LexS. SIVASWAML versus V. MALAIKANNAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D F G. H 10<1 s. SIVASWAMl v. . . V. MALAIKANNAN AND OTHERS September 27, 1983 • [D._ A. DESAI, v. BALAKRISHNA BRAD; AND R: B. ~!SRA, JJ. Election-Law-Representation of the People Act, 1951. Sections 80 to 83, 98, 100(1) (d) (iii) and (iv) and section 101.,-Rejection of ballot papers where the marking wa$ partially in the column of the cancUdate and partly in the shaded area artd also those .where ihe matking was partially in the candidates colun1n and partially on the dividing line in the botton1 as invalid, based on the illustration at page .40 of the pamphiet co~taining instruciions in . Tanzi/ and issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu--Validity of-Conduct of Election Rtt!es, 1961-:- Princip/e of Rule 39(2) (b) explained. ~ In the General Elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly held in May 1980, the appellant contested for the Ilayangudi Assembly ~onstitl!ency seat and was duly elected as ·he polled 34437 votes, The first respondent who had polled 34381 'votes and missed by a narrow margin of 56 votes filed an election· petition before the High Court of IVfadras on three grounds viz., (a) improper rejection by the Returt'ling Officer of valid votes cast- in'faVour of the respon~ · dent; (b) improper reception of invalid votes cast in favour of the appellant and (c) improp~r treatment of valid votes cast in' favour of the first respondent and the 3rd respondent as votes cast in favour of the appellant. _ The High Court accepted the petition on its finding on the first ground in favour of the Ist respondent and ordered resc.rutiny of the votes rejected as invalid. Hence the appeal by special leave. ' ~Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1:1 The pamphlet iSsued in Tamil titled ".A pamphlet showing illustrative cases of valid and invalid postal and ordinary ballot papers· ''(Ex P3) issued by the chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu ~is misleading and therefore should be withdrawn. [111 DJ 1:2. In the illust~ation of invalid papers app~aring at page 40 of the Book (Ex P3), the major partion of the marking is in the sh~ded_ area and a small portion of the. mark is in the column -of the candidate. Apparently what was intended to be printed was· an illustration showing a ballot paper in which the whole of the marking was in the shaded area only without any portion of it being in the column of the candidate. The illustration as printed in the pamphlet obviously conveys the errOneous impression tliat a ballot paper where the markin~ is partly in the column of the candidate and partly in the shaded a:rea is to be rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid. This is s. SIVASW AMI v. v. MALAIKANNAN ios directly contrary to the intendment of the relevant rule and also the expr~ss wordiilg of the instruction~ issued by the Election Commission. . . [IIO H; III A-BJ In the instant case the Returning Officer was obviously misled by the aforesaid illustration contained i'Il t.he pamphlet, Ex. P 3 and that was the sole reason why he rejeCted as invalid the ballot papers where the marking was contained partly in the column of the first respondent and partly on the demarcating line or shaded area. Had the Returning Officer taken the trouble to -study the instructions contained in the "Handbook for the Returning Officer" it should have been apparent to him that the illustration aforemen- tioned contained in Ex. P3 did not· correctly .reflect the J:>OSition laid down in the rules ~nd instructions. [111 C·DJ 2: 1 The essence of the principle in Rule 39(2) (b) of the Conduct Rulles, 1961, is that so long as the baliot paper bears a mark made with the instrument 11upplied for the purpose, the ballot papet shall not be rejected as invalid, if it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking as to the identity of the candidate in favour of whom the vote had been given. . [109 C-D] A B c 2:2. Nearly 90% of.the electorate in this country consists of illiterate D and uneducated rural folk totally unacquainted with the intricacies of the rules and technicalities of procedure p2rtaining to electiOns. , Even if the best of endeavour is made to explain to them such eomplicated rules· and ·procedures they may not be capable of grasping and fully understanding all the impli- cations and actually carrying thetilinto effect while exercising their.franchise. If the right confened on the people to choose their representatives to th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.