http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: BASANAGOUDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DR. S. B. AMARKHED AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1992

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1163            1992 SCR  (2) 397  1992 SCC  (2) 612        JT 1992 (2)   484  1992 SCALE  (1)770

ACT:      Election:      Representation  of  the  People  Act,  1951/Conduct  of Election Rules, 1961:      Section 87, 100(1)(b) & (d), 135A/Rule 93:      Corrupt  practice-Booth capturing-Allegations  must  be specifically pleased with material particulars-Production of documents  sought-Court’s discretion to examine  expediency, justness  and relevancy of documents in the light  of  clear pleadings-Need for maintaining secrecy of ballots-Suggestion to  Rule  making  authority-To  have  fresh  look  into  the mandatory  language of Rule 93(1) bringing it in  conformity with section 135A.      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908      Order 11 Rule 14, Order 16 Rule 6:      Production   of   documents-Election   matters-Relevant considerations for ordering production-What are.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant was declared elected as a member of  the State  Assembly.   The  Respondents,  who  was  the  nearest unsuccessful candidate filed an Election Petition before the High Court, challenging the election of the appellant.   One of  the grounds alleged was that the appellant had  indulged in booth capturing and rigging of booths in certain  polling booths, with the connivance of police officials and election agents  of  the  appellant.  It was also  alleged  that  the appellant  and  his  supporters prevented  the  voters  from exercising  their  franchise by threatening them;  that  the ballot papers were seized from the officials and were marked in  favour  of  th  appellant;  and  that  the   appellant’s supporters  forged the signatures/thumb impressions  on  the counter  foil  of ballot papers.  The High  Court  framed  4 issues, the main among them being the alleged capturing  and rigging of polling                                                   398 booths.      The respondent also filed an application under Order XI Rule 14 read with Order XVI Rule 6 CPC seeking production of certain  documents  by the District Election  Officer.   The High Court allowed the petition and summoned the  documents.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

Accordingly,  the documents were produced by  the  Returning Officer.      The  present  appeal is against the said order  of  the High Court.      On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that  the respondent  laid  no  factual  foundation  in  the  election petition  with material particulars of the alleged capturing of  the booths and rigging; that there were no pleadings  at all  and  no case has been made out for opening  the  ballot boxes  and  examining the used ballots; and  that  the  High Court did not appreciate the legal implication arising  from its order.      On  behalf of the respondents it was contended that  it would  be  impossible for a candidate to  plead  allegations with precision particularly when his election agents and the officials  including  the  Police connived  with  the  other candidate; that unless the election material is summoned and perused it would be difficult to substantiate such plea; and that  the  order challenged being an  interlocutory  one  it could be assailed in the regular appeal, after the  Election Petition was decided.      Partly allowing the appeal, this Court,      HELD:  1.  The  High Court was wrong  in  holding  that though  no factual foundation has been laid in the  election petition,  but  since  there  were  allegations  of   booth- capturing and rigging in various paragraphs of the  petition it  was necessary to summon and examine the documents  asked for  by  the respondent.  The examination of  marked  ballot papers   and  other  used  ballot  papers  can  in  no   way substantiate  the allegations of  booth-capturing.   Neither the names of persons nor any other details were given in the election  petition.   Only bare allegations were  made  that votes   of  dead  persons  and  those  who  had   left   the constituency  had been cast.  In the circumstances the  High Court grossly erred in permitting the summoning of items (a) to (c) and (e) of para I of the application.  As regards the other  items,  there is no need to interfere with  the  High Court’s order. [407B-D]      2.  The  power  to order  production  of  documents  is coupled with discre-                                                        399 tion  to examine the expediency, justness and the  relevancy of  the  documents  to the matter in  question.   These  are relevant considerations which the Court shall have to advert to  and  weigh before deciding to summon  the  documents  in possession  of the party to the election petition.   At  the same time the election petition proceedings being of  quasi- criminal  nature  the allegations in the  petition  must  be pleaded  clearly and with full particulars;  especially  the grounds of corrupt practices cannot be permitted to be tried on   the  basis  of  deficient  pleadings  or   by   filling applications for production of record to fish out grounds as material  which is not part of the pleadings.  In  any  case secrecy  of  the ballot boxes cannot be tinkered  unless  an iron-cast case is made out in the election petition.[403F-H] is made out in the election petition. [403F-H]      3. Booth-capturing wholly negates the elections process and  subverts  the  democratic set up  which  is  the  basic feature  of our Constitution. Booth-capturing has  now  been made an offence under section 135 A of the Representation of the  People Act.  The allegation of the booth-capturing  and rigging,  if  proved, is a corrupt  practice  under  section 100(1)(b) and materially affects the result of the  election under  clause  (1)  (d)  and  also  is  a  disqualification. Therefore,  the  allegation  must  be  specifically  pleaded

