Case: The State of Karnataka and Ors Vs. Gunjahalli Nagappa and Ors

1. There is a town called Gangawati in the State of Karnataka. It had a Town Municipal Council constituted underthe Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The term of office of the Municipal Councilors elected at the last General Elections expired by efflux of time in 1962, but instead of holding a General Election to constitute a new Town Municipal Council, the State Government appointed an Administrator to exercise the powers and perform and discharge the functions and duties of the Town Municipal Council and also constituted an Advisory Council to advise and assist the Administrator. The appointment of the Administrator and the constitution of the Advisory Council were challenged by one of the residents of Gangawati in the High Court of Karnataka by Writ Petition No. 2405 of 1972. The writ petition was, however, settled as the State Government gave an undertaking that it would take the necessary steps for holding a General Election within a reasonable time. This happened on 6th February, 1974. The State Government thereafter, in accordance with the undertaking given by it, appointed the Returning Officer on 25th February, 1974 and it looked as if the General Election was at least going to be held. But this hope was belied. Before the Returning Officer could issue a notice fixing the calendar of events for the election, the State Government rescinded the notification which had been issued by it earlier under Section 13 of the Act determining inter alia the territorial divisions into which the Municipality shall be divided. The result was that no further steps could be taken by the Returning Officer in the matter of holding the election. Angered and frustrated by this second attempt on the part of the State Government to baulk the holding of the election, the same individual, who had filed the earlier writ petition, preferred another writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 2715 of 1974, for a mandamus to the State Government to hold the election. The High Court made an order on this writ Petition on 7th August, 1974 directing the state Government to hold the election within four months. This time was later extended to 8th March, 1975.2. Pursuant to the direction of the High Court the State Government issued a Notification dated 3rd December, 1974 under S. 13 of the Act determining the territorial divisions into which the Gangawati Municipality shall be divided for the purpose of holding the election and allotting number of seats to each territorial division. The Gangawati Municipality was divided into six territorial divisions and each territorial division was defined and demarcated by reference to census block numbers, wards and also boundaries. The Returning Officer thereafter on 7th December, 1974 issued a notice fixing the calendar of events for holding the election. The Tehsildar, who was the designated officer under Section 14, sub-s. (2), in the meanwhile, prepared the list of voters for each division from the Mysore Legislative Assembly Electoral Roll (hereinafter referred to as the Electoral Roll) by including in the list parts of the Electoral Roll referable to the census block numbers comprised within the division. The list of voters for each division so prepared was authenticated by the designated officer and kept open for inspection in he office of the Municipal Council. A large number of nominations were filed on or before the last date fixed for it in the calendar of events and after scrutiny and withdrawal, a list of the contesting candidates was published by the Returning Officer on 21st December, 1974. The only step which remained to be taken to complete the process of election was the poll which was fixed on 10th January, 1975.3. However, on 21st December, 1974 when the question of finalisation of polling stations was taken up by the Returning Officer, the Secretary of the Congress Party raised an objection that the divisionwise lists of voters prepared and authenticated by the designated officer were defective "inasmuch as voters who reside in one division are being made to vote in a different division" and these lists of voters should, therefore, be rectified before fixing up the polling stations. The Returning Officer considered his objection and by an order made on the same date rejected it. This Order is very material and we will, therefore, reproduce it in full. It reads inter alia as follows:"It is seen from the list maintained that the population in the parts of voters list tallies with the proposal made to Government for the delimitation of the constituencies. Further it is seen that the various parts included in the divisionwise voters list conform to the census block numbers which are mentioned in the notification published in regard to the declaration of delimitation of territorial divisions. It also fits into the wardwise description of constituencies as declared by Government.However, it is too late in the day to prefer objections about voters list. The voters list was open for inspection all along. Many interested parties have obtained copies of the same. Nominations have been filed by respective parties on the basis of the same voters list and the scrutiny has been completed and valid nominations have been declared and today at 3.00 p.m. last date for withdrawal is also over and the list of polling stations is finalised.At this juncture, it is regretted to, declare that parties cannot be allowed to go back to the period prior to scrutiny of the nomination papers, especially so when there was not one word of objection or protest over the voters list at the appropriate time. As per Section 23 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 no amendment or deletion of any entry in the electoral roll should be made or given effect after the last date for making nominations in that constituency or division. Any change in the parts of the Division of Voters will amount to an amendment of electoral roll of that division."It appears that three of the contesting candidates and a member of the Legislative Assembly belonging to the Congress Party were dissatisfied with this Order and they, therefore, made an application to the Deputy Commissioner pointing out what they thought were defects in the division-wise lists of voters. The Deputy Commissioner instructed the Returning Officer to make physical verification of these defects and the Returning Officer accordingly went to the respective places where the mistakes were alleged to have occurred and after verification, made a report dated 27th December, 1974. In this report, the Returning Officer stated that: "It was found during my random inspection of the various houses on the borders of the different divisions that some voters residing adjacent to one division have been included in another adjoining division and the voters list in respect of each division has been formed accordingly." The Returning Officer observed that as a result of this physical verification it was found that "the number of voters in the respective divisions would undergo considerable change" and gave figures showing that the change in the number of voters in each division would be in the neighbourhood of twenty-five per cent. Basing itself on this report, the State Government, by an order dated 30-12-1974, cancelled the calendar, of events published by the Returning Officer and directed him to issue fresh calendar of events "after getting the voters lists completed strictly as per the division notified". Though this Order did not refer to the provision of law under which it was purported to be made, the State Government claimed that the source of its power to make this Order lay in Rule 75 of the Mysore Municipalities (Election of Councillors) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) made under Section 38 of the Act. The petitioners, who are residents of Gangawati, finding that the State Government had again tried to fish out some excuse for putting off the general election, preferred the present writ petition questioning the validity of this Order made by the State Government. The High Court, by a judgment and order dated 6th February, 1975 held that the State Government had no power under Rule 75 to cancel the calendar of events validly fixed by the Returning Officer and set at naught the election process which had already commenced and in this view, quashed and set aside the order of the State Government and directed the Returning Officer to hold the elections "from the stage at which it was interrupted by the impugned Government Order after fixing convenient dates for the remaining events so that, the election may be completed before 8th March, 1975". The State Government challenges the correctness of this view in the present appeal brought with special leave obtained from this Court.4. The hearing of this appeal concluded on 2nd May, 1975 which was the last working day for the Court before the commencement of the summer vacation. Since the appeal involves the question as to the holding of the election and delay in the pronouncement of the order might defeat the object of filing the appeal, we pronounced our order immediately after the conclusion of the hearing dismissing the appeal with costs and directing the Returning Officer to complete the election before 18th June, 1975. We now proceed to give our reasons.

