Judicial intervention in electoral disputes must be exercised cautiously and not disrupt the election process once it has commenced; challenges must await the completion of electoral proceedings.

JUDGMENT

I.A.11814/2020 (under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC)

1. The present suit has been filed by five plaintiffs namely Dr. P.V. Vijayaraghavan, Dr.Manish Dhawan, Dr.Swarnendu Samanta, Dr.Sandeep S.Adke and IOACON Patna 2023 (Bihar Orthopaedic Association) impleading Nityam Software Solution Pvt. Ltd. (in short `Nityam'), EVote Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (in short `EVote'), Dr.Ramesh Kumar Sen, Dr.Atul Srivastava, Dr.Naveen Thakkar, IOACON Lucknow 2020 (UP Orthopaedic Association), Indian Orthopaedic Association, through its President Dr.R.C. Meena and Dr.Atul Bahadur Singh, Chairman, Legal and Grievance Committee, Indian Orthopaedic Association as defendant Nos.1 to 8 respectively.

2. The prayers sought in the suit are a decree of declaration declaring the entire process of election of IOA and its purported result declared on 22nd November, 2020 by Dr.Ramesh Kumar Sen a nullity being illegal/mala fide and not conducted in accordance with the constitution of IOA and the Executive Committee meeting held on 19th July, 2020; a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos.1 to 6 permanently in any manner acting upon the outcome of election held between 1st November, 2020 to 21st November, 2020 and its result and direct an investigation in the matter by an independent agency or a retired judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court or this Court to conduct an inquiry.

3. Briefly, in the plaint it is stated by the plaintiffs that on 19th July, 2020 the meeting of the Executive Committee (EC) of the Indian Orthopaedic Association (in short `IOA') was called for considering the conduct of the elections for the year 2020 as per the Constitution of IOA. As the Vice President is the Election Officer responsible for holding IOA elections, accordingly in the said meeting Dr.Ramesh Kumar Sen, the Vice President was assigned the task of Chief Election Commissioner for conducting the IOA election online and the schedule of the IOA elections, 2020 was also announced.

4. Grievance of the plaintiffs in the present suit is that Dr.Ramesh Kumar Sen purportedly engaged Nityam to conduct the online elections of IOA 2020 in a complete unjust and mala fide manner, without following the procedure as decided in EC meeting on 19th July, 2020, and without verifying the antecedents of Nityam, there being allegations of cheating and fraud against Nityam. According to the plaint, the elections were purportedly conducted by EVote which was incorporated on 10th September, 2020 after the date when the nomination forms were opened for the submission and the last date for withdrawal of nominations was also fixed. The election process started from 1st November, 2020 to 21st November, 2020 by online voting conducted through Nityam and EVote and within few minutes of the conclusion of the voting at 5.00 P.M. on 21st November, 2020 Dr.Ramesh Kumar Sen notified that the election result will be declared on 22nd November, 2020 at 10.00 A.M. The link of this virtual meeting was not shared with some of the members of the EC including the President of IOA. According to the plaintiffs, the result of IOA Election-2020 was illegally and malafidely announced on 22nd November, 2020 and the difference in the votes as compared to the past results clearly shows the manipulation, tampering and forgery done with the votes.

5. The plaintiffs conducted scrutiny and found that there was a civil and a criminal case pending against Nityam. Further EVote was incorporated on 10th September, 2020 thus had no past experience which was one of the prerequisite conditions in the selection of the bidder. Dr.Ramesh Kumar Sen on 7th August, 2020 informed that the vendor had been selected, when admittedly EVote was not in existence. Despite the raw data of the elections along with the software was required to be handed over by Nityam and EVote to IOA office immediately, the same was not done suggesting of tampering with raw data and software.

6. The plaintiffs brought these facts to