ARUN KUMAR BOSE v. MOHD. FURKAN ANSARI & OTHERS

Citation: [1984] 1 S.C.R. 118

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: AMARENDRA NATH SEN, RANGANATH MISRA

Case summary

_The appellant sought to challenge this order by moving an application under Article 136 of the Constitution before this Court . _resentatiOn of the People Act, 1951 asking for the appellant's election to be set aside and for declaration that he shouJ~ be declared as the...

Judgment text

ARUN KUMAR BOSE v MOHD. FURKAN ANSARI & OTHERS September 28, 1983 [AMARENDRA NATH SEN AND RANGANATH MISRA; JJ. j Representation ofthe People Act. 195/. '-Sec. 81 read with sec. 83(l)(a)- E/ectlon Petiti'on to contain concise~statement offacts-Scope of. Sec. 97-When app/iccible-Recrimination ptoceedings-Necessity of making recriinination when additional reliefunder sec. JOI claimed. . . Conduct of Election Rules, 1961-Rule 38(1) read wiih rule 56(2)-lnterpretation. of-Proviso to rule 56(2) ·when applicable. Presiding officer absent from /,! ace of poll-Did not sign ballo't, papers- ~Vhether constitutes failure to Sign ballot papers. • The first respondent who Jost to the appellant by 24 votes in the Assembly Elections filfd an election petition in the High Court under s. - 81 . of the Rep. _resentatiOn of the People Act, 1951 asking for the appellant's election to be set aside and for declaration that he shouJ~ be declared as the successful candidate. In para.

9(i) of the petition the respondent pleaded that 74 ballot papers cast in his favour were wrongly rejected on the_ground that they did not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer. The High Court ordered inspection of these ballot papers. The High Court held, that the rejection of these 74 ballot papers'for want of the Presiding, Olficer's signature was not justified and gave' the respondent No. 1 credit of all . those Votes and on that basiS . while setting aside the election of the appellant, declared the first respondent · · to ha-Ve bee~ duly elected. Hence this appeal. The appellant urged that : the ple3:aing in para 9(i) of the Election Petition did not amount to a concise staterqent of the material facts as required by·Jaw; the High Court· went wrong in allowing inspection of the biillot papers; the 74 ballot papers in dispute did not contain the signature of.

the presiding officCr and· were right1y rejected at · the·counting in view of the mandatory proVision in rule 56(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and the High Court's view that in the absence of a · prayer for recrimination under s. 97 of·the Act, 'the appellant was precluded from asking for a recount of the other rejected ballot papers is not ! enable in law. Dismissing the appeal, -HELD : An election petition is presented in tertns of s. 81 of the Act. Sectfoll 83 prescrib~ as to what the Petition sho~ld contain. Clause (a) ot sub-s. (1) of s. 83 ·states that an etection petition shall contain a concise ·statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. In the insta,nt A. It. lloSB v. M. F. ANSARi . . t:ase the number of ballot papers alleged to have been wrongly rejected has been furnished, the counting table number has been given, the booth number has also been disclosed~and the ground for rejection has even been pleaded.

The only specific detail which ·was-wanting was the serial number of the ballot pap~rs. , This particular-was not available to the election petitioner in spite of attempts made on his behalf. The Court, therefore, agrees with the High Court that in-the facts and circun1stances of the case- the pleading in paragraph 9(i) set out the material facts in a proper way and no defect can be,... found with it. The High Court had rightly ordered the inspection of the ballot papers. [126 B-C; H; 127 A; 128_F-G; 127 F] Samaftt N. BalakriShan etc. ; v. George Fernandez and Ors. etc. , [1969] 3 S. C. R. 603 explained and distinguished, Bhabh; v. Sheo Govind and Ors. , [1975} Suppl. S. C. R. 202, referred to. Rule. 38(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 provides inter alia th'at every ballot paper before i~ . is issued to an elector shall be stamped on the back with a distiaguishing' 1nark and shall be signed in full On its back by the presiding officer.

