Back
Absence of Single Voter Cannot Stall Election or Warrant :
In a significant ruling upholding the sanctity of election schedules, the has held that the mere absence of a single voter cannot be a ground to postpone an election or order a . The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand quashed a order that had deferred the election for Chairman of the , after one elected member failed to cast her vote within the scheduled time.
The Dispute: A Missing Voter
The election for the Chairman of Nagar Palika Khatushyamji was scheduled for , from 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM, as per the programme declared by the . Out of the 20 elected members, 19 cast their votes within the prescribed period. However, one member, Smt. Lakshmi Devi from Ward No. 10, was absent. The Returning Officer, on his own accord, extended the voting time multiple times—first to 2:30 PM, then to 5:00 PM, 8:00 PM, 10:30 PM, and finally to 11:30 PM. Despite these extensions, the missing member did not appear.
Thereafter, an FIR was lodged by Smt. Lakshmi Devi’s husband, alleging that she had been abducted and thus could not vote. Based on this FIR, the Returning Officer sought guidance from the , which on , ordered the election process to be stayed and rescheduled for .
Challenging this order, the petitioner, Vinita Pooniya—an elected councillor and a candidate in the Chairman election—argued that the authorities had no legal basis to defer the election. She sought a direction to open the sealed ballot box containing the 19 votes and proceed with counting and declaration of results in accordance with the .
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Case:
, appearing for Vinita Pooniya, contended that the election schedule was fixed by the and could not be altered at the whim of the Returning Officer. He argued that provide a complete mechanism for conducting elections and that the postponement violated these provisions. The counsel emphasized that the absent member did not raise any complaint during the polling hours—the FIR was filed only after the deadline had passed. He submitted that allowing such a practice would make the election process endless and defeat the democratic principle of timely completion.
Respondents’ Defense:
On the other hand, counsel for the and other respondents argued that the Returning Officer acted within , which permits extension of polling time if necessary. They contended that the right to vote is a and that no elected member should be deprived of it due to abduction or political enmity. They also relied on an earlier order of the High Court in
, which held that newly elected councillors are entitled to participate in the election of the Chairperson and that no authority can deprive them of this right.
Legal Framework: When Can Polls Be Postponed?
The court meticulously examined the relevant provisions of the . empowers the to postpone or extend the poll date only in emergencies such as “, , etc.” allows adjournment of poll if proceedings are “interrupted or obstructed by riot, violence, , .” permits the Returning Officer to extend time for poll “if necessary” or declare the poll concluded earlier if all members have voted.
The court also referred to the landmark judgment in , which held that once the election process has commenced, courts should not interfere, and elections should be concluded as per the time schedule.
Court’s Verdict: Counting Must Proceed
Justice Dhand found no justification for the deferral. The court observed that no FIR or complaint was made during the polling hours regarding the missing member. The FIR was lodged more than two hours after the scheduled close of poll. The situation did not fall under the “” described in Rules 52 and 53.
“With no stretch of imagination, it can be believed that one of the members who was not present at the time of polling was abducted, as there was no such complaint during the aforesaid hours.”
The court emphasized that the election schedule fixed by the cannot be postponed except in cases of riots, , law and order crisis, or other conditions. The absence of a single voter does not constitute such an adverse situation.
“The concept of is provided under the Rules of 1994 only when the polling is by , large scale rigging, failure of EVM, riots, violence, disturbance of public peace or which affects the . Isolated absence of a single voter does not fall under any of these categories.”
The court further held that if the absentee voter feels aggrieved, she may file an , but the election process cannot be stalled on that ground alone.
Key Observations
- “Election process is a core tenet of a democratic setup and the election schedule fixed by the Election Commission should not be normally interfered with.”
- “Mere absence of a voter cannot be treated as an adverse situation.”
- “If such a plea is accepted, then there would be no end to elections and every election would be liable to be postponed on the ground that one or the other voter could not vote.”
- “The Returning Officer is under a statutory obligation to proceed with counting and declare the result as per .”
The Final Decision
The High Court quashed the impugned order dated , passed by the , and directed the Returning Officer to count the votes cast on , between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM, and declare the result within 24 hours from receipt of the certified copy of the order. The court clarified that the result so declared would be subject to any that may be filed by the aggrieved member.
This ruling reinforces the principle that election schedules are sacrosanct and cannot be derailed by the absence of a single voter, ensuring that the democratic process moves forward without unnecessary delays.
