http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: HARI RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: HIRA SINGH & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/11/1983

BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:  1984 AIR  396            1984 SCR  (1) 932  1984 SCC  (2)  36        1983 SCALE  (2)1107  CITATOR INFO :  R          1992 SC1163  (5,9)

ACT:      Election  Law-Secrecy   and   Sacrosanct   nature   and maintenances thereof-In  an  election  petition,  whether  a court,  on   an  interlocutory  application  pass  an  order directing  the  Returning  Officer  to  produce  the  marked electoral  Rolls  for  inspection  and  allow  the  election petitioner to  inspect the  counterfoils-Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,  Rule 93  read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act.

HEADNOTE:      In the  election held for the Metropolitan Council from the Narela  Constituency, the  appellant  Hari  Ram  secured 12,369 votes  and was  declared elected. The respondent Hira Singh who  secured 12,131  votes filed  an election petition before the  Delhi High  Court making a number of allegations against  the   appellant.  He   preferred  an  interlocutory application praying for a direction to the Returning Officer to produce  the marked  electoral rolls  for inspection  and also for  allowing inspection of the counter-foils. The High Court granted both the prayers and hence this appeal.      Allowing the appeal, the Court ^      HELD:  1.1   Before  allowing   the   prayers   at   an interlocutory stage,  the High  Court must  examine  whether proper foundation  was laid  for inspection  and  sufficient materials placed  before it  and pass  an order  which would result in  adversely affecting  the secrecy  and  sacrosanct nature of the electoral process. Inspection of ballot papers and counterfoils  should be  allowed very sparingly and only when it  is absolutely  essential to determine the issue. In the garb  of  seeking  inspection,  the  defeated  candidate should not  be allowed  to make a roving inquiry in order to fish out materials to set aside the election. [934 A-C]      Bhabhi v.  Sheo Govind and Ors., [1975] Supl.] SCR 202, followed.      1.2 The  approach of  the High  Court, in  the  instant case, at the very outset was legally incorrect. It was under a wrong  impression that  it  had  ample  powers  to  direct

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

production of  any document  under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence   Act   and   over-looked   the   fact   that   the Representation  of   People  Act   was  a  special  Act  and provisions  of  the  Evidence  Act  or  the  Code  of  Civil Procedure would only apply where they are not excluded. [935 D-E]      2.1 A  perusal of  Rule 93  of the  Conduct of Election Rules, 1961  clearly shows  that the Legislature intended to make a clear distinction between 933 one set of documents and another. So far as the 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 cost iron case was made  out for  the same;  whereas documents mentioned in clauses (a)  and (b) of Sub Rule (2) of Rule 93 (as amended) could be liberally allowed to be inspected. [937 D-E]      Ram Sewak  Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai & Ors., [1964] 6 SCR 238; applied.      2.2 In  the instant case, the attempt of the respondent petitioner for  inspecting marked  electoral role  by making vague allegations  was nothing  but to fish out material for challenging the  election of  the appellant  and it  clearly violated the  sanctity and secrecy of the electoral process. [937 G]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10062  & 10063 of 1983.      Appeals by  Special leave  from the  Judgment and Order dated the  8th September & 19th September, 1983 of the Delhi High Court in Election Petition No. 2/83.      F. S.  Nariman, S.  P. Pandey and N. N. Agarwal for the Appellant.      S. N. Marhva and K. C. Dua for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      FAZAL ALI.  J. By an order dated 15th November, 1983 we had allowed  the appeal  of the  appellant and set aside the order of  the High  Court without  making any  order  as  to costs. This  election appeal  arises out of an interlocutory by order  passed by  the Delhi  High Court on an application given by  the respondent for directing the Returning Officer to produce  the marked  electoral rolls  for inspection. The Court also  granted further  prayer of  the  respondent  for allowing inspection  of the  counterfoils.  The  High  Court granted both the prayers and hence this appeal.      The appeal  arises out  of the  election held  for  the Metropolitan Council  from the  Narela  Constituency.  As  a result of  the poll  the appellant  Hari Ram  secured  12369 votes and  Hira Singh  (respondent) 12131  votes.  Thus  the appellant was  declared elected.  The  respondent-petitioner had made  a number  of allegations against the appellant but in the  present  appeal  we  are  only  concerned  with  the interlocutory prayer  made by  the respondent for inspection of marked electoral rolls and the counterfoils. 934      In support  of the  appeal, Mr.  Nariman submitted that the High  Court gravely erred in allowing the prayers at the interlocutory  stage   without  examining   whether   proper foundation was  laid for  inspection and sufficient material placed before  the Court  in order to allow the prayer which would  result   in  adversely   affecting  the  secrecy  and sacrosanct nature  of the electoral process. In our opinion,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

