MARKIO TADO versus TAKAM SORANG

Citation: [2013] 6 S.C.R. 475 · Decided: 10-05-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013) 6 S.C.R. 475 
MARKIO TADO 
v. 
TAKAM SORANG 
(Civil Appeal No. 8260 of 2012) 
MAY 10, 2013 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 141 - Act of judicial 
impropriety - State Legislative Assembly elections - Appellant 
declared elected defeating his nearest rival, the respondent C 
No. 1 - Respondent No. 1 filed election Petition challenging 
the election of appellant on ground of corrupt practice of booth 
capturing - Respondent no. 1 also moved I.A. alleging double 
voting claiming it to be a facet of booth capturing, and praying 
for calling of the records of the voters' counterfoils (in Form 
D 
17A) - Single Judge of the High Court called for such records, 
but that order set aside by the Supreme Court on ground that 
impersonation and double voting would amount to deception 
and it will be a facet of improper reception of votes and not 
booth capturing - Notwithstanding the judgment of Supreme 
E 
Court, subsequently, the Single Judge of the High Cotirt 
directed the. registers of voters (Form 17 A) to be sent to FSL 
for scientific examination and verification of signatures/finger 
prints and after examination of court witnesses including 
finger print expert, and the defence witnesses, allowed the 
F 
Election Petition - Further, the Single Judge held that 
respondent no. 1 had received more votes, and therefore, 
declared him as elected from the constituency concerned -
On appeal, held: The Single Judge of High Court clearly 
transgressed the limits of his jurisdiction by going into the 
G 
counterfoils of the voters inspite of the fact that the Supreme 
Court had already ruled in the facts of the present case, that 
no case was made out for calling of the counjerfoils - This 
amounts to nothing but judicial indiscipline and disregard of 
475 
H 
4 76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 6 S.C.R. 
the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution - The Election 
Petition was filed only on the ground of booth capturing which 
was not established - The Single Judge entered into an 
impermissible exercise, and deleted the votes received by the 
appellant which he considered to be tainted votes - The Judge 
B ignored that even if the ground of improper reception of votes 
u/s.100(1)(~)(iii) was to be taken, the respondent no.1 had 
failed to establish that the result of the election of the appellant 
had been materially affected by such improper reception of 
votes - Further, this resulted into a waste bf the time of the 
c Court, which is so precious - Representation of the People's 
Act, 1951 - s.123 (8) rlw s.135A & s.100 (1) (d) (iii) - Judicial 
discipline. 
In the State Legislative Assembly elections, the 
appellant was declared elected defeating his nearest rival, 
D the respondent No. 1, by 2713 votes. Respondent No. 1 
filed electioti Petition before a Single Judge of the High 
Court challenging the election of appellant on the ground 
of corrupt practice of booth capturing. 
E 
The respondent no.1 also moved an interlocutory 
application alleging double voting and praying for calling 
of the recor(ls of the voters' counterfoils (in Form 17A). 
The Single Judge of the High Court called for the record 
of registers of voters' counterfoils in form 17A, but that 
F order was set aside by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal 
No. 1539 of 2012. The Supreme Court held that booth 
capturing is a specific corrupt practice under section 123 
(8) read with section 135A of the Representation of the 
People's Act, 1951 which involves use of force, whereas 
G impersonation or double voting is on the basis of 
deception; that· impersonation or double voting would 
lead to improper reception of votes, which is another 
ground for declaring an election to be void under section 
100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act, and this ground was not pleaded 
in the petition nor was any issue framed thereon for trial; 
H 
MARKIO TADO v. TAKAM SORANG 
477 
that having failed to place any material with respect to 
A 
either booth capturing or impersonation, the first 
respondent was trying to make fishing and roving inquiry 
to improve his case by calling for the record of the voters 
register, in support of his grievance of double voting and 
that an order for inspection of ballot papers could not be 
B 
granted to support the vague pleas made in the petition 
not supported by material facts or to fish out the evidence 
to support such pleas. 
Notwithstanding the judgment of the Supreme Court, 
C 
subse

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