1. Election of office-bearers — Objections to voters list — High Court order permitting elections to proceed while deferring consideration of objections. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1373
Supreme Court Of India
G. KRISHNAMOORTHY
Versus
S. N. D. P. YOGAM
Decided on : August 21, 2000
Important Points
The Supreme Court held that an order allowing elections to proceed despite objections to the voters list must specify who will consider those objections and explicitly state whether the election results are subject to the final consideration of such objections.
Subject
Election Law - Election Irregularities
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950, Article 136 - Irregularities and inconsistencies in voters' list-Commissioners appointed by the High Court, found irregularities and inconsistencies in the voters' list- The High Court erred in holding that if election is postponed till all the mistakes are removed, it would not be possible to conduct the election- High Court did not state who was to consider the objections after the elections are over and that the declaration of the results of the elections would be subject to the consideration of such objections- Therefore order of the High Court set aside and matter restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and considered afresh. [Paras 3 and 4]
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether elections should be postponed to rectify electoral roll irregularities or proceed with objections considered subsequently to avoid indefinite delay. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court failed to specify the authority to consider objections or mandate that election results be subject to the outcome of such objections. (Para 3 )
4. Orders deferring electoral objections must specify the deciding authority and state that election results are subject to the final consideration of those objections. (Para 3 , 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Proceedings restored for fresh consideration regarding the resolution and conditionality of objections. (Para 4 , 5 )
6. What must a court order specify when permitting elections to proceed despite pending objections to the voters list?
The order must specify the authority responsible for considering the objections and expressly state that the declaration of election results shall be subject to the final consideration of those objections. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. Under what conditions can a court defer the consideration of electoral roll objections until after an election is conducted?
A court may defer objections to prevent indefinite postponement of elections, provided the order clearly identifies the adjudicating authority and makes the results conditional upon the final resolution of the objections. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
( 1 ) LEAVE granted.
( 2 ) THE order under challenge was passed by a Division Bench of the High court of Kerala. It noted that, by an earlier order of 17-2-2000, two commissioners had been appointed for the purposes of conducting the election of the office-bearers of the first respondent and that they were to finalise the voters list after inviting objections. The Commissioners had filed reports and had found irregularities and inconsistencies for which they had proposed solutions. The Division Bench noted that the term of the existing office-bearers had been completed. It felt that it was, therefore, necessary that the election should not be indefinitely postponed. It observed that there might"creep in some mistakes in the preparation of the electoral roll or voters list. But if one waits till all the mistakes are removed, it would not be possible to conduct the election. . . . If the argument of the respondents is accepted now, the election will have to be conducted without the representatives of many sakhas or in the alternative, the election of the office-bearers will have to be postponed till the sakhas elected new representatives". The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that it was necessary to complete the election and to leave for consideration the matter of the objections to a time subsequent to the elections.
( 3 ) THE order of the High Court does not state who is to consider the objections after the elections are over. It does not order that the declaration of the results of the elections shall be subject to the consideration of such objections. All this should have been contained in the order.
( 4 ) WE think, therefore, that the order under challenge must be set aside and the proceedings (CMP No. 6001 of 2000 in OP No. 31854 of 1999) should be restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and considered afresh. It shall be open to the High Court, having heard learned counsel on either side, to decide the matter of the objections at this stage or to defer the same till the stage of the final hearing. In the latter event, the High Court shall expressly state that the results of the elections may be declared, subject to such final consideration.
( 5 ) THE civil appeal is allowed accordingly.
( 6 ) NO order as to costs.
