SHRADHA DEVI versus KRISHNA CHANDRA PANT & OTHERS

SHRADHA DEVI versus KRISHNA CHANDRA PANT & OTHERS

Once prima facie proof of error in ballot counting or improper rejection of votes is established affecting the election result, scrutiny and recount must be ordered. Marks on ballot papers must unerringly identify the voter to warrant rejection; any innocuous or meaningless mark does not suffice. Ballot papers in a single transferable vote system can be partially valid; errors in subsequent preferences do not invalidate the entire ballot.

Parties
Appellant: Shradha Devi; Respondent: Krishna Chandra Pant; Respondent: Respondent No. 2; Respondent: Respondent No. 5; Respondent: Respondent No. 16
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 October 1982
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 2 of 1978
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; matter remanded for further proceedings.
Legal Topics
Scrutiny and Recount of Ballots, Improper Rejection of Votes, Single Transferable Vote System, Ballot Validity, Identification of Voter on Ballot, Election Petition Procedure
Election Law Scrutiny and Recount of Ballots Improper Rejection of Votes Single Transferable Vote System Ballot Validity Identification of Voter on Ballot Election Petition Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shradha Devi

Appellant

Krishna Chandra Pant

Respondent

Respondent No. 2

Respondent

Respondent No. 5

Respondent

Respondent No. 16

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Allahabad High Court Judgment in Election Petition No. 2 of 1978

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether improper rejection of valid votes affected the result of the election
  2. 2 Whether scrutiny and recount should be ordered on prima facie proof of miscount
  3. 3 What constitutes identification of a voter on a ballot under Rule 73(2)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

Once prima facie proof of error in ballot counting or improper rejection of votes is established affecting the election result, scrutiny and recount must be ordered. Marks on ballot papers must unerringly identify the voter to warrant rejection; any innocuous or meaningless mark does not suffice. Ballot papers in a single transferable vote system can be partially valid; errors in subsequent preferences do not invalidate the entire ballot.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside; matter remanded for further proceedings.

Orders

  • High Court directed to examine all invalid ballots, ascertain reasons for rejection, decide on validity wholly or in part, and direct computation of votes afresh.
  • High Court may take assistance of Chief Electoral Officer or other experts in counting the votes.