New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held
that re-counting of votes cannot be ordered on mere "bald"
allegations of a defeated candidate as it would otherwise
affect the sanctity of the election process.
A bench of Justices D K Jain and Aftab Alam said even
if there is a slender difference of four votes, re-counting
can be ordered only if there is sufficient material evidence
from the aggrieved candidate to prove that the winning
candidate had won by unfair means.
"In our considered opinion, it cannot be the intention
of the legislature that a bald allegation of irregularity in
the counting process would ipso facto (automatically) warrant
a re-count.
"Such an interpretation of the provision, in our
view, would not only tantamount to automatic conversion of a
petition under Section 176(1) of the Act (Representation of
Peoples Act) into an order for recounting, it would be
destructive of the settled principle of secrecy of poll, as
also violative of letter and spirit of Section 183 of the
Act which mandates every officer, agent etc who performs duty
in connection with recording or counting of votes, to maintain
the secrecy of votes," the bench said.
The apex court made the remarks while upholding the
appeal of Udey Chand who was elected sarpanch of the Bas
Badshahpur in Haryana`s Hissar district by a margin of four
votes over his nearest rival Surat Singh in 2005. However, the
election tribunal ordered re-counting of votes on a petition
filed by Surat Singh.
The re-counting was ordered on the mere allegation by
Surat Singh that the Returning Officer had connived with Udey
Chand in declaring the latter as elected even though it was he
who had originally won the election.
Udey Chand moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court
challenging the direction for re-counting in but the Court
dismissed hiS appeal, after which he filed the special leave
petition in the apex court.
Upholding the appeal, the apex court said the defeated
candidate had levelled serious allegations against the
Returning Officer and the winning candidate but had not
produced any material fact to support the claim. Yet, the
Tribunal and the High Court chose to order re-count of votes.
"Nonetheless, the secrecy of the ballot being
sacrosanct, it cannot be permitted to be tinkered with lightly
and an order of re-count cannot be granted just for the
asking.
"We have no hesitation in holding that a petition for
re-count as contemplated under clause (b) of Section 176(4) of
the Act must contain adequate statement of material facts on
which the election petitioner relies in support of his
allegation(s) and it must also be supported by some
contemporaneous evidence to show irregularity or illegality in
the counting," the bench said.
Bureau Report