The disiinguishing mark ·can be put by anyone but the signature has got to be of tr. -e p'residing officer and obviously, he has to personally do that job. Rule 56{2)(h) provides that the relurning officer shall rejcet a· ballot paper if it does not bear both the fdisti~guishing mark and the signature as mentioned in sub-rule (1) of rule 38. There is a proviso to sub-rule (2) of rule 56 which says that when: the returning officer is satisfied. that any such defect as i§ mentioned iri clause (h) has been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of a presiding officer or polling otlicer, the ballot paper shall not be~rejected merely on the ground of such defect. The proviso, once it is applicable' is a mandate that the ballot paper is not to be rejected. [129F-G;'130 G; 129 E-F; 130 E; 131 HJ . In the)nstant case the 74 ballot papers in dispute were rejected because they did not contain the signature of the presiding officer as required undCr ll' rule"38(1).

Tu see whether the proviso to sub-rule' (2) of rule 56 was applicable; it has to be found out whether the absence of the signature of the presiding , officer on these ballot papers was on .. account of mistake or of his failure. On the submissions at the bar, the qu. estion ·or~mistake does not arise. · It"was ',. , .... the obligation of the presiding officer to put his signature on the ballot papers ,before they were issued to the voters. Every voter has the right to vote and in ·the democratic set up . Prevailing in the country no person entitled to share the franchise can be denied the privilege. Nor can the candidate 1'e made to' suffrr. Keeping thiS" po~ition in view the Court is of the definite view that the present case is one of the failure on the part of the presiding officer, who had beeJ;I taken ill on the date of poll and was away frorll _)he place of polline for quite ~ome timl(, to put his signature on -those ballot papers so as to satisfy the ·requirement of law.

The ballot papers therefore were not liable to be rejected as the proviso applied and the High Collrt came to the correct conclusion in counting these ballot papers and. gi'l,'. ing credit thereof to the respondent No. !. (130 C; F-G; Bi F-H;- 130 H; 131 E; H; 132 Af 120 SUPREME COURT RJlPORTS (19S4J i s. c. ~. In a case in which the election petition claims· that the election of the returned c. andidate is vpid, and also asks for a declaratiOn that the petitioner himself or some other person has been duly elected,, s. 100 as well as s. 101 of the Act ,,would apply, and it is in respect Qf the additional claim for such declaration that s. 97. comes into play.

Section 97(1) thus allows the returned- candidate to~ recriminate and raise pleas in support of hiS case that the other person in who~e favour a declaration is claimed by the petition ca~n~t be said to be validit~elected~ an~ these would be ple~s of attack and 1t would be open to the "I'eturned ·candidate to take these pleas, because· when he recriminates, he really becomes a counter·petitioner challenging the validity of the election of the alternative candidate. The result of -s. 97(1) therefOre. is that in dealing with a composite election petition, the Tribunal enquires into not only the case made out by the petitioner, but also the counier·claim made by the returned candidate.. 'That. being the nature of the proceedings contemplated bys. 97(1), it is not surprising that the returned candidate is required to make his recrimination and serve notice in that behalf in the manner and within the time specified by . S; 97(1) proviso ands. 97(2).

If'the returned candidate does Ilot recriminate as required by s. 97, then he c3. nnot make any attack against the alternative·ctaim made by the petition. . [1_3; A:FJ ,, Kum. Shradha Devi v. Krishna Chandra Pant & Ors. , [1982] 3 S. C. C. 38! μ, Jabar Singh v. Genda Lal, [1964] 6 S. C. R. 5'1- and P. Ma/aichami v. M· Andi:-. Ambalam & Ors. [1973] 3 S. C. R. '1016 referred to.. . . ' ' In the instant election petition two reliefs· had been claimed, firs'tly, for setting aside the election of the returned candidate, _i. e. the appellant, and secondly, for a declaration that the election petitioner (respondent No. I) was . the'duly elected candidate. The relief claimed was in terms of s. 100(1) (d) (iii) ands. lOl(a) of the Act. Admittedly no application for fecrimlnation was filed by the 'appellant. In the absence of a recrimination petition conforming to the.

requirement of section 97 of the Act the appellant who happens to be an advocate and is presumed to know the law, was not entitled to combat the claim of the election petitioner ori the ground that if the remaining rejected ballot papers had been counted the election petitioner would not have been found to have polled the majority. ofthe valid votes. [132 D-E; 133A;138 C. DJ° CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2618 of 1983. , . From the Judgment and·Order dated the 18th January, 1983 of the Patna High Court in Election Petition No. 15 of 1980. ' S. Rangarajan,. D. P. Mukherjee, G. S. Chatterjee -and R. P, ff' Singh for the Appellant. . s. S. Ray, M. P. ! ha and Ms. Mridula Rap for the Respondents. - ' A. k. hoSB v. M. F. ANSARI (Ranganath Misra, J. ) 121 The Judgment of the . Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal under section I'I. 6A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 ('Act'. for short), is directed ~gains!

the decision of the High Court at Patna setting aside the appellant's election to the Bihar Legislative Assembly from 115 Jamtara Assembly Constituency poiling for which was held on May 31, 1980, and the result of . which was declared on June 2, 1980: Sixteen candidates being the appellant and the 15 respondents con• tested the election. The appellant' was the candidate of the Communist Party of India and resp! >ndent No. 1 was of the Congress (I) Party. At the poll the appellant received 13336 votes while the respondent No. 1 polled 13312 votes. The- appellant was, therefore, declared elected on the footing that he had received 24 more votes than the respondent no. I. Respondent no, . 2 ·had polled 13285 votes. As the election dispute has been confined to the appellant and respondent no. 1 it~s not necessary_ to refer to the other candi• dates or indicate particulars df their performance at the election. Re;pondent No. 1 filed an election petition under s.

81 of the Act asking for the appellant's election to be set aside and for a declara• lion 'that' he, should be declared as the successful candidate. In paragraph 9 of the election petition he pleaded the details of the illegalities-and irregularities committed in the course of counting of ballot papers. It is not necessary to refer to the other details excepting what was pleaded in paragraph 9(i) as respondent no. 1 did not press the electio. n petition on those grounds. The pleading in the . sul? -paragraph was to the following effect. "On table No. IO booth No. 10 (Fukbandi Primary School) 74 hallo! papers of the petitioner were wrongly rejected on the ground that they did not contain ·the signature of ihe . Presiding Officer. Similarly 31 ballot papers of the petitioner were rejected on different tables on the ground that they do not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer.

The aforesaid ballot papers were reject~d by the Assistant Returning Officer inspite of the objections raised by the petitioner and his counting . agents. " It is appropriate to indicate here that the High Court did not take into account the plea in regard to 31 ballot papers ·in the absence of particulars. The appellant in his written statement SUi'il. JiME CotlRT REPoRTs (I9i4Ji s. c. il.. before the f! igh Court pleaded that the· statements C Y to· be given. The scheme' in s. 83(1) . of the Act makes the position very clear. Clause (a) refe~s to general allegations and requires a concise statement of material facts to be furnished while clause . (b) referring fo 'G corrupt practiee requiresjll detaifs to be given. Appellant's co,;nsel, · ·therefore, was not entitled to rely upon the proposition in Balakrishna's case for the present purpose.

