SUSHMA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The preamble to our Constitution provides the citizen of India a democratic Constitution which provides for holding free, fair and peaceful elections. Purity of election and secrecy of ballot are the two central pillars which supports our democracy, which at times are complimentary to each other and, at another point of time, stand in confrontation which each other. Sir Winston Churchill once stated : "at the bottom of all tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point. "

(2.) THIS statement was adopted by the Supreme Court with a slight variation in S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra & Ors. , AIR 1980 SC 1362, wherein the Supreme Court held : "nothing can diminish the overwhelming importance of that cross or preference indicated by the dumb sealed lip voter. That is his right and the trust reposed by the Constitution in him is that he will act as a responsible citizen choosing his masters for governing the country for the period prescribed by it. " The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case further held : "secrecy of ballot undoubtedly is an indispensable adjunct of free and fair elections. A voter had to be statutorily assured that he would not be compelled to disclose by any authority as to for whom he voted so that a voter may vote without fear or favour and is free from any apprehension of its disclosure against his will from his own lips. " And at another place held : "but this basic postulate of constitutional democracy, namely, secrecy of ballot was formulated not in any abstract situation or to be put on a pedestal and worshipped but for achieving another vital principle sustaining constitutional democracy, viz. , free and fair election" and "if free and fair election is the life-blood of constitutional democracy and if secrecy of ballot was ensured to achieve the larger public purpose of free and fair elections either moth must be complimentary to each other and co- exist or one must yield to the other to serve the larger public interest. " At yet another place, the Supreme Court held : "if free and fair election is the life-blood of constitutional democracy and if secrecy of ballot was ensured to achieve the larger public purpose of free and fair elections either both must be complimentary to each other and co-exist or one must yield to the other to serve the larger public interest. " And again held : "the principle of secrecy of ballot cannot stand aloof or in isolation and in confrontation to the foundation of free and fair elections, viz. , purity of election. They can co-exist but as stated earlier, where one is used to destroy the other, the first one must yield to principle of purity of election in larger public interest. In fact secrecy of ballot, a privilege of the voter, is not inviolable and may be waived by him as a responsible citizen of this country to ensure free and fair election and to unravel foul play. "

(3.) IN M. Chinnasamy v. K. C. Palanisamy & Ors. , 2004 (6) SCC 341, the Supreme Court held : "the necessity of "maintaining the secrecy of ballot papers" should be kept in view before a re-counting is directed to be made. A direction for re-counting shall not be issued only because the margin of votes between the returned candidate and the election petitioner is narrow. "