Case: Mahadeo Vs. Babu Udai Pratap Singh And Others

us by Mr. Bishan Singh for respondent No. 1 that evidence on the record shows that Udai Bhan Pratap Singh is, in fact, the name of the grandfather of respondent No.1, and he attempted to argue that the printing of Udai Bhan Pratap Singhs name on the ballot papers may have given a wrong impression to the voters that it was the grandfather of respondent No. 1 who was standing for election and not respondent No. 1 himself. Such a plea has not been made by respondent No. 1 in his election petition and does not appeal to have been pressed either before the Election Tribunal or the High Court. Therefore, we do not propose to consider this plea.14. Nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that there has been a printing error in the matter of the name of respondent No. 1 on the ballot papers and that has introduced an infirmity in the ballot papers. It is common ground that R. 22 requires that the postal ballot paper shall be in such form, and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages as the Election Commission may direct; and the form quite clearly imposes the obligation on the authorities concerned to print the name of the candidate correctly. But it is also clear that the symbol chosen by respondent No. 1 which was a lamp (Deepak) has been correctly shown against the misprinted name; and it would not be unreasonable to take into account the fact that a large majority of votes concentrate on the symbol chosen by the candidate rather than on his name. In fact, some of the evidence adduced in the present case itself shows that the voters looked at the symbols and put their votes. Mr. Gur Datta Singh who was the election agent of respondent No. 1 has given evidence in the present proceedings. He has frankly admitted that when he went to cast his vote, he was in a hurry, and so, he affixed the seal in the second column on the symbol of Deepak; he did not see the name written in that column. In fact, as we have already mentioned, as many as 10,985 voters voted for respondent No. 1. So, we think the irregularity on which respondent No. 1 strongly relies lose some of its significance and cannot be treated as anything more than a misdescription of his name. From such misdescription it would be wholly unreasonable to infer that the voters must have come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was not a candidate at the election at all. The High Court has rejected the case of respondent No. 1 in so far as he had alleged that his opponents has spread a rumour that he had withdrawn from the election; and yet, in a part of its judgment the High Court seems to have held that the result of the misprint was that from the point of view of the voters, respondent No. 1 had, in substance, been eliminated from the election. We are unable to agree with this conclusion.15. Then as to the design of the ballot paper, the High Court has reversed the finding of the Election Tribunal that the design of the ballot paper suffered from any irregularity. The Rule in respect of the design is R. 30. Clause (1) of this rule says that every ballot paper shall be in such form, and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages as the Election Commission may direct. Then follow the other two clauses of this Rule which are not relevant. This Rule in terms deals with the form of the ballot paper and this fact has to be borne in mind in considering the applicability of R. 56 on which respondent No. 1 relies. Rule 56 (1) provides that the ballot papers taken out of each ballot box shall be arranged in convenient bundles and scrutinised. Sub-rule (2) then enumerates the cases in which the returning officer has to reject the ballot paper. One of these cases is specified in Cl. (g) of Sub-Rule (2); if the ballot paper bears a serial number, or is of a design, different from the serial numbers or, as the case may be, design, of the ballot papers authorised for use at the particular polling station, the ballot paper has to be rejected. The argument urged by respondent No. 1 before the Election Tribunal was that the misprint of the name constituted a serious irregularity in the form or design of the ballot paper, and that attracted the provisions of R. 56 (2) (g) of the Rules; and since, notwithstanding the contravention of R. 30, the ballot papers had not been rejected, that made the election invalid. We are unable to see either the logic or the reasonableness of this argument. The design to which R. 56 (2) (g) refers is the form, the pattern, or the outline of the ballot paper. The symbol chosen by respondent No. 1 was correctly shown on the ballot papers, though his name had been misprinted. On these facts, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that R. 56 (2) (g) had not been contravened.16. Therefore, we are left with only one irregularity, and that has been introduced by the misprinting of the name of respondent No. 1 on the ballot papers; and this irregularity can legitimately be treated as falling under S. 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. Misprinting of the name of respondent No. 1 on the ballot papers amounts to non-compliance with R. 22 of the Rules; but the proof of such non-compliance does not necessarily or automatically rendered the election of the appellant void. To make the said election void, respondent No. 1 has to prove the non-compliance in question, and its material effect on the election. This latter fact he has failed to prove, and so, his challenge to the validity of the appellants election cannot be sustained.