Reasoning: It is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal to embark on a discussion on the wider question as to what are the different circumstances in which the power conferred under Rule 75 can be exercised by the State Government and what kind of order can be made by the State Government in exercise of such power. It would indeed be inexpedient and unwise to draw the precise lines within which the power under Rule 75 should be exercisable, for there may be infinite valid circumstances which may call for exercise of suchsuch power could not be found in Rule 75, it was common ground that there was no other provision in the Act or the Rules which would justify the making of the impugned order and it would plainly be invalid.6. Now, the only justification pleaded by the State Government in support of the exercise of the power under Rule 75 was that the divisionwise lists of voters prepared and authenticated by the designated officer were defective and if the election were held on the basis of such defective lists of voters, it would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence the impugned order had to be made by the State Government for ensuring that the election was held in accordance with the provisions of the Act as contemplated under Rule 75. This justification, plausible though it may seem, is, in our opinion, without merit.It will be seen on a plain reading of sub-s. (1) of Section 14 that the electoral roll for the territorial area comprised in a division is to be deemed to be the list of voters for such division. The designated officer is merely to perform the operation of scissors and paste - cut out those portions of the electoral roll which relate to the territorial area included in the division and paste them together so as to form the list of voters for thewas for this reason that it was held by this Court that it was not enough that the name of a person should be registered in the electoral roll of a Parliamentary Constituency. That did not entitle him straightway to be included in the electoral roll of the Municipality.Now in the present case, it is clear from the Order of the Returning Officer dated 21st December, 1974 that the list of voters for each division corresponded fully and completely with the Electoral Roll for the territorial area comprised in such division. The finding of the Returning Officer was that the various parts of the Electoral Roll included in the list of voters for each division conformed to the Census Block numbers of the respective division mentioned in the Notification dated 3rd December, 1974. Each Division was defined and demarcated by reference to Census Block numbers and the parts of the Electoral Roll were also made out on the basis of Census Block numbers. There could, therefore, be no doubt or confusion as to which parts of the Electoral Roll related to the territorial area comprised in a particular division. The corresponding parts of the Electoral Roll could be easily ascertained and identified by reference to census Block numbers for preparing the list of voters for each division. That was admittedly done in the present case and there was no complaint about it. No defect was also alleged or found in this respect. The only defect - if at all it can be called a defect - which the Returning Officer noticed on physical verification was that the voters shown in the Electoral Roll as residing in the territorial area of one division were in fact residing in another. But, as already pointed out above, that cannot be regarded as a defect in the division-wise lists of voters and it would not stamp them with the vice of not being in conformity with the requirements of the Act. The State Government was, therefore, in any view of the matter not entitled to make the impugned order under Rule 75 on the ground that the divisional lists of voters were defective and the election held on the basis of such lists of voters would not be in accordance with the provisions of the Act. What the State Government did by making the impugned order was to interfere with the election process which was going on in accordance with law and that was clearly not permissible on any interpretation of Rulecontention is also without force. It is true that there is no provision in the Act similar to Section 23, sub-section (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 providing that no amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry in the list of voters for a division shall be made and no direction for the inclusion of any name in such list of voters shall be given after the last date for making nominations for an election in theis, therefore, clear, on a proper interpretation of the provision of the Act, that the Legislature did not intend that the list of voters should change from time to time during the process of election and the relevant Electoral Roll for the purpose of preparation of the list of voters must consequently be taken to be the Electoral Roll in force at the date when the election process commenced, that is, the date when the calendar of events wasare in agreement with that view. The poll in the present case must, therefore, be taken on the basis of the list of voters for each division prepared with reference to the Electoral Roll in force on 7th December, 1974, that being the date on which the calendar of events was published by the Returning Officer.12. One other question was also raised before us, namely, whetherthe designated officer can be required to rectify the list of voters for adivision, if it can be shown that the list of voters does not correspond exactly with the Electoral Roll for the territorial area of the division, as for example, some voters in a particular house in a Census Block number falling in the division, though shown in the Electoral Roll as such, are, through inadvertence, omitted to be included in the list of voters for the division. It is not necessary for the purpose of the present appeal to decide this question, but we may point out that till the election process has commenced by the issue of notice fixing the calendar of events, there is no reason why the designated officer should not be entitled to rectify such defect in the list of voters and bring the list of voters in conformity with the Electoral Roll. But once the calendar of events is published and the election process has begun, it is extremely doubtful whether any changes can be made in the list of voters for the purpose of setting right any such defect. We, however, do not wish to express any final opinion on this point.