Point of Law: Reason for rejecting 348 votes is stated as improper signing of the declaration appended to the postal ballot papers and, in fact, the said attestation is empowered to the officials of the election commission.

ORDER :

This is a petition filed by the 1st respondent in this Election Petition arraying the petitioner as well as other respondents as the respondents. The prayer in this petition is to consider the question as to rejection of election petition as provided under Order 7 Rule 11 r/w Order 6 Rule 16 of Code of Civil Procedure. In the affidavit in support of this petition, it has been stated that the grounds alleged by the election petitioner are illegal and improper. Detailed written statement has been filed by the 1st respondent in this regard. It is submitted further that the Election Petition does not contain necessary pleadings and the necessary details to constitute a complete cause of action for challenging the election. The following are the main contentions raised in the written statement to reject the Election Petition.

i) Allegations in paragraph 25 of the Election Petition are also incorrect. Only postal ballots which did not comply with legal formalities were rejected. The fact that Rules 24 to 27 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 are mentioned in the proceedings of the Returning Officer is of no consequence.

ii) The allegations in paragraph 28 of the Election Petition are untrue. The allegation that at the time of counting of 348 postal ballots of absentee voters, no substantial defects were pointed out is not correct. To the knowledge of this respondent, the poll officers have complied with all legal formalities before getting the votes cast by the absentee voters. The declaration is to be filled up and signed by the voter. If the voter has committed any mistake, poll officers cannot be blamed. If at all it is found that there were some omissions on the part of the poll officer, that cannot be a reason for treating any invalid vote as valid. In any view of the matter, even from the averments in the Election Petition, it can be seen that there was substantial compliance. To the knowledge of this respondent, all the voters were properly briefed with respect to the way in which votes are to be cast, declarations to be filled up and the way in which the declaration and votes are to be placed in the covers provided for the same. The averment that same yardstick of counting of ballots by physical voting shall be applied in the case of postal ballots, poll officers stand in the same footing as that of the polling officers in polling stations where elector's personal visit etc. are not correct. In any view, these are matters of interpretation of the concerned rules and guidelines.

iii) The allegation that the election petitioner was not informed about the schedule of visit of the poll officers is incorrect. The allegation that there was total violation of the guidelines is denied.

iv) Annexures- R, S and T cannot be admitted in evidence. They are only parts of video footage obtained by the election petitioner from Election Commission. It is evident that tampering was done with respect to those videos. Apart from that, those videos will not in any way show that there was no compliance of the legal formalities by the poll officers. The allegation that poll officers themselves had undertaken the task of filling up the declaration is factually incorrect. The allegation that almost all the senior citizens were either completely laid up or unable to exercise the franchise themselves without the aid of others also is incorrect. Similar is the allegation that filling up of Form 13 A declaration and all other tasks were undertaken by the poll officers themselves.

v) Even if the allegations against the poll officers are true, the same will not be a reason for setting aside the election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as ‘R.P Act' for convenience). Annexures-F and G are only guidelines and violation of the provisions in the guidelines will not be a ground for setting aside an election under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act. The allegation that 348 postal ba