LexSANTOSH YADAV versus NARENDER SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,, Election: SANTOSH YADAV v. NARENDER SINGH OCTOBER 30, 2001 [DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ., R.~. LAHOTI AND P. VENKATARAMA REDDY, JI.] Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 30 and 100(/)(d)(i)- Election petition-Election of returned candidate challenged-Plea that the result of the election materially affected due to improper acceptance of nomi- nation of one of the candidates-Absence of specific pleading setting out material facts and circumstances in support of the plea-Held, election peti- tioner failed to prove his case-Court cannot give .findings on conjectures and surmises. Election of returned candidate-Interference with-On account of fault of some other candidate-Held, should not be lightly interfered with unless proved that the result of the election concerning returned candidate was A B c D materially affected.. E Evidence: Burden of proof-Election matter-Held, onus is on election petitioner- Coun not to determine the mode of burden of proof, but to decide whether the burden has been successfully discharged by the petitioner. F In an assembly election, appellant, a candidate, sponsored by Indian National Lok Dal (INLD) lost to the respondent (returning candidates), a candidate sponsored by Indian National Congress (INC). Appellant filed election petition challenging the election of the re- G spondent on the ground that election of the respondent was materially affected by improper acceptance or candidature or 'N', one or the 17 candidates in the election, who had secured votes more than 59 times the margin of votes between the votes secured by appellant and the respond· ent. Had the nomination or 'N' been rejected the votes polled by him would H 545 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A have· otherwise been polled ln favour ot the appellant because 'N' had joined INLD in 1998 and having failed in getting ticket from the party he contested as independent ·candidatt. On account of his close association · with INLD, he scored high bomber of votes getting pro INLD and anti congress votes. B . High Court aeceptlng the plea of dlsqualification of 'N' held the election vitiated~ but refu5ed to Rt Aside the election of the respondent since the appellant had faUed in substantiating the plea raised in the election petition. C In appeal to this Court appellant contended that since in the election there was anti-congress drive, respondent could not have secured more votes than what he had secured, and the votes secured by 'N' being pro INLD would all have been diverted to the appellant; and the votes secured by 'N' should be treated as cut into INLD votes and the same or a major D chunk of these votes would have gone to the appellants. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The election petitioner-appellant has failed in discharging the heavy burden, which lay on her, of proving that the result E of election in so far as it concerns the returned candidates i.e. the respond· ent, has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of the nomi- nation of 'N'. (562-H] F 1.2. The burden of proof placed on the election petitioner is very strict and so difficult to discharge as nearing almost an impossibility. There is no room for any guesswork, speculation, surmises or conjectures i.e. acting on a mere P,OSSibility. Law requires proof .. How far that proof should go or what it should ~ontain is not provided by the legislature. [558-D] 1.3~ The burden of proving such material fact has to be discharged G by the election petitioner by adducing positive satisfactory and cogent evidence. H the petitioner is unable to adduce such evidence the burden is not discharged and the election must stand. This rule may operate harshly upon the petitioner seeking to set aside the election on the ground of improper acceptance of a nomination paper, but the Court is not con- H cerned with the inconvenience resulting from the operation of the law. - SANTOSH Y ADAV v. NARENDER SINGH 547 Difficulty of proof cannot obviate the need of strict proof or relax the A rigour of required proof. [558·B·C] 1.4. It cannot be held that merely because the number of wasted votes bears a high degree of proportion to the margin of votes between the winning candidate and the next highest candidate, an inference must al· ways be drawn that the result of the election was materially affected in so far as the returned candidate is concerned. There must be defini
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.