingredients are satisfied, viz: (1) If there 
is a prima facie case; (2) material facts therefor are pleaded; (3) the 
Court shall not direct recounting by way of roving or fishing inquiry; 
F and (4) such an objection had been taken recourse to. (28-q 
1.2. The parties are bound by the rule of pleadings and verifica-
tion thereof having regard to the facts that an election may not be set 
aside on hyper-technical grounds although no factual foundation 
therefor had been laid in the pleadings as the elected candidate may 
G not ha\'e any hand therein. But in a case where a direction for 
recounting of ballot papers has been prayed for, the Court must 
proceed cautiously and with circumspection having regard to the 
requirement of maintaining secrecy of balJot papers. The requirement 
of rule of pleadings containing material facts are salutary in nature. 
H 
(28-E-F) 
M. CHINNASAMYv. K.C. PALANISAMY 
19 
1.3. The allegations contained in the Election Petition are abso- A 
lutely vague and lack material particulars. Details as regard commis-
sion of alleged irregularities had not been disclosed. It goes to show that 
the Chief Election Agent of the Election Petitioner did not raise any 
objection before the Returning Officer and the counting staff as and 
when such irregularities purported to have been found out. The said B 
Agent of the Election Petitioner had not been exami

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