·So far as averment in paragraph 9(1) of the_ election petition is concerned, we find that the number of ballot papers alleged· to have been wrongly rejected has been furnished, the counting table number has been given, the booth (1) [1969J 3 S. C. R. 603. , A. ll!. BOSE v. M. F. AN~ARI (Ra11ganath MfJTO, J. ) 12'7 number has also been. disclosed and the grounil for rejection bas .. even been pleaded. Respondent No. 1 pleaded that the particulars of the b_allot papers could not oe obtained as during counting they were not show! ). His counting agent at table no. 10 has been examined as his witμess No. 3. He has stated: "The ballot box of Fukbandi booth No. 10 was - \ brought on my table and it was intact. · That ballot box contained some ballot papers which w~re not bearing . signature of the Presiding Officer. I raised objection in respect of those ballot papers· that they should not be treated as doubtful ballot papers to· be sent to the Re~ turning O~cer.

Counting Superviser did not listen to my protest and sent them to the. Returning Officer as doubtful. ballot papers. There were. 74 such ballot papers. " The Assistant Returning Officer was examined as RW. 4 on behalf of the appellant. Iti his evidence he stated that he had rejected some ballot papers of booth no. 10. He again stated that "countin11 agents of candidates were not allowed to note down the serial numbers of the ballot papers. In view of the statement of the counting agent of respondent no. 1 and the evidence of the Assistant Returning Officer there can be. no scope to doubt, and in our view the High Court was right in taking the view, that the particulars ofthe rejected ballot papers were not . available to the ; counting agents and, therefore, particulars of the numbers of the ballot papers had not been given ln the election petition.

We agree · witl:t the High Court that in the facts and circumstances of the case the pleading in paragraph 9(1) set out the material facts ·in a proper way and no defect can be found with it. - ' Mr. Rangarajati' next canvassed that the High Court went wrong in allowing inspection of the ballot papers. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo 1 Govind & Ors. ( ), where it has been held that the fgllowing conditions were imperative before the Court could grant inspection or sample insl? ection of ballot papers : (i) That it is important to maintain the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct and should not be allowed (! ) (1975) Suppl. S. C. R. 202, •) -- 128 .. , to be violated· on frivolous, vague and indefinite r~allegatiOns; '' • (2) That before inspection is allowed, the allegations made against the elected candidate must be clear > and specific and must be supported by adequate statement of. material facts; ~ B.

I l (3) The_ Court must be prima facie satisfied on the materials produced before the Court regarding the • truth pf the allegations made for a recount. . ' . '~i (4) That the discretion conferred on the Court should not be exercised in such a way so as to enable the >applicant to indulge in. ·a roving. inquiry with a view to fish materials for declaring the election to be void; and _. - '(5) Th2t on the special facts of a given case sample inspectioJl may be ordered to lend further assurance to the prima facie satisfaction of the Court, re· garding the truth of the allegations m~de for a re· ,count, and not for . the purpose of fishing out I --' materials. "\ " We have already pointed out that the allegations made in paragra'. ph 9(i) of the election petition were 'clear and definite. On --II the facts of the case the plea was ·confined to one aspect, viz. , for · . I want of the Presiding Officer's signature with reference to 74 ballot .

papers cast at a partlcuiar booth and counted on 'll particular table the same had been rejected. The only specific detail which was wanting was the serial number of the 74 baJ. ¥:>t papers. We have, on the evidence record~d in the case, come . to the conclusion that this particular was not available to the election petitioner in spite of attempts made on his behalf. While we agree with the view ex• pressed in Bhabi's case, on the facts before us we are inclined to think that inspection had rightly been ordered. Mr. Ray fof res· pondent no . 1 pressed before us the fact that the 0rder of the High Court allowing inspection had been questioned before the Court and no interference was made. Appellant's uounsel on the other hand contended that as the application under Article 136 of the Consti· tution had not been disposed of on merits, this a spec! was open to A. K. BOSE v. M. F. ANSARI (Ranganath Misra, J. ) 129 challenge in a regular appeal under s. 116A of the Act.