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

giving material particulars. [405B-D]      4.1.  The Court while exercising its power under  Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVI Rule 6 CPC would also have to  keep in view the rigour of sub-rule (1) of Rule 93 of the Conduct of  the  Election Rules, 1961, relating  to  production  and inspection of election papers. [405D-E]      4.2.  In  order to maintain the secrecy of  the  ballot papers,  unless adequate material facts are on record  which alone   would   afford  adequate  basis  to   exercise   the discretion  by  the court, the packets or  the  used  ballot papers with counter foils attached thereto or the packets of used  ballot  papers  whether valid,  tendered  or  rejected cannot  be opened.  Equally the packets or  declarations  by electors and the authorisation of their signatures shall not be  opened unless ordered by the court in that behalf.   The court  shall  not  permit a roving  enquiry  to  enable  the defeated  candidates/election  petitioner  to  have   access thereto  to  fish out the grounds.  The  High  Court,  would therefore,  be circumspected to order summoning the  records covered under Rule 93(1). [406F-H]      Hari Ram v. Hira Singh & Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 932 and Ram Sewak  Yadav  v. Hussain Kapil Kidwal & Ors., [1964]  6  SCR 238, relied on.                                                   400      5.  To  effectuate the objects of section 135A  of  the Representation of the People Act it may be open to the  rule making  authority  to  have fresh look  into  the  mandatory language of Rule 93(1), so as to bring it in conformity with section 135A of the Act. [407A]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIC APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1210 of 1992.      From  the  Judgement  and  Order  dated  25.11.1991  of Karnataka High Court in E.P. No. 11 of 1990.      Ms.   Parmila  M.  Nesargi  and  R.C.  Misra  for   the Appellant.      K.  Madhava Reddy, B.Rajeshwar Rao, D.  Parkash  Reddy, Vimal Dave and M. Veerappa for the Respondents.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      K. RAMASWAMY, J. Special Leave granted.      The appellant was declared on November 27, 1989 to have been  elected  as  a member  of  the  Karnataka  Legislative Assembly  from 23 Manavi Assembly Constituency from  Raichur Dist.  The respondent is the nearest unsuccessful  candidate who  called  it in question in Election petition No.  11  of 1990 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.  He sought to declare that the election of the appellant as void  under section  100(1)(a)(b) and (d) of the Representation  of  the People  Act  43  of 1951 for short ’the Act’.   One  of  the grounds  alleged is corrupt practices stated  in  paragraphs IV(6)  to  (12)  that the appellant had  indulged  in  booth capturing  and  rigging  of booths  in  Polling  Booth  Nos. 5,6,7,68,73,74,88,91 to 96,100,102 & 103, most of which  are said  to be situated in Bagalwad Mandal Panchayat  to  which the  appellant was the erstwhile Pradhan.  According to  the pleading,   the   Modus  operandi  adopted  was   that   the appellant and his supporters "threatened the officials  with full  connivance  of the police officials and  that  of  the election  agents of the petitioner, captured  the  booth.... Respondent  No.  1  (appellant)  and  his  supporters   have prevented the voters from exercising the franchise and  sent them  away  threatening them, thereafter seized  the  ballot

