Karnataka high court held that ( apex court stayed it now)
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Sections 81, 83 & 100 — Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 — Rules 54A & 63 — Election Petition — Recount of postal ballots — Mandatory re-verification — Victory margin less than rejected postal ballots — Effect.
Where the margin of victory was only 201 votes while 279 postal ballots were rejected, the petitioner contended that the Returning Officer was mandatorily required to re-verify all postal ballots before declaration of result. The Court considered the allegation that failure to conduct re-verification materially affected the election result and examined whether non-compliance with Election Commission guidelines and Rules regarding postal ballots justified recount or setting aside the election.
— Paras relating to Issues Nos.1, 2, 3 & 15.
Election Law — Handbook issued by Election Commission — Nature of instructions — Whether mandatory or directory — Handbook vis-à-vis statutory Rules.
The returned candidate contended that the Handbook for Returning Officers is merely a guiding document and cannot override the Representation of the People Act, 1951 or Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Reliance was placed on paragraph 1.2.1 of the Handbook stating that it is not a substitute for statutory provisions. The Court examined whether instructions contained in the Handbook regarding mandatory re-verification of postal ballots possess binding force.
— Paras discussing Handbook and statutory scheme.
Postal Ballots — Rejection of ballots — Requirement of recording reasons — Failure to maintain proper records — Effect on sanctity of counting process.
The petitioner alleged that 279 postal ballots were rejected without recording reasons as required under Rule 54A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Evidence of the Returning Officer disclosed that reasons for rejection were not recorded in writing and no endorsement was made on rejected postal ballots. The Court examined whether such lapses vitiated the counting process.
— Relevant discussion in evidence of PW.2.
Election Petition — Recount of votes — Conditions for grant — Fishing and roving inquiry impermissible.
The returned candidate contended that the application seeking recount was vague and based merely on “doubt” regarding postal ballots without specifying any illegality or irregularity. It was argued that recount cannot be ordered for conducting a fishing or roving enquiry in absence of material particulars.
— Paras discussing objections of respondent No.1.
Corrupt Practice — Pleadings — Requirement of material facts and particulars — Vague allegations insufficient.
Allegations relating to bribery, paid news, excess expenditure, hate propaganda, duplicate voting and use of black money were held required to be pleaded with full particulars including names, dates, places and supporting affidavit in Form 25 under Rule 94A. General, vague and omnibus allegations without material particulars do not constitute valid pleadings of corrupt practice under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
— Paras discussing Issues Nos.5 to 12.
Election Law — False affidavit regarding assets and liabilities — Suppression of material financial information — Effect on election.
The petitioner alleged that the returned candidate suppressed material particulars relating to financial dealings and acquisition of estate properties through partnership firms while filing affidavit under Rule 4A of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. It was contended that non-disclosure of substantial assets and financial transactions amounts to corrupt practice and materially affects the electoral choice of voters.
— Paras discussing Exs.P9 to P27.
