LexRAGHBLR SINGH GILL versus GURCHARAN SINGH TOHRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"A B .H 1302 RAGHBlR SINGH GILL v. GURCHARAN SINGH TOHRA & ORS. May 9, 1980 [A. C. GUPTA AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.] Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 94-Secrecy of voting -Scope of Section 94--Constitution of India Articles 326 & 327--Tam- pering with records-Applicability of Section 64A of the Act to the present case-Rule 56(2) of the Election Rules, scope of-Section !OO(d)(l) (iii) of the Act and void elections--Petition for recount, when to be order- ed-Non-appearance of election Petitioner in tile witness box, whether viti- ates the petition-Interference by Supren1e Court in an election petition. An election petition waS :filed by the respondent against the appellant, a returned oo.ndidate1 to the council of the State from the constituency of the Punjab Legislative Assembly, on the ground that the result of the election was materially effected (a) by non-compliance with the provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the rules made thereunder; (b) by improper reception of votes in his favour by tampering with the postal ballot papers and by commission of corrupt practice in the interest of ·the al>pellant by it8 agents and also commission of corrnpt practice by obtaining assistance of persons in the service of the Punjab Government. The appellant denied all the allegations and contested the petition. The High Court found that the four baHot papers one each allotted to iP.Ws. (the voters) Nos. 13, 14, 15 and 16 were tampered with in that each the voter had cast his firn pre- ference vote in favour of unsuccessful Akali candidate Gurcharan Singh Tohra and no second preference vote was indicated and each one of the vote was so altered as to appear that each one of them has cast his first prefer· ence vote in favour of the appellant and second preference vote in favour of Gurcharan Singh. The High Court allowed the election petition and dec- lared the unsuccessful Akali candidate Gurcharan Singh Tohra as elected and set aside the election of the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: (1) Section 94 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 cannot be interpreted or examined in isolation. Its scope, ambit and underlying object must be a!certained in the context in which it finds its place in the Act, and further in the context of the fact that the Act itself was enacted in exercise of power conferred by Articles in Part XV titled "Election" in the Constitution with a. view to achieve the constitutional goal, viz., setting up of democratic sovereign socialist secular republic. For this a free and fair election, a fountain spring and corner stone of democracy, b~ on universal adult suffrage is the basic. The regulatory procedure for achieving! free and fair election for setting up democratic institution in the country is provided in the Act which includes the cross or performooce indicated by the dumb-sealed lip voter in the ballot paper. That is his right and the trust reposed by the Constitution in him ~ that he will act as a responsible citizen choosing his masters for governing the countiy for the period prescribed by it. Therefore, any interpretation of s. 94 must essentially subserve the purpose for which it is enacted. The interpretative process must advance the basic postulate of free and fair election for setting up democra<ic institution and not retard it. [1312 G-H, 1313 A·C, E-F] ' • RAGHBIR SINGH GILL V. GURCHARAN SINGH 1303 H. II, Kr.,avananda Bharali Sripadaga/avaru v. State of Kera/a, [1973] A • '.Suppl. S.C.R. 1; Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commis.rioner, New Delhi & Ors., [1978] 2 S.C.R. 272, referred to. (2). It is legitimate and indeed proper to have recourse to heading and sub-heeding given to a group of sections in an Act of Parliament to find guidance for the construction of the words in a statute. One of the canons of construction is that every section Of a statute is to be construed with refe- rence to the context and other sections of the Act, so as, as far as posSl'ble, to B make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. [1316 F-G] Rex v. Board of Trade, Ex-parte St. Martin's Pr~rving Co. Ltd., [1965] 1 Q.B. 603 at 607 referred to. "--'. (3). Provisions cast in negative words are generally treated as absolute I" . .admitting of no exception. But this is not a universal rule. The words 'negative' and 'affirmative' statutes mean nothing in particular. The question
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.