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

papers  from  the  officials and thus put  the  X-mark  seal against  the  symbol  of bicycle  (election  symbol  of  the appellant).  They put them in the ballot boxes by  using  so respondent  No. 1(appellant) and his supporters  put  either thumb impression or forged                                                        401 signatures on the counter foils of the Ballots, and in  some counter-foils  no  signature was put.  Thus it  was  alleged that  the appellant secured 80 to 90 per cent of  the  votes polled.  It  was  also stated  that  the  Returning  Officer lodged  F.I.Rs.,  which were registered as case No.  371  of 1989 and 370 of 1989 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Manvi against the  appellant.   It was admitted in the  written  statement that  repolling  in Booth Nos. 6 & 7 was ordered  which  was accordingly  held on November 26, 1989.  The other  material allegations  were  denied in the written  statement  of  the appellant.  As many as 4 issues have been framed.  Issue No. 2  relates  to  the alleged capturing  and  rigging  of  the polling  booths  referred to hereinbefore.   The  respondent filed  I.A.No.5/1991 under Order XI Rule 14 read with  Order XVI  Rule  6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908  for  short ’the Code’ read with s.87 of the Act.      In  the I.A., the respondent sought production  of  the following  documents by the 7th respondent,  Dist.  Election Officer, Deputy Commissioner Raichur:      1.  In the respect of the following polling  booths  of 23-Manvi     Assembly    Constituency-Raichur-Booth     Nos. 5,68,73,74,88,91  to 96,100,102,103 and 105,  the  following document.      (a)  The packets of unused ballot papers  with  counter foils attached thereto.      (b)  the packets of used ballot papers  whether  valid, tendered or rejected.      (c)  the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot.      (d)  the  packets of the marked copy of  the  electoral roll; and      (e) the packets of the declaration by electors and  the attestation of their signatures.      (f) report on the Election by the Returning Officer.      (g)    Presiding   Officer/Polling    Officers    diary maintained.      II. Complaint given presiding Officer/Polling  Officers of  polling  booths Nos. 6 and 7 (only), to  the  CPI  Manvi about corrupt practices by                                                        402 Respondent No. 1 and his protagonists and also to Respondent No. 7.      III.  Vehicle movement Register (diary)  maintained  by SSB   wireless (mobile Unit II to SSB Raichur) on  23.11.89, from CPI Manvi.      IV.  Calling for original letter of  resignation  dated 6.12.89  given to Deputy Commissioner Raichur by  Respondent No. 1.      It  would appear that the appellants’s counsel  in  the High Court did not choose to file a counter but pressed  for decision  on the petition on merits.  The High Court by  its impugned order dated November 25, 1991 allowed the  petition and  summoned  the  above  documents.  As  per  the  counter affidavit  filed by the respondent (election petitioner)  in this  court,  the documents were produced in  the  court  on December 10, 1991 by the Returning Officer (7th respondent).      The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is  that  the respondent laid no factual foundation  in  the election  petition with material particulars of the  alleged capturing  of the booths and rigging. Only bold  allegations

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

bereft  of particulars was made.  There are no pleadings  at all and no case is made out for opening the ballot boxes and examining the used ballots.  To fill in the gaps and to make roving  enquiry  to  fish  out  grounds  to  set  aside  the election,  the petition was filed to summon  the  documents. The  High  Court did not appreciate  the  legal  implication arising  from the order. This Court in catena  of  decisions depricated  such an attempt. In support thereof  strong  the reliance was placed on Hari Ram v.Hira Singh & Ors.,  [1984] 1 SCR 932, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned Senior  counsel for  the  respondent  contended that apart  from  all  other allegations the plea of the capturing the booth and  rigging at  the poll is a serious offences punishable under  section 135A  of the Act, impinging upon the efficacy of  democratic process of fair election and so it should be depricated with heavy  hands.   It would be impossible for  a  candidate  to plead   allegations  with  precision  in  this  behalf,   in particular,  when  the  election  agents  of  the  candidate (election  petitioner) connived with the  winning  candidate and  the  officials  or the  police.   Unless  the  election material  is summoned and perused it would be difficult  for the  election  petitioner  to substantiate  the  plea.   The previous  decisions  of this court are to be viewed  in  the light of the object of s.135A. Therefore, the High Court  is justified  in  exercising its power under Order XI  Rule  14 C.P.C.  to produce the record. The order of the  High  Court thereof is not vitiated by an error of law.  It is also                                                        403 contended  that the impugned order is an  interlocutory  one and  it  would  be open to  the  respondent,  if  ultimately unsuccessful, to assail its validity in the appeal.      The  diverse  contentions  give rise  to  the  question whether the order of the High Court is legal. Under s.87  of the Act the High Court, subject to the provision of the  Act and  Rules, if any, made thereunder, shall try the  election petition  as  if  it is the trial of the  suit  adopting  as nearly as may be the procedure applicable to the suit  under the  Code.  Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. empowers  discovery  and inspection of the records and Rule 14 is the under :           "Production  of Documents-It shall be  lawful  for the  court, at any time during the pendency of any suit,  to order  the  production by any party thereto, upto  oath,  of such  of the documents in his possession or power,  relating to  any matter in question in such suit, as the court  shall think  right;  and the court may deal with  such  documents, when produced, in such manner as shall appear just".      The Court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be  lawful for it to order the production, by any  party  to the  suit, such documents in his possession or power  relate to  any  matter in question in the suit provided  the  court shall  think right that the production of the documents  are necessary to decide the matter in question.  The court  also has  been  given  power  to deal  with  the  documents  when produced  in such manner as shall appear  just.   Therefore, the  power to order production of documents is coupled  with discretion  to  examine  the expediency,  justness  and  the relevancy of the documents to the matter in question.  These are  relevant considerations which the court shall  have  to advert  to  and  weigh  before  deciding  to  summoning  the documents  in  possession  of  the  party  to  the  election petition.   At  the  same  time  the  election  petition   - proceedings  being of quasi-criminal nature the  allegations in  the  petition  must be pleaded  clearly  and  with  full particulars,  especially  the grounds of  corrupt  practices cannot  be permitted to be tried on the basis  of  deficient