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. Let us now examine the character of the infirmity on which the election of the appellant has been declared void by the High Court as well as the Election Tribunal. We have already noticed that the ballot papers show the name of respondent No. 1 as Udai Bhan Pratap Singh, whereas it should have been shown as Udai Pratap Singh. It has been urged before us by Mr. Bishan Singh for respondent No. 1 that evidence on the record shows that Udai Bhan Pratap Singh is, in fact, the name of the grandfather of respondent No.1, and he attempted to argue that the printing of Udai Bhan Pratap Singhs name on the ballot papers may have given a wrong impression to the voters that it was the grandfather of respondent No. 1 who was standing for election and not respondent No. 1 himself. Such a plea has not been made by respondent No. 1 in his election petition and does not appeal to have been pressed either before the Election Tribunal or the High Court. Therefore, we do not propose to consider this plea.14. Nevertheless, it cannot be disputed that there has been a printing error in the matter of the name of respondent No. 1 on the ballot papers and that has introduced an infirmity in the ballot papers. It is common ground that R. 22 requires that the postal ballot paper shall be in such form, and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages as the Election Commission may direct; and the form quite clearly imposes the obligation on the authorities concerned to print the name of the candidate correctly. But it is also clear that the symbol chosen by respondent No. 1 which was a lamp (Deepak) has been correctly shown against the misprinted name; and it would not be unreasonable to take into account the fact that a large majority of votes concentrate on the symbol chosen by the candidate rather than on his name. In fact, some of the evidence adduced in the present case itself shows that the voters looked at the symbols and put their votes. Mr. Gur Datta Singh who was the election agent of respondent No. 1 has given evidence in the present proceedings. He has frankly admitted that when he went to cast his vote, he was in a hurry, and so, he affixed the seal in the second column on the symbol of Deepak; he did not see the name written in that column. In fact, as we have already mentioned, as many as 10,985 voters voted for respondent No. 1. So, we think the irregularity on which respondent No. 1 strongly relies lose some of its significance and cannot be treated as anything more than a misdescription of his name. From such misdescription it would be wholly unreasonable to infer that the voters must have come to the conclusion that respondent No. 1 was not a candidate at the election at all. The High Court has rejected the case of respondent No. 1 in so far as he had alleged that his opponents has spread a rumour that he had withdrawn from the election; and yet, in a part of its judgment the High Court seems to have held that the result of the misprint was that from the point of view of the voters, respondent No. 1 had, in substance, been eliminated from the election. We are unable to agree with this conclusion.15. Then as to the design of the ballot paper, the High Court has reversed the finding of the Election Tribunal that the design of the ballot paper suffered from any irregularity. The Rule in respect of the design is R. 30. Clause (1) of this rule says that every ballot paper shall be in such form, and the particulars therein shall be in such language or languages as the Election Commission may direct. Then follow the other two clauses of this Rule which are not relevant. This Rule in terms deals with the form of the ballot paper and this fact has to be borne in mind in considering the applicability of R. 56 on which respondent No. 1 relies. Rule 56 (1) provides that the ballot papers taken out of each ballot box shall be arranged in convenient bundles and scrutinised. Sub-rule (2) then enumerates the cases in which the returning officer has to reject the ballot paper. One of these cases is specified in Cl. (g) of Sub-Rule (2); if the ballot paper bears a serial number, or is of a design, different from the serial numbers or, as the case may be, design, of the ballot papers authorised for use at the particular polling station, the ballot paper has to be rejected. The argument urged by respondent No. 1 before the Election Tribunal was that the misprint of the name constituted a serious irregularity in the form or design of the ballot paper, and that attracted the provisions of R. 56 (2) (g) of the Rules; and since, notwithstanding the contravention of R. 30, the ballot papers had not been rejected, that made the election invalid. We are unable to see either the logic or the reasonableness of this argument. The design to which R. 56 (2) (g) refers is the form, the pattern, or the outline of the ballot paper. The symbol chosen by respondent No. 1 was correctly shown on the ballot papers, though his name had been misprinted. On these facts, we are satisfied that the High Court was right in holding that R. 56 (2) (g) had not been contravened.16. Therefore, we are left with only one irregularity, and that has been introduced by the misprinting of the name of respondent No. 1 on the ballot papers; and this irregularity can legitimately be treated as falling under S. 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act. Misprinting of the name of respondent No. 1 on the ballot papers amounts to non-compliance with R. 22 of the Rules; but the proof of such non-compliance does not necessarily or automatically rendered the election of the appellant void. To make the said election void, respondent No. 1 has to prove the non-compliance in question, and its material effect on the election. This latter fact he has failed to prove, and so, his challenge to the validity of the appellants election cannot be sustained.