Laxmi Singh vs Rekha Singh - 2020 Supreme(SC) 419

Headnote

(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Section 94 – Secrecy of ballot – Even a remote or distinct possibility that at some point, a voter under compulsion of law can be force to disclose for whom she has voted would act as a positive constraint and a check on freedom to exercise of franchise – It is policy of law to protect right of voters to secrecy of ballot – This right is something which can be claimed only by voter himself against unwarranted disclosure – Section 94 of RP Act enacts a privilege in favour of voter in that no one can compel him to disclose for whom she had voted but privilege ends when voter decides to waive privilege and instead volunteers to form doing so nor can a complaint be entertained from any, including person who wants to keep voter’s mouth sealed as to why she disclosed for whom she voted – Once voter chooses to waive privilege and volunteers to disclose, there is no contravention of Section 94 or any other provision of RP Act – There is no illegality involved in disclosure by voter – Secrecy of voting is an adjunct to principle of purity of election – Secrecy cannot stand aloof, in isolation or in confrontation to foundation of free and fair elections – When it comes to interpretation of statutory provisions relating to election law, jurisprudence on subject mandates strict construction of provisions. (Paras 8, 11 and 13)

(B) Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 – Section 28(8) – Uttar Pradesh (Zila Panchayats) (Voting on Motions of Non-Confidence) Rules 1966 – Rule 4 – Removal of Panchayat Adhyaksha – No-confidence motion – Principle of secrecy of ballots is an important postulate of constitutional democracy whose aim is achievement of this goal – Voting in a no-confidence motion would take place by secret ballot requires detailed argumentation and analysis – Whether same is illegal de jure, or is allowable, or depends on facts and circumstances of each case taking into account impact on principle of free, fair and pure elections is a question where reasoning of High Court is somewhat lacking – Ends of justice will be met if Motion is put to revote at a meeting of Zila Panchayat by way of secret ballot with District Judge, Allahabad himself or his nominee Additional District Judge, Allahabad, acting as Presiding Officer on a date and time to be fixed by District Judge, which shall not be later than two months from today – This would be a just and fair direction in factual matrix of present case given respective contentions and stand of parties. (Paras 14 and 16)

Facts of the case:

Sixty-four out of the ninety-two elected members of the Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh had on 1st October 2018 moved a motion of no confidence against Panchayat Adhyaksha, Ms. Rekha Singh, first respondent. In the meeting of the Zila Panchayat held on 25th October 2018, forty-eight out of fifty-one members present had voted in favour of Motion, two members had voted against the Motion and one vote was rejected as invalid. On the same day itself, the Presiding Officer had declared that the Motion was passed by majority of more than half of the total elected members of the Zila Panchayat.

Findings of the Court:

One of the fundamental principles of election law pertains to the maintenance of free and fair elections, ensuring the purity of elections. The principle of secrecy of ballots is an important postulate of constitutional democracy whose aim is achievement of this goal. The question of whether the waiver of secrecy by individual voters is allowable during the election process, in a circumstances such as the present, where the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and the 1966 Rules mandate that voting in a no confidence motion would take place by secret ballot requires detailed argumentation and analysis.

Result : Appeals disposed of with observations.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

1. Motion of no confidence in Zila Panchayat — Secret ballot requirement — Challenge to validity based on violation of ballot secrecy. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 )

2. Whether the privilege of secrecy of ballot can be voluntarily waived by a voter without invalidating the election process. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )

3. Election laws require strict construction as statutory proceedings; the impact of voluntary waiver of ballot secrecy on the purity of elections requires detailed analysis. (Para 13 , 14 )

4. Election contests are statutory proceedings requiring strict construction of provisions; the court left the specific question of waiver of ballot secrecy open. (Para 13 , 17 )

5. Motion of no confidence to be put to revote by secret ballot; question of law left open. (Para 16 , 17 )

6. How should statutory provisions relating to election law be interpreted?

Election contests are purely statutory proceedings and not actions at law or suits in equity; therefore, the provisions governing them must be strictly construed. (Para 13 )

7. What is the legal purpose of the secrecy of the ballot?

Secrecy of the ballot is a postulate of constitutional democracy intended to ensure voters exercise their franchise freely, without fear or favor, thereby serving the larger public interest of purity of elections. (Para 8 , 11 , 14 )

8. Can a voter voluntarily waive the privilege of secrecy of the ballot?

While the privilege of secrecy is generally waivable by the voter under the Representation of the People Act, the court left open whether this applies to no-confidence motions under the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 17 )