Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"10-A. Section 94 cannot be interpreted or examined in isolation. Its scope, ambit and underlying object must be ascertained in the context of the Act in which it finds its place, viz., the Representation of People Act, 1951 and further in the context of the fact that this Act itself was enacted in exercise of power conferred by the articles in Part XV titled "Elections" in the Constitution. An Act to give effect to the basic feature of the Constitution adumberated and boldly proclaimed in the preamble to the Constitution, viz., the people of India constituting into a sovereign, secular, democratic republic, has to be interpreted in a way that helps achieve the constitutional goal. Preamble sets out the political society which we wanted to set up and, therefore, it must be given all importance. The realisation of goals and vision set out in the preamble forms the fabric and permeates the whole scheme of Constitution. The goal on the constitutional horizon being a democratic republic, a free and fair election, a fountain spring and cornerstone of democracy, based on universal adult suffrage is the basic. The regulatory procedure for achieving free and fair election for setting up democratic institution in the country is provided in the Act. Further, Sikri, C.J., Shelat, Grover, Hegde, Mukherjea & Reddy, JJ. in Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalavaru v. State of Kerala24 have in clear and unambiguous terms laid down that republic democratic form of Government is one of the basic and essential features of our Constitution. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner25, Krishna Iyer, J. has quoted with approval a statement of Sir Winston Churchill which reads as under: (SCC p. 413, para 2) At the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper--no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussions can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point.....

*** *** ***

15. Having said this, the substantial question is whether Section 94 enacts an absolute prohibition or a total embargo on a voter being questioned about how he voted which will infringe the secrecy of a ballot? The question is whether it is the privilege of the voter to refuse to answer a question as to for whom he voted or in order to ensure the secrecy of ballot there is a total embargo and absolute prohibition on finding out through the mouth of a voter for whom he voted? Is it inviolable in any situation, or contingency? Undoubtedly, secrecy of ballot is a keystone in the arch of constitutional democracy and that it rests on public policy, namely, that a voter shall be free from any kind of constraint or fear or untrammeled by any apprehension while voting. But this basic postulate of constitutional democracy, namely, secrecy of ballot was formulated not in any abstract situation or to be put on a pedestal and worshipped but for achieving another vital principle sustaining constitutional democracy, viz., free and fair election.

40. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is a statute that enables us to cherish and strengthen our democratic ideals. To interpret it in a manner that assists candidates to an election rather than the elector or the electorate in a vast democracy like ours would really be going against public interest. As it was famously said by Churchill: "At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper..." if the electoral law needs to be understood, interpreted and implemented in a manner that benefits the "little man" then it must be so. For the Representation of the People Act, 1951 this would be the essence of purposive interpretation."

We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid conclusion."

Thus, the cases cited by Sri Goyal stand on a complete different footing. The facts of the present case are completely distinguishable.

Conclusion:

It is a trite that free and fair election is a beating heart of the democracy. A careful reading of the judgments of the Supreme Court, referred to above, leads to inescapable conclusion that secrecy of ballot has always been considered sacrosanct and key-stone in the arch of democracy. One of the basic objects of secrecy of the ballot paper is to subserve the highest principle of the constitutional democracy, to maintain purity of the election for ensuring free and fair election. For the purity of the election, it is necessary that a voter must have an atmosphere free from fear, favour, hostility and tension. The disclosure of his choice under any fear or favour or compulsion strikes at the very root of purity of the election.