SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Mad) 1576

High Court of Judicature at Madras
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
S. Vetrivel, President, Bar Association & Another
Versus
Tamil Nadu Advocates Association
A.No.1600 and 1628 of 2011 in C.S.No.7 of 2011
Decided On :Decided On : 21-03-2011

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants:V. Selvaraj and S. Muthuraman, Advocates.
For the Respondents:R1, S. Prabhakaran, R2, S.Y. Masood, K. Venkatakrishnan, Advocates.

Headnote:

The Court invalidated all the votes polled in the District Court campus at Nagercoil and at Padmanabhapuram, in an election to the State Bar Council, on the ground that the entire election process was vitiated by the unlawful episode of the voters not producing photo identity cards, not getting indelible ink marked on their right hand index finger, and dual voting. The Court held that the action of the voters in these two places amounted to tampering of the entire ballot box/boxes, within the meaning of the second portion of Rule 25 (2) of The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules, and that the Returning Officer was satisfied that there was tampering of the ballot box or boxes.

Fact of the Case:

In an election to the State Bar Council, allegations of large scale rigging and corrupt practices were made. The Court appointed a retired Judge as a Commissioner to oversee and monitor the election process. The Commissioner reported that the voting in two places were just a farce and recommended that the votes polled in these two places be invalidated. The Court, after considering the report of the Commissioner and other evidence, invalidated all the votes polled in the two places.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the voters in the two places did not produce photo identity cards, did not get indelible ink marked on their right hand index finger, and engaged in dual voting. The Court held that such actions amounted to tampering of the entire ballot box/boxes, within the meaning of the second portion of Rule 25 (2) of The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules, and that the Returning Officer was satisfied that there was tampering of the ballot box or boxes.

Issues: Whether the action of the voters in not producing photo identity cards, not getting indelible ink marked on their right hand index finger, and engaging in dual voting amounted to tampering of the entire ballot box/boxes, within the meaning of the second portion of Rule 25 (2) of The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the action of the voters in not producing photo identity cards, not getting indelible ink marked on their right hand index finger, and engaging in dual voting amounted to tampering of the entire ballot box/boxes, within the meaning of the second portion of Rule 25 (2) of The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu Election Rules. The Court reasoned that the second portion of Rule 25 (2) empowers the Returning Officer to invalidate all the ballot papers in the ballot box or boxes, if he is satisfied that there was tampering of the ballot box or boxes.

Final Decision: The Court invalidated all the votes polled in the two places.

Judgment :

On a memo filed by the learned Judge-Commissioner, after the conclusion of the elections to the State Bar council on 4-3 2011, I passed an order on 8-3-2011, invalidating all the votes polled in the District Court campus at Nagercoil and at Padmanabhapuram. Aggrieved by the said order, the Presidents of the Nagercoil and Padmanabhapuram Bar Associations have come up with the above applications seeking to recall the said order.

2. I have heard Mr.V.Selvaraj, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in A.No.1600 of 2011, Mr.S.Muthuraman, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant in A.No.1628 of 2011, Mr.S.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the first respondent-plaintiff, Mr.S.Y.Masood, learned counsel for the Bar Council of Tamilnadu, Mr.K.Venkatakrishnan, learned counsel for the Bar Council of India and Mr.Elephant G.Rajendran, the fourth defendant appearing in person.

3. To recapitulate, the last election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was held on 20.9.2005 and the Council was constituted on 12.10.2005. The term of office of the State Bar Council expired on 11.10.2010, in terms of the provisions of Section 8 of the Advocates Act, 1961. By virtue of a resolution bearing Resolution No. 77/2010, passed by the Bar Council of India, in its meetings held on 22nd and 23rd August 2010, the term of office of the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu was extended for a period of 6 months with effect from 12.10.2010, in terms of the Proviso to Section 8.

4. On the strength of the said extension, the State Bar Council convened a meeting on 23.12.2010 and passed 4 resolutions, bearing Resolution Nos.373, 374, 375 and 376. By the first resolution, an election schedule was finalised and the Secretary of the State Bar Council was appointed as the Returning Officer.

5. By the second resolution, a Special Committee comprising of 5 Senior Advocates of this Court were appointed to scrutinise and monitor the conduct of the ensuing election with power to issue suitable instructions to the Returning Officer for the conduct of a free and fair election and the power to nominate any number of Advocates to assist them in the conduct of the election.

6. By the third resolution, 3 Advocates of this Court were appointed as the Election Tribunal, as contemplated by the rules.

7. By the fourth resolution, the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu resolved to hand over the administration of the Bar Council to the Advocate General with power to sign the cheques and operate the bank accounts, jointly with the Secretary.

8. In pursuance of the above resolutions, an Election Notification was issued by the Secretary to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 27.12.2010 and the same was published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Part VI-Section 1, No.51-A. The Notification was also published in the newspapers on the following day and a Press Release was issued by the Advocate General on 30.12.2010, confirming the election schedule and the appointment of the Secretary to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu as the Returning Officer.

9. Challenging the Press Release issued by the Advocate General on 30.12.2010 and the election process so initiated, the Tamil Nadu Advocates Association, registered as a Society under the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, filed the above suit against the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and the Bar Council of India, praying for the following reliefs:-

"(i) Declaring that the press release dated 30.12.2010 (R.O.C.No. 1733 of 2010) issued by the first defendant, announcing election to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu on 4.3.2011, is null and void;

(ii) Declaring that the electoral rolls, published by the first defendant, in preparation for the election of members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, to be held on 4.3.2011, are null and void;

(iii) For appointment of a retired Honble Judge of this Honble Court to conduct the election of members to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, right from the preparation of the electoral rolls upto the announcement of the succes










































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top