LexSASHI BHUSHAN versus PROF. BALRAJ MADHOK & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c i> E F H 177 SASHI BHUSHAN v. PROF. BALRAJ MADHOK & ORS. October 22, 1971 [K. S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] Electiolf-Serious alle11ations a11ainst Election Commi.<sion that it en- abled temoerin!l with ballot 11aoers-No direct evidence of allegations- Scrutiny of ballot 11aoers-ll should be ordered. In the last general election to the Lok Sabha the appellants were de· clared elected and the respondents, who were the unsuCCCl!sful candidates challenged the validity of the election on the ground that the ruling party had rigged the election. According to the respondents many ballot papers were chemically treated so that the mechanically stamped marks in favour of the successful candidates by using invisible ink emerged and the mark actually put at the time of polling disappeared after a few days. It was alleged that this was done as a result of conspiracy between the ruling party and the Election Commission, and that the Election Commission took certain unusual steps for facilitatin~ the substitution of chemically treated ballot papers. There was no direct evidence of the allegations and the respondents sought to probabilise their version by alleging that the colour of a large number of ballot papers was different from the colour ·of the original ballot papers, ·and that at the time of counting, it was noticed that the marking was uniform and at an identical spot in each of the ballot papers in favour of the appellants. · The trial Judge permitted inspection ol' all the ballot papers polled. In appeal to this Court it was contended that : (I) that the allegations of the respondent were propaganda stunts wholly devoid of truth; "(2) that the attention of the Returning Officer was not invited to the alleged strange features at the time of counting, '1nd ( 3) that the scrutiny of ballot papers could not be allowed as it violates the secrecy of the ballot. Dismissing the appeals, HELD : (I) Assuming that the allegation made was mere propaganda it was in the public inter_est that the allegations are required into the propaganda exposed. Merely because allegations made are difficult to accept they cannot be dismissed summarily. In all such matters the court's aim should be to render complete justice between. parties. If the allegations made raise issues of public importance greater care and circum· spection is necessary. The allegation that the electoral process has been fouled is a very serious allegation and is a challenge to the integrity and impartiality of the Election Commission and a challenge to the survival of democratic institutions. (180 G-H; 181 A-B; 182 B-C] (2) Assuming that the persons concerned .did not inform the Return· ing Officers of what they obse.rved at the time of counting, it does not estop th~ respondents from takmg the pleas in the election petitions. It is only a circumstance to be considered on the question of value to be attach- e.d to the allegation. Even assuming that the respondents made the allega- ttons as a result of not merely observing certain facts at the time of count- ing hut on the basis of various rumours, that by itself is not sufficient to brush aside the allegations. [181 G-HJ . (3). No rigid rules have been laid nor can be laid down for allowing m.spect1on of ballot papers. The overriding test is the interests of justice, tiependmg on the facts of each case. A judge while deciding the question 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. of inspection of ballot papers must bear in mind the importance of the secrecy of ballot. Secrecy of ballot is important but doing justice is more important and it would be more so if what is at stake is the interests of society. The allegations in support of the prayer for ibspection must not be vague or indefinite. They must be supported by material facts and the prayer made must be a bonn fide one. Further, the allegations regarding the chemical treatment of ballot papers in the present case, cannot be proved in any other manner than by inspection. [182 C-D; 184 E-G] But the High Court erred in permitting a general inspection of the ballot papers. It would be sufficient if some substantial number of ballot papers polled by each of returned candidates are selected from different bundles and compared with the ballot papers cast in favour of the respon- dents. If the trial Judge thereafter com°" to the conclusion that the matter 1hould be further probed into he ma
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.