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

pleadings or by filing applications for production of record to  fish  out grounds as material which is not part  of  the pleadings.   In any case secrecy of the ballot boxes  cannot be  tinkered  unless an iron-cast case is made  out  in  the election  petition.   Section  135A  which  was  brought  on statute with effect from                                                        404 March  15,  1989 under Amendment Act 1  of  1989  prescribes booth  capturing to be an offence and the person  committing it  shall be punishable with imprisonment for a  term  which shall not be less than six months and which may be  extended to a maximum of two years and fine.  Where such offence  was committed by a person in the service of the Govt., he  shall be  punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall  not be  less than one year but which may extend to  three  years and  fine.   Booth  capturing  has  been  explained  in  its explanation thus :          "For the purpose of this section "booth  capturing"          includes,  among  other things, all or any  or  the          following activities, namely:-           (a) Seizure of a polling station or a place  fixed          for  the  poll  by any person  or  persons,  making          polling authorities surrender the ballot papers  or          voting  machines and doing of any other  act  which          affects the orderly conduct of election;           (b)  taking possession of a polling station  or  a          place  fixed for the poll by any person or  persons          and  allowing only his or their own  supporters  to          exercise  their  right to vote and  prevent  others          from voting;           (c)  threatening  any elector and  preventing  him          from going to the polling station or a place  fixed          for the poll to cast his vote;           (d)  seizure of a place for counting of  votes  by          any   person   or  persons  making   the   counting          authorities  surrender the ballot papers or  voting          machines  and the doing of anything  which  affects          the orderly counting of votes;           (e)  doing  by  any  person  in  the  service   of          Government,   of  all  or  any  of  the   aforesaid          activities  of  aiding or conniving  at,  any  such          activity in the furtherance of the prospects of the          election of a candidate."      This is an inclusive explanation and seizure of polling station,  taking  possession  thereof  and  making   polling authorities  to  surrender  the  ballot  papers  or   voting machines  and  doing  of any other  act  which  affects  the orderly  conducting of election etc. have  been  enumerated. They are only                                                        405 explanatory   and   inclusive  but  not   exhaustive.    The Parliament used words of width with generality to lug in  or encompass   diverse   acts  or  omissions   innovated   with ingenuinity  to escape from clutches of law.  It  is  common knowledge  that in the recent past there have  been  various complaints regarding booth-capturing.  The tendency to over- awe the weaker section of the society and to physically take over  the polling booths meant for them is on the  increase. Booth-capturing  wholly  negates the  election  process  and subverts  the democratic set up which is the basic  features of  our constitution.  During the post independent  era  ten parliamentary elections have entrenched democratic polity in this  country  which  cannot be permitted to  be  eroded  by showing  laxity in the matter of booth-capturing  which  has now  been  made  an offence under s.135A of  the  Act.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

