Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"In our opinion, Clause 23 (a) takes away the power of the Electoral Registration Officer or the Chief Electoral Officer to correct the entries in the electoral rolls or to include new names in the electoral rolls of a constituency after the last date before the completion of that election..............We interdict the concerned officers from interfering with the electoral rolls under the prescribed circumstances. It puts a stop to the power conferred on them. Therefore, it is not a question of irregular exercise of power but a lack of power............We have earlier come to the conclusion that the Electoral Registration Officer had no power to include new names in the electoral roll on April 27, 1968. Therefore, votes of the electors whose names were included in the roll on that date must be held to be void votes."

There is a blanket ban in Section 23(3) on any amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry or the issuance of any direction for the inclusion of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency.......... This prohibition is based on public policy and serves a public purpose explained Supreme Court. Any violation of such a mandatory provision conceived to Patna High Court E.P. No.6 of 2011 dt.23-04-2014 28 pre-empt scrambles to thrust into the rolls, after the appointed time, fancied voters by anxious candidates or parties spells invalidity and we have, therefore, not doubt that if in flagrant violation of Section 23(3), names have been included in the electoral roll, the bonus of such illegitimate votes shall not accrue, since the vice of voidance must attach to such names. Such void votes cannot help a candidate to win the contest. In paragraph 18 Supreme Court further pointed out that there is an underlying public policy and a paramount public purpose served by Section 23(3). In the electoral scheme as unfolded in the Act, every elector ordinarily can be a candidate. Therefore, his name must be included in the list on or before the date fixed for nomination. Otherwise he loses his valuable right to run for the elective office. It is, thus vital that the Electoral Registration Officer should bring in the names of all the electors into the electoral roll before the date and hour fixed for presenting the nomination paper. There is another equally valid reason for stressing the inclusion of the names of all electors before the hour for delivering to the Returning Officer the nomination paper. In the light of the provisions the Returning Officer on receipt of the nomination paper, satisfies himself that the candidate's name and electoral roll number are correctly entered. Necessarily, this is possible only if the electoral roll contains the names of all the electors. Likewise, Section 33(5), which deals with a candidate who is an elector from a different constituency requires of the candidate the production of a certified Patna High Court E.P. No.6 of 2011 dt.23-04-2014 29 copy of the relevant entry showing his name in such a roll. The inference is inevitable that there must be a completed electoral roll when the time for filing the nomination paper expires. The argument is, therefore, incontrovertible that the final electoral roll must be with the Returning Officer when the last minute for delivering the nomination paper ticks off. Subsequent additions to the electoral register will inject confusion and uncertainty about the constituents or electors, introduce a disability for such subsequently included electors to be candidates for the election and run counter to the basic idea running through the scheme of the Act that in the preponderant pattern of elections for the legislative assemblies and parliament, the electors shall have the concomitant right of being candidates. The cumulative effect of these various strands of reasoning and the rigour of the language of Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that inclusion of the names in the electoral roll of a constituency after the last date for making nominations for an election in that constituency must be visited with fatality. Such belated arrivals are excluded by the talons of the law, and must be ignored in the poll. In support of the aforesaid proposition the supreme Court quoted from its earlier decision in the case of Baidyanath Panjiar (supra).