PAOKAI HAOKIP versus RISHANG & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 637 · Decided: 12-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH, G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
637' 
PAOKAI HAOKIP 
v. 
RISHANG & ORS. 
August 12, 1968 
[M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J. AND G. K. MITTER, J.] 
Repl'es.ntlition of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 100 (l)(d) (iv)-
Election petitioner to prove that 
election 
result 
materially 
affected-
Evidence of witnesses, evaluation. 
ln an eleCtion to a Parliamentary constituency, having 2,19,554 voters 
1,20,008 votes were polled. Of these 4, 168 votes were declared invalid. 
The appellant won by securing 1,541 votes more than the next candidat<>-
tbe respondent. The respondent filed an election petition on the ground · 
that the polling was disturbed as the polling centres were in some cases 
changed without due notification, at some polling stations almost no votes 
were cast because of firing at rioters and at some polling 
stations the 
polling hours were reduced. Only 1,894 votes were polled at these polling 
booths, in which the total number of voters attached were 8,620. so 6,726 · 
voters could not vote 
The Judicial Corumissioner ordered fresh poll in 
these polling stations. · In appeal by the returned candidate, 1h!5 Court. 
HELD : The appeal must succeed. 
The decision of the Judicial Corumissioner that the election was in' 
contravention of the Act and the Rules was correct in the circumstances 
of. this case but that did not alter the position with regard to s. 100(1 )(d) 
(iv) of the Representation of the People Act. That section requires that. 
the election petitioner must go a little further and prove that the result 
of the election had been materially affected. And in this case this burden' 
had not been discharged. [643 F] 
The evidence in this case which had been brought by the election' 
petitioner was the kind of evidence which was criticised by this Court. 
Witnesses were brought forward to state that a number of voters did not 
vote because of the change of venue or because of firing and that they 
had already decided to vote en bloc for the election petitioner. This kind 
of evidence was merely an assertion on the part of a witness. who could 
not speak for 500 voters for the simple reason that as this Court said the 
casting of votes at an election depends upon a variety of factors and it 
is riot possible for anyone to predicate hOw many or which proportion of 
votes will go to one or the other candidates. 
This conclusion is further 
fortified if one examines the polling pattern in this election. 
Not more 
than 55% Of the voters cast their votes. This irumediately cut down the 
figure of 6, 726 to a little over half and the margin from which 
the 
election petitioner could claim additional votes therefore becomes exceed-
ingly small. From the pattern of voting as was disclosed at the various 
polling booths to which the voters had gone, it was clear, that 1,541 votes 
could not. by any reasonable guess. have been taken off from the lead of 
the returned candidates so as to make the election petitioner successful. 
In ~ fa'r as the other contesting candidates were concerned, they had 
received so few votes that even if they had received all the votes that 
had not been cast, it would have mattered little to the result of the elec-
tion. 
The Judicia1 O:>mmissioner reached his conclusion by committing 
the same error which was criticised in Vashist Narain Sharm:ds case. He 
took the statement of witnesses at their word and held on the basis of 
638 
SUPREME COl:RT Rt:l'ORTS 
[1969] I SCR 
1hcse Sl3tcmcnl< that au the votes 1hat hat! not been cast would hO\"C aone 
A 
to the election petitioner. 1642 B-t>43 EJ 
Vashi•t Narain Sharma v. Dn· Ch.mdra and Ors. (1955] 1 
S.C.R. 
509, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR!SIJICTtON : Civil Appeal No. 683 of 
J 968. 
Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951 from the Judgment and order dated January 10, 1968 
of the Judicial Commissioner of Manipur in 
Election 
Petition 
Case No. 2 of 1967. 
D. Goburdhun, for the appellant. 
K. R. Chaudhuri, K. Rajendra Chaudhuri and C. S. Srcenivasa 
Rao, for respondent No. I. 
'The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
llidayatullah, C.J. This is an appeal from the Court of the 
Judicial Commissioner for Manipur at Imphal under s. I 16A of 
the Representation of People Act. 
The appeal arises from an 
election to the Outer Manipur Parliamcntaty Constituency 
at 
which the appellant, who was the returned c;indidate, and five 
-Others were the contesting candidates. This Outer Manipur Con-
stituency comprised 14 Assem

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