It is unnecessary to refer further to the consequences of non-interference ·by this Court on the earlier occasion as on the facts we are satisfied that the action of the High Court in allowing inspection is not open to dispute. A number of authorities were cited by Mr. Rangarajan in support of his contention that inspection should not have been granted. Since Bhabhi's case has considered' most of . the cases relied upon by Mr. Rangarajan and tests have been laid down to which reference has been made by us, we see no necessity to independently refer to and deal with the other cases. The 74 ballot papers which had been rejected were placed before us during the hearing. In the election petition it has been contended that the rejection was only on one ground, viz';.. absence of the signature of the Presiding Officer. The appellant in his written statement had taken the stand that the identifying mark was also wanting.

The ballot papers have been scrutinised by us as also by learned counsel for both the parties. Mr. Rangarajan has conceded on seeing the ballot papers that each of them bears the mark. Admittedly none of them contains the signature of the Presiding Officer. Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules; 1961, makes detailed provision for counting of votes. Sub-rule (2) requires the Returning·Officer to reject a ballot paper when any of the sevell. infirmities indicated therein is found. In view of the contentions advanced before us the relevant infirmities would be as provided in sub-clause (e), i. e. the ballot paper is a spurious one and (h), . i. e. it does not bear both the mark and the signature which it should have borne under th~ provisions of sub-rule (I) of rule 38.

Rule 38(1) provides : · "Every ballot paper before it is issued to an elector, and the counterfoil attached thereto shall be stamped on the back with such distinguishing mark as the Election Commission may direct, and every ballot paper, before. it is issned, shall be signed in full on its back . by the Presiding Officer. " - These 74 ballot papers cast in favour of the respondent . No. I which have been rejected were in two series, 24 ,in one and 50 in the other. Though the Assistant Returning Officer had stated that according to him these w:ere spurious; he has in his cross-examination clairficd the position t1Jat by 'spurious' )le me;int ti\at the 1;iallot 130 SU. PREME COURT REPO)lTS (1984] l. ,S,C. R, papers did not contain the signature of the Presiding Ofl)cer. That these ballot papers were used at the election in booth no. IO is not open to doubt in view of :the . ballot paper account for .

this booth, That shows that 810 ballot papers in all had been received being from serial nos. 006851 to 007660. 424 ballot papers were used and ballot papers of the same number had been found in the ballot box and duly accounted for. The numbers of . the ballot papers including the 74 in dispute are. covered by tho particulars of . used ballot papers given in the ballot paper account which is Ext. 2 in the case. The Presiding Officer himself has proved· this document. The report made by the Returing Officer to the Election Commission Ext. A also shows. that the ballot papers were not spurious. There is sufficient evidence on record from which it can be concluded .. that the. rejection of these 74 ballot papers was on account of the fact that they did not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer as >-required under rule 38. (1); Mr.. Rangarajan is right in his submission that if a ballot paper does not contain the signature of the Presiding .....

Officer it has got to be rejected at the counting in view, of the I mandatory provision in rule 56(2) of the Conduct of Election Rules. The point for consideration now is whether the proviso which reads as follows was applicable : "Provide'd that where the returning officer is satisfied that any such defect as is mentioned in clause· (g) or clause (h) has been caused by any mistake or failure on the part of a presiding officer or polling officer, the ballot paper shall not be rejected merely on the ground of such defect". -- On the submissions at the Bar, the question of mistake does not arise. It has to be found out whether these 74 ballot papers in dispute did not contain the signature of the Presiding Officer on account of his failure. Rule 38 makes it clear that the distinguishing mark and j the signature of the Presiding Officer have to be put on the ballot paper before the same is issued to the voter at the booth. The distinguishing mark can be put by..

any one but the signature "has got to be of the Presiding Offier and obviously he has to personally 'do that job. There is evidence that the Presiding Officer had been taken ill on the date of po. ll. He has been examined as PW2. From his evidence it appears that this was his first experience as a Presiding Officer of a booth. He has stated : "On the day of poll my bowls was upset arid I ! tad visited the pokhra (tan) f the votes polled at the election. We have already inicated that the appellant as . the elected candidate in his written statement had pleaded that the counting was in accor· dance with law and not objectionable. The ~ffect of such a plea is that the ballot papers which had been cast in his favour but credit had not been given thereof had been validly rejected. In the election petition two reliefs had been claimed, firstly, for setting aside the election of the returned candidate; i. e.