the contention  of the  appellant is  well founded  and must prevail.      It is now well settled by a long course of decisions of this Court  that inspection of ballot papers and conterfoils should be  allowed  very  sparingly  and  only  when  it  is absolutely essential  to determine the issue. This Court has further laid down that in the garb of seeking inspection the defeated candidate  should not  be allowed  to make a roving inquiry in  order to  fish out  materials to  set aside  the election. In  the case  of Bhabhi  v. Sheo  Govind & Ors.(1) this Court clearly observed thus:-           "Thus on  a close and careful consideration of the      various authorities  of this Court from time to time it      is  manifest   that  the   following   conditions   are      imperative before  a Court can grant inspection, or for      that matter sample inspection, of the ballot papers:      (1)  That it  is important  to maintain  the secrecy of           the ballot  which is  sacrosanct and should not be           allowed to  be violated  on frivolous,  vague  and           indefinite allegations;      (2)  That before  inspection is allowed the allegations           made against  the elected  candidate must be clear           and specific  and must  be supported  by  adequate           statements of material facts;           .....     .....    .....    .....      (5)  That the  discretion conferred on the Court should           not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the           applicant to  indulge in  a roving  inquiry with a           view to  fish (out)  materials for  declaring  the           election to be void; and 935      (6)  That on  the special  facts of a given case sample           inspection  may   be  ordered   to  lend   further           assurance to  the prima  facie satisfaction of the           Court regarding  the truth of the allegations made           for a  recount, and not for the purpose of fishing           out materials."      After going  through the judgment of the High Court and the application  of the respondent-petitioner for inspection of the  documents concerned,  we are  satisfied that no case for inspection was at all made out and the  High Court erred in allowing  the prayers of the respondent and acted against the settled principles as extracted above.      To begin  with, the High Court seems to have been under the impression  that the  Court had  ample powers  to direct production of  any document  under section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. In doing so with due deference, the High Court overlooked that  the Representation  of  People  Act  was  a special Act  and provisions  of the Evidence Act or the Code of Civil  Procedure would  only apply  where  they  are  not excluded. Thus,  at the  very outset,  with due respect, the approach  of   the  High   Court  was   legally   incorrect. Furthermore, in the case of Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai  &   Ors.(1)  this   Court  while   interpreting  the provisions of Rule 93 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the Act, made the following observations:-      By rule  93 of  the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, it      is provided that:      "(1) While in the custody of the returning officer-           (a)  the packets of unused ballot papers;           (b)  the packets  of used  ballot  papers  whether                valid, tendered or rejected;           (c)  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-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

              section (2) of section 152; and 936           (d)  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 or                a competent court or tribunal.      (2)  All other papers relating to the election shall be           open  to   public  inspection   subject  to   such           conditions and to the payment of such fee, if any,           as the Election Commission may direct.      (3)  Copies of  the returns  by the  returning  officer           forwarded under  rule 64  or as  the case  may  be           under sub-rule  (3) of  rule 84 shall be furnished           by  the  chief  electoral  officer  of  the  State           concerned on  payment of  a fee  of two rupees for           each such copy.           The rule  makes a clear distinction between ballot      papers and  other election papers; ballot papers may be      inspected only  under the order of a competent court or      tribunal, but  other documents  are, subject to certain      conditions, open to public inspection." The Court further observed :           "The Returning  Officer  is  not  a  party  to  an      election petition,  and an  order for production of the      ballot papers  cannot be  made under O.11 Code of Civil      Procedure. But  the Election  Tribunal is  not on  that      account without  authority in  respect  of  the  ballot      papers. In a proper case where the interests of justice      demand it,  the Tribunal  may call  upon the  Returning      Officer to  produce the  ballot papers  and may  permit      inspection by  the parties  before  it  of  the  ballot      papers...           An order  for inspection  may not  be granted as a      matter of  course: having regard to the insistence upon      the secrecy  of  the  ballot  papers,  Court  would  be      justified in  granting an order for inspection provided      two conditions are fulfilled: 937      (i)  that the  petition for  setting aside  an election           contains an  adequate statement  of  the  materiel           facts on which the petitioner relies in support of           his case; and      (ii) the Tribunal  is prima  facie  satisfied  that  in           order to  decide the  dispute and  to do  complete           justice between  the  parties  inspection  of  the           ballot papers is necessary.           An order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be      granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not      supported by  material facts or to fish out evidence to      support such  pleas. The case of the petitioner must be      set  out  with  precision  supported  by  averments  of      material facts."      A  perusal   of  this   rule  clearly  shows  that  the Legislature intended to make a clear distinction between one set of documents and another. So far as the counterfoils and the market 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)  & (b) of sub-rule  2 of  Rule  93  (as  amended)  could  be liberally allowed to be inspected.      We are  afraid that  the High  Court has not kept these principles  in  view  while  allowing  the  prayers  of  the

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

respondent. The  main ground  put forward  by the respondent was that  there were  a number of dead persons for whom also votes were  cast. Despite  this allegation  no  details  and particulars were given nor was it even mentioned whether the Polling Agent  of the  respondent had  made any  note of the fact that  votes were actually cast for dead persons and the number  of   these  votes.   The  allegations  made  by  the respondent-petitioner in  his application for inspection are frightfully vague.  There is no allegation as to whether any vote was  cast for  the dead  persons and  this is  what the respondent sought  to find  out  by  inspecting  the  marked electoral rolls.  It is  manifest that  this attempt  of the respondent was  nothing but  to fish  out the  material  for challenging the  election of  the appellant  and it  clearly violated the  sanctity and secrecy of the electoral process. Thus, the  High Court  was clearly  wrong in  allowing  such prayers  for   inspection.  As  far  as  the  inspection  of counterfoils, was  concerned, even  the respondent  did  not press for  the same  realising that  he had not made out any strong case for such an action. 938      For the  reasons given  above, we, therefore, allow the appeal and  set aside the order of the High Court dated 19th September, 1983  and reject  the prayers  for inspection  of marked rolls  and counterfoils. There will be no order as to costs. S.R.                                          Appeal allowed 939