allegation  of booth capturing and rigging, if proved, is  a corrupt  practice under s.100(1)(b) and  materially  affects the  result  of the election under cl.(1)(d) and also  is  a disqualification.    Therefore,  the  allegation   must   be specifically  pleaded  giving  material  particulars.    The nature and various acts of capturing booths were  enumerated in  the  explanation  to s.135A.  As stated  they  are  only illustrative  but  not exhaustive.  Diverse  ways  would  be innovated  to capture booths and rigging.  The  court  while exercising  its power under Order XI Rule 14 and  Order  XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. would also have to keep in view the rigour  of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 93 of the Conduct of the Election Rules 1961  for  short ’the Rules’ which provides  production  and inspection of election papers thus:           "93(1).  Production  and  Inspection  of  Election          Papers  while  in  the  custody  of  the   district          election  officer  or,  as the  case  may  be,  the          returning officer           (a)  the packets of the unused ballot papers  with          counterfoil attached thereto;           (b)  the  packets of used  ballot  papers  whether          valid, tendered on rejected;           (c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot          papers;           (d)  the  packets  of  the  marked  copy  of   the          electoral  roll  or, as the case may be,  the  list          maintained under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)          of s.152; and                                                        406           (e)  the packets of the declarations  by  electors          and the attestation of their signatures; shall  not          be opened and their contents shall not be inspected          by,  or  produced before, any person  or  authority          except under the order of a competent court.           (2) Subject to such conditions and to the  payment          of such fee as the Election Commission may direct,           (a)  all  other papers relating  to  the  election          shall be open to public inspection; and           (b)   copies  thereof  shall  on  application   be          furnished.           (3) copies of the returns by the returning officer          forwarded  under  rule 64, or as the  case  may  be          under  clause (b) or sub-rule (1) of rule 84  shall          be  furnished  by the returning  officer,  district          election  officer, chief electoral officer  or  the          Election  Commission  on payment, of a fee  of  two          rupees for each copy."      This Court while considering the effect of Rule 93 held in Hari Singh v. Hira Singh & Ors. (supra), that perusal  of this  Rule  clearly shows that the Legislature  intended  to make  clear  distinction between one set  of  documents  and another.  So far as counterfoils and the marked copy of  the electoral   rolls  were  concerned,   there  was  a   strict prohibition for opening these documents unless the court was fully  satisfied that a cast iron case was made out for  the same; whereas documents mentioned in clauses (a) and (d)  of sub-rule  (2)  of Rule 93 could be liberally allowed  to  be inspected.   This  was also the view in Ram Sewak  Yadav  v. Hussain  Kamil  Kidwal  & Ors, [1964] 6 SCR  238.   Thus  to maintain  the  secrecy  of  ballot  papers  unless  adequate material  facts  are  on record  which  alone  would  afford adequate basis to exercise the discretion by the court;  the packets or the used ballot papers with counterfoils attached there to or the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered  or rejected cannot be opened. Equally the  packets

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8  

of  declarations by electors and the authorisation of  their signatures  shall not be opened unless ordered by the  court in that behalf.  The court shall not permit a roving enquiry to enable the defeated candidate/election petitioner to have access  thereto  to fish out the grounds.  The  High  Court, would  therefore,  be circumspect to  order  summoning  that records covered under rule 93(1).  To effectuate the ob-                                                        407 jects of s.135A of the Act it may be open to the rule making authority to have fresh look into the mandatory language  of Rule  93(1), so as to bring it in confirmity with s.135A  of the Act.      The  High  Court in the impugned order  has  held  that though  no factual foundation has been laid in the  election petition, but since there are allegations of booth-capturing and  rigging  in various paragraphs of the  petition  it  is necessary  to summon and examine the documents asked for  by the  respondent.  We do not agree with the High Court.   The examination  of marked ballot papers and other  used  ballot papers can in no way substantiate the allegations of  booth- capturing.   Mr.  Madhva  Reddy,  learned  counsel  for  the respondent,  contended  that the marked  ballot  papers  are required  to prove that votes of dead persons and those  who had left the constituency were polled.  Neither the names of persons  nor  any other details are given  in  the  election petition.  Only bare allegations are made that votes of dead persons  and  those who had left the constituency  had  been cast.   We are, therefore, of the view that the  High  Court grossly  erred in permitting the summoning of items  (a)  to (c) and (e) of para I of the application.  We set aside  the High Court order to that extent.  As regards items (d),  (f) and  (g) of para I and paras II and III of  the  application are  concerned,  we are not inclined to interfere  with  the order  to the High Court.  The appeal is partly  allowed  in the above terms with no order as to costs. G.N.                                  Appeal partly allowed.                                                        408