Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"We however do not touch or disturb the results of the votes secured in the other 34 polling stations which was done in accordance with law, namely, the use of ballot papers''.

10. The Election Commission of India issued Notification No. 495/KT-LA/84 dt. 18-4-1984. By the notification, 21st May 1984 was fixed as the date for taking a fresh poll at the 50 polling stations where the voting machines were used for the election held on 19-5-1982. A re-poll was conducted on 21st May 1984. After the re-poll the votes were counted on 22nd May 1984. The petitioner secured 20,067 votes. The respondent secured 19,335 votes. The resultant position was that the petitioner secured a total of 31,335 votes and the respondent a total of 32,781. It could be seen that though the petitioner secured 732 votes more than the respondent, in the polling conducted on 21-5-1984, the respondent was declared elected on the basis of 2,178 votes which he had secured more than the petitioner in the election conducted in 1982.

"Having regard to statutory setting and comprehensive jurisdiction of the Election Court we are satisfied that it is within its powers to direct a re-poll of particular polling stations to be conducted by the specified agency under the Election Commission and report the results and ballots to the Court. Even a repoll of postal ballots, since those names are known can be ordered taking care to preserve the secrecy of the vote. The Court may, if necessary, after setting aside the election of Rule 3 (if there are good grounds therefor) keep the case pending, issue directions for getting available votes, order recount and/or partial re-poll, keep the election petition pending and pass final order holding the appellant elected if, only if, valid grounds are established. Such being the wide ranging scope of implied powers we are in agreement with the learned Addl. Solicitor General that all the reliefs the appellant claims are within the Court's powers to grant and Sri Ram's alarm is unfounded".

22. Having regard to the provisions referred above I feel justified in concluding that a fresh poll/re-poll ordered by the court also has to be held following those provisions prescribed for a fresh poll in the Act, in regard to cases under Sections 58 and 64A of the Act. Counsel for the respondent submits that an examination of Sections 34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of the Act would strengthen his argument that in the case of a re-poll, the return of the deposit under Section 34 is of no consequence and would not affect the validity of the re-poll.

29. Now, I shall consider the issues touching upon the Electoral Roll The Issues are 2,3,4, 5 and 6. The petitioner submits that valid and legal electoral roll was not followed in the election held on 21-5-1984. He states with reference to the qualifying date, namely, 1-1-1984, an electoral roll of the constituency was prepared in the prescribed manner and has been finally published on 28-1-1984. According to him, the electoral roll published on 28-1-1984 should have been followed in regard to any election after 25-1-1984, including the re-poll ordered by the Supreme Court Admittedly in the re-poll held on 25-1-1984 the electoral roll of 1980 as supplemented in 1982 was the electoral roll that was followed The counsel submits that the 1980 Electoral Roll supplemented in 1982 had no existence in the eye of law after the publication of the electoral roll on 25-1-1984. The counsel argues that the re-poll was held on the basis of an illegal and non- existent electoral roll and so the election is void He submits that this is a valid ground for declaring the election to be void under Section 100(1)(d)(iv). In this context the counsel urges that there is no specific direction by the Supreme Court when it ordered a re-poll, as to which electoral roll to be followed for the re-poll. The counsel referred me to certain provisions regarding the preparation of the electoral roll He has invited my attention to Sections 14(b), 21 and 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 14(b) gives the definition of "qualifying date" in relation to the preparation or revision of every electoral roll under this part, as the first day of Jan. of the year in which it is prepared or revised Section 21 deals with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls. The electoral roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made under the Act Much reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner on Section 23(3). Section 23 deals with inclusion of names in electoral rolls. It is provided that any person whose name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of his name in that roll But it is provided in Sub-section (3) of Section 23 that no amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry shall be made under Section 22 and no direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given under this section after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency within which that constituency is comprised and before the completion of that election. It is clear that the dead line prescribed is "the last date for making nomination for an election in that constituency". The statute prescribes that no voter even if he is eligible can get his name included in the voters' list after the last date for making nominations for election in that constituency. The counsel for the petitioner submits that this prescription of the date is applicable only in regard to amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry in an electoral roll, and not in respect of a fresh and a new electoral roll The counsel referred me to Rule 22 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. Rule 22 deals with the final publication of roll by the registration officer. Sub-clause (2) of Rule 22 makes it clear that when once publication is effected, the roll together with the list of amendments shall be the electoral roll of the constituency.