REJECTION OF BALLOT PAPER, COUNTING AND RE-COUNTING

Citation: Shankar Babaji Savant v. Sakharam Vithoba Salunkhe

Case No.: (1965) 2 SCR 403

Bench: R.S. Bachawat, P.B. Gajendragadkar, M. Hidayatullah, J.C. Shah, S.M. Sikri

Relevant Sections: The Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), S. 100 (1) (d) (iii)
Scope of-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, rr 35 and 36-Presiding Officers power to
disregard errors in election role-Extent of.

Keywords: Clerical Error and Rejection of Ballot Papers;

Relevancy: Rejection of ballot papers is a key purview of the tasks undertaken by potential
election officers, hence understanding its scope and the law governing it is essential.

Facts: Shankar Babaji Savant and Sakharam Vithoba Salunkhe were candidates for
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Mahad Constituency; both received equal valid
votes. Savant was declared elected via drawing lots by the Returning Officer. Salunkhe filed
an election petition claiming the election was void, primarily due to the Presiding Officer
preventing 19 voters from inserting their ballot papers into the box. The High Court declared
Savant's election void due to this, despite the ballots being sealed and indicating voter
preferences. The appeal questions whether Savant's election should be declared void given
the circumstances.

Key Issue(s): The effect of an error in the name of the elector on the elector roll, on the right
of the elector to vote at the election and subsequently rejection of ballot papers.

Ratio: The Court upheld the High Court order and interpreted Rule 35(4), 35 and 36 widely
and suggested that the Presiding Officer can overlook mere clerical or printing errors if he is
satisfied about the identity of the elector. But the power of the Presiding Officer to disregard
errors in the entry is not rigidly circumscribed by r. 35(4).
Citation: Chaitanya Kumar Adatiya v. Smt. Sushila Dixit and Others, (1976) 3 SCC 97

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 1654 of 1973

Bench: V.R. Krishna Iyer, R.S. Sarkaria and A.C. Gupta

Relevant Sections: Rule 38(2), 56(2)(a) and 93 of Election Rules, 1961; Section 123(1) of
the Representation of People Act, 1951.

Keywords: Spurious, ballot rejections and prima-facie satisfaction.

Relevancy: Awareness of the guidelines to take care while issuing ballot papers is a must,
further for rejection of ballot papers the condition of being “spurious” has its own pre-
requisites which are essential to be understood.

Facts: The case revolves around the 1972 election for the Madhya Pradesh Legislative
Assembly's Hoshangabad constituency. The appellant, an elector, contested the victory of the
first respondent, alleging various corrupt practices, including bribery, false statements, and
undue influence. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding irregularities in the election
process, such as non-compliance with election rules. Despite the appellant's efforts to amend
the petition, parts of it were struck off by the court for vagueness. The High Court ultimately
dismissed the petition, prompting the appellant's appeal, which challenges the ruling,
emphasizing the alleged corrupt practices and irregularities.

Key Issue(s): (1) Scope of “spurious” within Rule 56(2)(a) of the 1961 Rules; (2) if issue of
ballot papers without signatures and thumb impressions on the counterfoils are contrary to
Rule 38(2); (3) If findings of fact can be interfered with in an appeal.

Ratio: The Court held that an order for inspection of election papers cannot be made as a
matter of course and that it is only when on the basis of evidence adduced allegations of
irregularity are prima facie established and the Court is prima facie satisfied that the making
of such an order is necessary to do complete justice between the parties that an order for
inspection would be justified. Further, the Court also observed that in an Election Appeal
Case, findings of fact are not to be interfered with unless palpable errors are present.
Citation: Vadivelu v. Sundaram, (2000) 8 SCC 355

Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 6543 of 1999

Bench: Dr A.S. Anand, C.J. and R.C. Lahoti and K.G. Balakrishnan

Relevant Sections: Section 259(2), T.N. Panchayats Act, 1994 (21 of 1994) and Rule 51,
63(1)(h), 66 and 64(2), T.N. Panchayat (Elections) Rules, 1995.

Keywords: Re-Counting of Votes, degree of allegations and re-counting.

Relevancy: Upon ballot being declared invalid or violative of procedure, recounting can be
authorized but the procedure governing it is crucial for election officers and the situations in
which such an activity can take place is also crucial.

Facts: The appellant, Vadivelu, contested the election for President of Vannavalkudi Village
Panchayat, Pudukkottai District, Tamil Nadu, against respondent nos. 1, 2, and 3. The
election took place on October 12, 1996, and the 1st respondent, Sundaram, won by securing
1011 votes compared to the appellant's 1010 votes. Alleging irregularities during the vote
counting process, including the inclusion of deceased persons' names in the electoral roll,
impersonation, and erroneous treatment of valid votes as invalid, the appellant filed an
Election Petition under Rule 122 of the Tamil Nadu Panchayats (Elections) Rules, 1995.

The 1st respondent denied the allegations, arguing that the Election Petition lacked specificity
and substance. Witnesses were examined by both parties, and the Election Tribunal ordered a
recount upon finding discrepancies in the initial vote count. The appointed Advocate-
Commissioner's report showed the appellant securing 1002 votes and the 1st respondent,
Sundaram, securing 975 votes, leading to the Election Tribunal declaring the appellant as the
elected President.

The 1st respondent challenged the Tribunal's decision through a Revision Petition before the
Madras High Court, arguing against the justification for the recount and the legality of the
Election Petition's allegations. The Single Judge allowed the revision, dismissing the Election
Petition due to perceived inadequacies and declaring the recount as unjustified and illegal.
Consequently, the Election Petition was dismissed with costs. The present appeal is lodged
against this decision.
Key Issue(s): Whether in the instant case the Election Tribunal was justified in ordering a
recount.

Ratio: the justification for an order of recount of votes should be provided by the material
placed by an Election Petitioner on the threshold before an order for recount of votes is
actually made. The reason for this salutary rule is that the preservation of the secrecy of the
ballot is a sacrosanct principle which cannot be lightly or hastily broken unless there is prima
facie genuine need for it.

re-count of votes could be ordered very rarely and on specific allegation in the pleadings in
the election petition that illegality or irregularity was committed while counting. The absence
of signatures under the circumstances could not invalidate the ballot paper, which bore the
distinguishing mark of the polling station. Therefore, the Commissioner went wrong in
declaring these votes as invalid.