the _appellant, and secondly, for a declaration that the election petitioner (respondent no. 1) was the duly elected candidate. T! ie relief claimed was in terms of . s. 100(1) (d) (iii) and s. JOI (a) of the Act. -The election petitioner had claimed that there was improper rejection of votes cast in ---' his favour and that he had received a majority of the valid votes at the election. The Act makes in s. 97 provision for recrimina· tion. Sub-section (l) of that section which is material re~ds thus : "When in an election petition a declaration that any candidate ot\l. er than the returned candidate has been duly p elected is claimed, the returned candidate or any other parfy may give evidence to prove that the election of such candidate would tiave been void if he had been the returned candidate and a petition had been presented calling in question his election : Provided that the returned candidate or such other party, as aforesaid shall no( bi:.

entitled to give such evidence unless he has, within fourteen days from the date of commencement of the trial glven notice to the High - ·""' Court of his intention to do so and has also given the security and the further security referred to in sections H7 11nc;l 118 respectively. " .. . A. K:. DOSE v. Mi. ANSARI (Ranganath Misra, J. ) 133 Admitiedly no application for recrimination was filed. ' Mr. Rangarajan has strenuously contended that keeping the scheme and the purpose of the law in view, in a case of this type refusal to count the other rejected ballot papers on the plea of non-filing of recrimination petition would lead to injustice. We have already • indicated the pronounced view of this Court in Jagan -Nath's case which has been followed tbr011ghout and the last in series is the case of Jyoti Basu to which also we have adverted.

There is no scope for equity since the entire gamut of the process _of election is covered by statute Reliefs as are available according to law can on! )' be granted.. It is true that in Kum. Shradha Devi v. Krishna 1 Chandra Pant & Ors. ,( ) it has been observed : "If the allegation. is of improper rejection of valid votes which is covered by the broad spectrum of scrutiny and recount becanse of miscount, petitioner must furnish primafacie proof of such error. If proof is furnished of some errors in respect of some ballot papers, scrutiny and recount cannot be limited to tho'° ballot papers only. 'If the,recount is limited to those ballot papers in respect of . which there is a specific allegation of error and the correlation is established, the approach would · work havoc_in a parliamentary constituency where more often we find110,0~0 or more votes being rejected as invalid. .

Law does not require that while giving proof of prima facie error in counting each head of error must be tested by only sample examination of some of the ballot papers which answer the error and then take into consideration only those ballot papers and not· others. This is not the area of enquiry in a petition for relief of recount on the ground of miscount. " These observations came not in a case to which s. 97 of the Act applied. This Court was considering a case t>f recounl simpliciter. The pqsition of \aw as to the imperative necessity of a· recrimination in cases as before us is well settled. A Five Judge Bench in Jabar Singh v. Ge11da Lal,(') examined at length the provisions of s. 100 ands. 97 of the Act. That was a case where the . difference was of two votes and an application had been made asking for reliefs both (1) [1982] 3 s. c. c. 389. (2) [1964] 6 S. C. R. 54. 1~4 SUPl!. EME COUl!. T l!. EPOl!. TS tJ 984) I S. C. R. under s. 100(I) (d) (iii) as also sc 101.

In that background the question for consideration was whether in the absenc_e of a petition for recriminatiou relief could be grauted. Gajendragadkar, J. (as the learned Judge then was), spoke for himself and three other learned Judges. In the majority judgment it was held : "Confining ourselves to clause (iii) of s. 100(1) (d), what the Tribu11al has to consider is whether there has been an improper reception of votes in favour of the returned candidate. Jt may also enquire whether there has been a refusal or rejection of any vote in regard to any other candidate for whether there has been a recep' tion of any vote which is void and this can ·only be the reception of a void vote in favour of the returned candidate. In other words,_ the scope of the enquir>' in a case falling under s. 100(1) (d) (iii) is to determine whether any votes have been improperly cast in favour of the returned candidate or any votes have been improperly refused or rejected in regard to any other candidate.

