Balraj Madhok, Prof. v. Shashi Bhushan, (SC) BS108153
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- K.S. Hegde, A.N. Grover and D.G. Palekar, JJ.

Civil Appeal No. 995 of 1972. D/d. 21.8.1972.

Prof. Balraj Madhok - Appellant

Versus

Shri Shashi Bhushan and others - Respondents

For the Appellant :- In person.

For the Respondent :- P.H. Parekh and S. Bhandare, Advocates, of Bhandare Parekh and Co., Advocates.

Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 116A - Election - Allegation of rigging - Election petitioner-appellant alleging use of chemically treated ballot papers - Returned candidate respondent allegedly having mechanically stamped with invisible ink those ballot papers with his party symbol - Conveyance between ruling party and election commission alleged - Trial Court inspecting ballot papers on Supreme Court directions - Finding white and off - White ballot papers polled by both the petitioner as well as returned candidate - Theory of employing mechanical process failing on close examination in the absence of any other cogent evidence.

[Para 3]

JUDGMENT

K.S. Hegde, J. - This is an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of The People Act, 1951 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act). The appellant was the election petitioner. The respondent is the returned candidate. The constituency with which we are concerned in this appeal is the South Delhi Parliamentary constituency. In the last General Election to the Lok Sabha from the South Delhi Parliamentary constituency, the appellant was the Jan Sangh nominee and the respondent was the Congress nominee. After counting of votes, the respondent was declared elected. The appellant challenged the validity of the election of the respondent on various grounds. At the time of the trial of the case, he pressed only one ground viz. that the election was rigged by the ruling party. The appellant explained the process adopted in rigging the election thus : Millions of ballot papers were chemically treated and the symbol of the Congress candidates in those ballot papers was mechanically stamped by using invisible ink. As a result of the chemical treatment of those ballot papers, the mark put at the time of the polling disappeared after a few days and the stamp mechanically placed earlier emerged. The suggestion was that this was done as a result of a conspiracy between the ruling party and the Election Commission. According to the appellant, to carry out the design in question quite contrary to the earlier practice the Election Commission instructed the Returning Officers to forward to Delhi substantial number of ballot papers of each constituency ostensibly for the purpose of scrutiny but really for the purpose of carrying out the design mentioned earlier. He further alleged that in place of the ballot apers received the Returning Officers were supplied with ballot papers chemically treated and mechanically stamped. Those ballot papers formed part of the ballot papers used at the election. He also averred that in furtherance of the above design, the Election Commission made two alterations in the practice followed earlier; firstly it provided larger interval between the date of polling and the date of counting and secondly by precipitate alteration of a rule, it provided for mixing up of ballot papers of various booths and rotating them in drums. According to him these innovations were introduced so that the chemical treatment of the ballot papers may have the desired effect.

2. When the case was taken up for trial, the appellant sought for an inspection of the ballot papers. The trial Judge after hearing the parties granted the inspection asked for. Aggrieved by that order, the respondent came up in appeal to this Court. Before this Court is was contended on behalf of the respondent that the appellant has not made out a case for inspection of the ballot papers. Rejecting that contention this Court observed thus :

3. Modifying the order of the High Court in certain respects, this Court observed :

After the case was sent back, the learned trial Judge inspected the ballot papers in accordance with the directions given by this Court in the presence of the parties and their Counsel. This is what the learned judge states in his judgment about the observations made by him :

From the observations made by the learned trial judge, it is clear that the theory that the ballot papers were mechanically marked is absolutely without any foundation. Once the theory that thousands of ballot papers were mechanically marked is rejected, the remaining part of the appellant's case cannot have much basis. The appellant has produced no basis for saying that the ballot papers were chemically treated. The fact that there were ballot papers having two colours white and off-white does not lend any support to the contention that any of the ballot papers were chemically treated for the reasons mentioned by the trial judge. The appellant who argued the appeal before us in person tried to evolve a theory that some ballot-papers cast in his favour might have changed their colour because of their because of their coming into contact with the other chemically treated papers. We see no basis to accept this contention.

4. We agree with the trial judge that the appellant has not made out his case that the election in question was rigged.

5. In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.

Appeal dismissed.