Shaligram Shrivastava vs Naresh Singh Patel on 19 December, 2002
In view of the tatio of the Apex Court referred to above it becomes cristal clear that where the Act or the Rules are silent, the Election Commission has no doubt preliminary powers under"Article 324 to give any direction in respect of the conduct of election and the said directions are only meant to supplement rather than supplant the law in matter of superintendence, direction and control as directed by Article 324 of the Constitution though the election laws being self contained code the said instruction/directions of the Election Commission are binding for the conduct of the election but their violation cannot create rights and obligations unknown to the election law and the Election Commission is of course entitle to act ex debito justitiae in the sense that it can take steps or direct that steps be taken over and above those which it is under an obligation to take under the law. Thus the instruction of the Election Commission of India in respect of obtaining a certificate of satisfaction from the candidates/election agents or in their absence from their Chief Counting Agents at the end of each round of counting is for the avowed object to safeguard the purity of the election process and for pushing forward a free and fair election. The certificate of satisfaction of all the rounds of counting except round No. 14 of the counting are on the records brought by respondent No. 1. The certificate of satisfaction in respect of third round of counting of votes is relevant regarding the controversy in this case. RW 14 Surendra Ram one of the contesting candidates in the said Panki Assembly constituency has deposed in para 3 of his evidence that after the end of each round of counting a paper was signed by the candidates present there and he has put his signature on the said paper and he has admitted his signature (Ext. A/14 to A/18) on the certificate of satisfaction of 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 7th round of counting of the ballot papers. He has further deposed that he identifies the signature of the election petitioner Bidesh Singh appearing on the certificate of satisfaction of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th round of counting and the said election petitioner has put his signature thereon in his presence and the signatures of the election petitioner was marked as Exts. C/l, C/2 and C/3 respectively thereon. There is evidence on the record to show that the election petitioner was present in the counting hall during the course of the counting. For this evidence of RW 1, RW 2, RW 3, RW 4, RW 7, RW 9 and RW 14 is referred to. The election petitioner in the very first paragraph of his cross-examination has admitted that he was also present in the counting hall. RW 3, a counting agent of respondent No. 1 has deposed in para 2 of his evidence that after the end of counting of each round the Returning Officer used to obtain satisfaction certificate in respect of the counting from all the contesting candidates present there and, thereafter, result of the said round of counting used to be declared. RW 7 has also deposed that after the end of each round at counting a form known as certificate of satisfaction used to be signed by all the contesting candidates present in the counting hall. Similar is the evidence of RW 14 in para 3 and RW 29 in para 1 in their testimony. There is neither averment in the election petition of the election petitioner nor any evidence on the record brought by the election petitioner to controvert the evidence aforesaid regarding the execution of certificate of satisfaction as per the instructions of the Election Commission after each round of counting of the ballot papers. However, P W 1, the election petitioner has admitted the fact that he is aware of the procedure of the counting of the ballot papers that after the completion of counting of each round is notified and prior to that it is signed by the counting agent present there.