PROF BALRAJ MADHOK Vs. SHASHI BHUSHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under S. 116-A 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 papers 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: