M.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN versus THACHADY PRABHAKARAN AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 460 · Decided: 13-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
M.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN 
v. 
THACHADY PRABHAKARAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 13, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
Election: Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 51-58, 63, 94, 
JOO, 123(3) and 128 Election to Legislative Assembly-Irregularity not 
advanced orally or in writing at the time of counting of votes-Whether 
constitutes irregularity in counting of votes-Whether could affect the result 
of election of the returned candidate-Held: No-consistent practice is that 
Courts do not to interfere unless there is grave or palpable error in the 
appreciation Jf evidence-Stressed 
/ 
I 
The appellant and respondents 1 to 7 were candidates for a 
Legislative Assembly seat. The total number of votes polled in the said 
election were 97,969, out of which 1,375 were rejected as invalid votes.-
At the end of final counting, the result of election was declared and the 
respondent No. 1 was returned as successful candidate by a margin of 
33 votes. 
The appellant challenged the election of the returned candidate by 
filing an election petition before the High Court on the grounds mainly 
that the counting of votes for the Legislative Assembly as well as 
Parliamentary constituency both took place simultaneously in a small 
hall which was of the size of 80 x 20 feet; there were several tables and 
chairs in the said counting hall and the ,counting agents of all the 
candidates and other officials were present in the hall, it became 
crowdy and the sorting out of bundles of ballot papers was done hastily 
and, therefore, it was not possible for the counting agents of the 
appellant to carefully keep a track of the process of sorting out and 
therefore a reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant or his 
agents to note and satisfy themselves that the bundles were really of the 
candidates for whom the votes were cast or the correctness of the ballot 
papers in each bundle. It was also alleged that the Returning Officer 
rejected the votes as invalid despite the protest by the appellant's 
election agent, and he made an application for recounting, alleging 
specific irregularities in the counting but the same was unreasonably 
rejected by the returning officer and the respondent No. 1 was declared 
elected. It has been further alleged that on 17.6,91 the appellant had 
460 
M.R. GOPALAKRISHNAN v. T. PRABHAKARAN 
461 
submitted an application to the District Collector for recounting and A 
the election agent of the appellant had also sent an application to the 
Chief Election Officer pointing out the irregularities in the counting. 
The appellant further alleged that several postal ballots were rejected 
without valid reason and the votes cast in favour of the appellant were 
treated as invalid and in many polling stations the figures in ballot 
paper account did not tally. 
B 
It was also alleged that several persons had cast their votes by 
committing acts of impersonation in place of real and genuine voters. It 
further alleged that 32 voters had cast their votes twice as their names 
were entered in the electoral roll in more than one place, and therefore, 
the result of the election had been materially affected in so far as the C 
returned candidate was concerned. 
The appellant also made allegations of corrupt practices by 
respondent No. 1 in the said election by publishing news items in the 
Malayala Manorma Daily to create an impression in the mind of the 
voters of the constituency that the appellant was indulging in D 
undesirable activities to secure the release of convicts who were 
undergoing life imprisonment for the purpose of making use of their 
services in the election and also alleged publishing of pamphlet and 
circulating the same with a false statement of the knowledge of 
respondent No. 1 and his election agent and due to circulation of the E 
pamphlets he lost large number of votes and also alleged violation of 
Rule 27(1) and Rule 54-A of the Election Rules. 
The Respondent No. 1 while refuting the allegations made against 
him and his election agent, filed a recrimination petition alleging that 
the appellant himself was guilty of committing corrupt practice as F 
defined in Section 123 of the Act. He further alleged that the appellant 
has committed corrupt practices namely publishing notices containing 
an appeal to voters belonging to Muslim and Ezhuva community to 
vote for L.D.F. candidate, which amounted to corrupt practice as 
defined under Section 100 rea

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