PULAKAM RAMAKRISTNAREDDI Vs. NOONEY PANAKALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners seek to revise the order of the Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, setting aside the election of petitioner 2 as a Councillor of the Chirala Municipality. Petitioner, was the Chairman of the Municipality at the time of the election, and was accused of corruptly assisting petitioner 2 but that was no reason for including him as a principal party in an election petition. His name should have been struck out at the outset.

(2.) Petitioner 2 who will be referred to as petitioner raises two points. Firstly, the inquiry was vitiated by the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the ballot box to be opened by the respondent and its contents to be generally inspected by him. This was a most improper proceeding, and no justification for it is upon the record. The respondent filed an affidavit to the effect that without seeing the records (the ballot papers) it was impossible for him to proceed with the trial and the Subordinate Judge without obtaining further particulars granted permission.

(3.) No doubt under Rule 26 (2) of the Rules for the conduct of Municipal elections an Election Court may order the ballot papers to be inspected, but obviously that is a power which should be exercised with the greatest circumspection, otherwise the voters would no longer be safeguarded by the secrecy of the ballot. Rule 41 of the Rules for Parliamentary Elections (Rogers on Elections, Vol. 2 (1918), p. 730, lays down that the mode in which any particular elector has voted shall not be discovered until he has been proved to have voted, and his vote has been declared by a competent Court to be invalid. This is the right principle. The examination of the ballot paper must follow the proof, not precede it, and if it is necessary to find such a paper the search must be conducted by the Judge himself or by the subordinates in whose impartiality he has complete confidence. The parties themselves should never have access to the general contents of the ballot box.