These are the only two matters which would be relevant in deciding whether the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected or not. At this enquiry, the onus is on the petitioner to show that by reason of the infirmities specified ins. 100(1) (d) (iii), the result of the returned candidate's election has been materially affected, and that, incidentally, helps to determine the scope of the enquiry. Therefore, it seems to us that in the case of a petition where the only claim made is that the election of the returned- candidate is void, the scope of the enquiry is clearly limited by the requirement of s. 100(1) (d) itself. The enquiry is limited not because the returned candidate has not recriminated under s. 97(1); in fact s. 97(1) has no application to the case falling under s. 100(!

) (d) (iii), the scope of the enquiry is limited for the simple reason that what the clause requires to be considered is whether the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected and nothing else. Ifthe result of the enquiry is in favour of the petitioner who challenges the election of the returned candidate, the Tribunal has to make a declaration to that effect, and that declaration 'brings to an end the proceedings in the election petition. A. K. ilosil v. Id. ii. ANSARI (kanganath Misra, J. ) 135 There are, however, cases in which the election petition makes a double claim; it claims that the election of the returned candidate is void, and also asks for a declaration that the petitioner himself or some other person has been duly elected. _ It is in regard to such a composite case that s. JOO as well as s. JOI would apply, and it" is' in respect of the additional claim for a· declaration that some other candidate has'been duly elected s. 97 comes into play.

Section 97(1) thus allows the returned candidate to recriminate and raise pleas in support of his case that the_ other person in who_se favour a declaration is claimed by the petition cannot be said to be validly elected, and these would be pleas of attack and it would be open to the returned candidate to take these pleas, because when he'recriminates, he really becomes a counter-petitioner challenging the validity of the election of the alternative cadidate. The result of s. 97(1) therefore, is that in dealing with a composite election petition, the Tribunal enquires into not only the case made . out by the petitioner, but also the counter-claim made by the returned candidate. That being the nature of the proceedings contemplated by s. 97(1), it is not surprising that the. returned candi, date is required to make his recrimination and serve notice in that behalf in the manner and w_ithin the time specified by s. 97(1) proviso and·s. 97(2).

If the returned candidate does not recriminate as required by s. 97, then he cannot· make any attack against the alternative claim made by the petition. In such acase, an enquiry would be held under s. JOO. so far as the validity of the returned candidate's' election is concerned, and if as a result of tlfe said enquiry a declaration is made that the election of the returned candidate is void, then the. Tribunal will proceed to deal with alternative claim, but in doing so, the ' returned candidate will not be" allowed to lead any evidence because he is precluded from raising any pleas against the validity of the claim of the alternative candidate. It is true that s. 10l(a) requires the Tribunal to find that the petitioner or such other candidate for the decla· ration of whose election a pray_er is mac! e in the election petition has in fact received a majority of the valid ·' SUPREME COURt REPOllTS· (1984) i S. C. R. votes. It is urged by Mr.

Kapoor that the Tribunal cannot make a finding that the alternative candidate has in fact received a majority of the valid votes unless all the votes cast at the election are scrutinised and counted. In our opinion, this contention is not well founded, . We ha\>e already noticed that as a resuIt of rule 57 (now rule 56(6) of Conduct of Election Rules), the Election Tribu- 8 nal will have to assume that every ballot paper which had not been rejected under r. ·55 coustituted one valid vote and it is on that basis that the finding will have to be made under s. IOl(a). Section 97(1) undoubtedly gives an opportunity to the returned candidate to dispute· the validity of any of the votes cast in favour. of the alternative candidate or to plead for the validity of any vote cast in his favour which has been rejected; but if by -his failure to make recrimination within time as required by s.

97 the ,returned candidate is precluded from raising any such plea at the hearing of the election petition, there would be nothing wrong if the TFibunal proceeds to deal with the dispute under s. \Ol(a) on the basis that the other votes counted by the returning officer were valid votes and that votes in favour of the returned, candidate, if any, which were rejected, were invalid. What we have said about the presumed' validity of the votes in dealing with a petition under s. IOl(a) is equally true in dealing with the matter under s. IOO(l)(d)(iii). We' are, therefore, satisfied that even in cases to which s. 97 applies, the enquiry necessary while dealing with the dispute under s. ! Ol(a) will not be wider if the returned candidate has failed to recriminate. " Ayyarigar, J. did take a different view of the matter· and it is on the minority view that strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Rangarajan.

He has even contended that the proposition in 'minority view was more appealing and had reminded us that there have been instances where the minority view lays down the law correctly and in due cuorse is accepted . to be the law of the country. As we shall presently show, the ratio in the majority opinion is still holding the field and on the plea that the minority view may some day become the Jaw, relief in the present case cannot he granted. We are bound by the decision of the' larger Bench. _A. k. BOSE v. M. Ji. ANSARI (Ranganath Misra, J. ) . 13' This Court in P. Malaichami v. Mr. Andi Ambalam and Ors. ( ), considered this question again. Alagiriswami, J. spoke for the Bench which heard the appeal. There i\ had been contended by counsel that in view of the facts of that case, '. recrimination and the requirement of s. 97 need not have been insisted upon. This is how that contention was answered : · "The question still remains whether the requirements of s.

97 have to be satisfied in this case. It is argued by Mr. Venugopal that the gravamen of the respondent's petition was breach of many of the election rules and that he asked for· a tQtal recount, a request to which the· appellant had no objection and that there was, therefore, c. no rule or need for filing a recrimination petition under s. 97. This, we are afraid, is a complete misreading of the petition. -No doubt the petitioner asked for a recount of votes. It may legitimately be presumed to mean ·a recount of a11 the votes, but such a recount is asJe. ed for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that the appellant's election was void and a further declaration that the respondent himself had been elected. This aspect of the matter should not be lost sight of. Now, when the respondent a~ked for a recount, it was not a mere mechanical process that he was asking for.

The very grounds which he urged in support of his petition (to which we have referred at an earlier stage) as well as the application for recount and the various grounds on which ' ' the learned Judge felt that a recount should be ordered s)l. owed that many mistakes where likely to have arisen in the counting, and as revealed by the instances which the learned Judge himself looked into and decided ... " The ratio of the decision in Jabar Singh's case was followed and it was stated: "What we have pointed out just now shows that it is not a question of mere pleading, it it a question of jurisdiction. The Election Tribunal had no jurisdiction to go into the question whether any wrong votes had been counted in favour of the election petitioner, who (! ) [1973] 3 S. C. R 1016. · 138 Suplii! Mfl COURT REPOirs it984J 1s. c. a. had claimed the seat for himself unless the successful · candidate had filed a petition under s. 97.

The Jaw reports are full of cases where parties have failed because of their. failure strictly to conform to the Jetter of the law in regard to the procedure laid down under the· Act and the Rules. " , Several decisions were cited before us by Mr. Ray for respondent No. I which we think unnecessary to refer to in view of the clear pronouncements and the state of the Jaw as indicated by •these decisions. In the absence of a recrimination petition conforming to the requirements of s. 97 of the Act the appellant who happens to be an Advocate and is presumed to know the law, was not entitled to combat the claim of the election petitioner on the ground that if the remaining rejected batlot papers had been counted, the election petitioner would not have been found to have polled the majority of the valid votes. For the reasons we have indicated, this appeal has to be dismissed, In the circumstances we direct the parties to' bear their respective·costs throughout · H. S. ~. Appeal dismissed.