LexYOGENDRA SINGH TOMAR versus BAR COUNCIL FOR UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ [2013] 17 S.C.R. 559 YOGENDRA SINGH TOMAR v. BAR COUNCIL FOR UTIARAKHAND AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 11176 of 2013) DECEMBER 17, 2013 [ANIL R. DAVE AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) Bar Council of Uttarakhand Election Rules, 2009 - Rules A B 20, 22 and Form C!Rules for Election of Chairman and Vice Chairman, 2009 - State Bar Council - Election to the post of C Chairman - Three of the ballots rejected by Returning Officer - Respondent No. 3 declared elected - Appellant challenged the election and sought for recounting, treating the rejected votes in his favour - Single Judge of High Court personally examining the rejected ballots , declared them valid in favour D of the appellant - Division Bench of High Court held that rejection of the ballots by Returning Officer could not have been questioned - On appeal, held: The Election Rules have been carelessly drafted - Unless the provision relating to Method of Voting (r. 20), provision stipulating when the voting E papers can be declared invalid (r. 22) and instructions for guidance of voters (Form CJ are read conjointly, harmoniously and purposely, the whole exercise will lead to chaos - Direction to hold fresh election as per Rules - Advocate. Appellant and the third responcfent contested for the election of Chairman of Bar Council of Uttarakhand. Respondent No. 3 was declared as elected. The appellant filed writ petition seeking declaration of the election as F null and void and also sought for recounting of the votes by treating the rejected votes in his favour as the same G were cast in accordance with the stipulations made in Bar Council of Uttarakhand Rules, 2009. The Single Judge of High Court personally examined the rejected votes and held that in view thereof, the appellant had secured 559 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 17 S.C.R. A higher number of first preference votes than respondent No. 3 and hence he deserved to be elected as the Chairman. In compliance of the order, the appellant took charge as the Chairman. In appeal, against the order of Single Judge, Division Bench of High Court held that the B rejection of the ballots by the Returning Officer could not have been questioned and allowed the appeal. Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Rules have not been appositely drafted C and more care should have been taken in drafting the same. The Bar Council of Uttarakhand would be well advised to bring in an apposite set of Rules for election of the ..:hairman and Vice-Chairman in accordance with the Advocates Act, 1961 in clear cut terms so that D hereinafter these kind of disputes do not arise. [Para 24] [572-A-C] 2. Rules 20 (Method of Voting) and 22 (Voting'Papers when invalid) of the Bar Council of Uttarakhand Election t: Rules, 2009 along with form "C" ,which provides for instruction for the guidance of voters, they are to be read conjointly, harmoniously and purposively. Unless there is a holistic reading of the Rules and the Form, the whole exercise is likely to lead to a chaos and it has actually led F to such a situation. The ballot papers were not printed in accordance with the Rules. [Para 22] [571-A-B] 3. It is directed that there should be a fresh election for the post of the Chairman and it should be open to all the eligible candidates to contest. The Returning Officer G shall notify the date and the election should be held as per Rules. The returning Officer shall fix a schedule so that by 10.1.2014 the results are declared. It is further clarified that the election tribunal, as stipulated in the Rules, shall be constituted much before as per the Rules H so that the writ petitions are not filed directly before the YOGENDRA SINGH TOMAR v. BAR COUNCIL FOR 561 UTTARAKHAND High Court. It is also clarified that if a candidate has A followed the method of voting as prescribed in paragraph 4 of Form "C" which is in accord with Rule 22(f) of the 2009 Rules, his ballot paper shall not be declared invalid . .. The election held shall be for a period of one year as prescribed under the Rules and it shall be treated as a B fresh election and the period shall commence as prescribed under the Rules. [Para 23) [571-E-G] 4. In any democratic institution, like the Bar Council, where holding of election is imperative, the authllrity C concerned, the aspirants and the electoral college have a greater degree of responsibility. Collective collegiality must surface. There
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.