REKHA RANA versus JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 11 S.C.R. 20 · Decided: 10-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2009] 11 S.C.R. 20 
REKHA RANA 
v. 
JAIPAL $HARMA AND ORS. 
(Civil App~al No. 5891 of 2008) 
JULY 10, 2009 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Election Law - Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 -
ss. 94 and 62 - Principles of "secrecy of ballot" and "purity of 
C election" - Election petition filed challenging election of 
appellant - Allegation made that a large number of void 
votes had been cast in favour of appellant by impersonation 
- On application filed' by election petitioner, in course of 
recording of evidence, directlon passed by High Court for de-
D sealing of marked electoral rolls in order to put the same 
before a cited witness - Direction challenged - Held: On facts, 
inspection of marked electoral rolls was essential for 
determination of the issue raised by the election petitioner and 
did not impinge on "secrecy of ballot" principle as alleged -
E In any event, challenge not t~nable when tested on the. 
touchstone of "purity of election" principle - Twin conditions 
as contemplated in r. 93 for inspection of documents were also 
satisfied - Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 - r.93. 
Appellant was declared elected in the Assembly 
F Constituency elections. Respondent no.1 filed election 
petition challenging the election of ~ppellant, mainly on 
the ground that the appellant was beneficiary of a large 
number of void votes cast -in 
her favour by . 
impersQnation. Later, in course of recording of evidence, 
G Respondent no.1 filed application seeking a direction for 
opening of sealed marked electoral rolls in order to put 
the same to a cited witness. The application was allowed 
by the High Court by an interlocutory order which was 
H 
20 
"
REKHA RANA v. JAIPAL SHARMA AND ORS. 
21 
-f 
challenged in the present appeal. 
A 
It was contended by the appellant that the High Court 
committed a serious error of law in directing de-sealing 
of the marked electoral rolls inasmuch as the inspection 
thereof would result in the infringement of the principle 
B 
of "secrecy of ballot", so sacrosanct to the electoral 
process and that a mere assertion in the election petition 
that a large number of void votes had been cast in favour 
of the appellant by resorting to impersonation was not 
sufficient to allow inspection of any document in terms c 
of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Co4rt 
HE;LD: 1.1. The Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 
is a self coi;itained C-otfe on the subject of elections. 
D 
"Secrecy of Ballot" as provided in Section 94 of the Act 
wa;> mooted "to ensure free and fair elections". The 
Section provides that except in a case of voting by open 
ballot, no witness or other person shall be required to 
state for whom he has voted. The underlying object of the 
E 
provision is to assure a voter that he would not be · 
compelled, directly or indirectly, by any authority to 
disclose as to for whom he has voted, so that he may vote 
without fear or favour and is free from any apprehension 
of its disclosure against his will from his own lips. The 
F 
Section confers a privilege on the voter to protect him 
both in the Court when he is styled as a witness and 
outside the Court when he may be questioned about 
how he voted. This precisely is the principle of "secrecy 
of ballot", which has always been the hallmark of the 
concept of free and fair election, so very essential in the G 
~· 
democratic principles adopted by our polity. It is an 
indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections. [Paras 9 
and 10] [28-E-H; 29-A-C; 29-F; 30-8] 
H 
22 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 11 S.C.R. 
..... 
A 
1.2. Any interpretation of Section 94 of the Act 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 
democratic institution and not retard it. Section 94 cannot 
B be interpreted divorced from the constitutional values 
enshrined in the Constitution. Out of the two competing · 
principles, the "purity of election" principle must have its 
way and that the "rule of secrecy", as contemplated in 
'>-
Section 94 of the Act, cannot be pressed into service to 
c suppress a wrong coming to light and to protect a fraud 
on the election process. [Paras 10 and 11] [29-D-E; 31-A-
B] 
S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors. 
1980 Supp. SCC 53 and A. Neelalohitadasan Nadar Ii. 
D George Mascrene & Ors. 1994 Supp. (2) SCC 619, relied

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