IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the strict adherence to election laws, the importance of maintaining the secrecy of the ballot, and the need for clear and specific allegations supported by evidence in election disputes.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Application is filed to direct the Registrar to scrutinise the postal ballots which is under the safe custody of this Court.)

1. This application has been filed to appoint a Registrar to scrutinise the 605 rejected postal ballot votes, which have been marked collectively as Ex.C.4. This exercise is sought to be undertaken to examine,

(i) Whether reasons have been recorded for rejecting postal ballot votes?

(ii) If so, whether the reasons are factually correct?

(iii) Whether the reasons recorded tallies with the reasons given in Ex.C.3.

(iv) Compare 605 rejected postal ballot votes with the 750 postal ballot votes (Ex.C.5) polled in favour of the 1st respondent to ascertain whether the Returning Officer had adopted standard method and thereafter filed a report to the Court.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the applicant has given reasons for the said request which is herein below set out point wise:

(a) 605 postal ballot votes were rejected without giving any reasons and without informing the reasons to the applicant or his election agent despite their raising objection about the same at the time of counting.

(b) Despite the request of the applicant's agent to tally the postal votes counted with the, number of valid and invalid postal votes and to provide details as to the number of postal ballot votes secured by him, the 1st respondent has turned down the request. The assurance of the Returning Officer to furnish the tally of postal votes at the end of the counting was also not complied with.

(c) That in the reply of the Returning Officer dated 02.05.2015 given in a tabular form reasons have been given only for 525 votes and the remaining 80 votes have been rejected under the head “others”.

3. The main bone of contention of the Applicant is that the reasons for rejection was not recorded and communicated to the candidate or their agent. On 02.05.2021, the applicant has been served with a reply in which the reasons for rejecting postal ballot votes have been given in the form of a tabulated statement. When this statement is examined, only 525 postal ballot votes' rejection reasons are recorded and the rejection in respect of 80 votes has been made under the category “others”.

4. The applicant would submit that recount is essential since the rejection was done without following the procedure contemplated under the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 in as much as the covers were not examined and rejected in accordance with the provisions of Rule 54 A (11) and 54 A (8) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Therefore, the Applicant would submit that since the scrutiny is time consuming as each of the 605 ballots have to be scrutinised individually to ascertain if the reasons recorded for rejection was valid, the same can be done by a Registrar of this Court.

5. The applicant would further submit that the scrutiny of these votes was very crucial since the margin of victory between the election petitioner and the 1st respondent is very slender.

6. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit inter alia contending that the contentions in the affidavit filed in support of the application is nothing but an attempt to conduct a roving enquiry and a fishing expedition.

7. It is the contention of the respondent that the Judges summons has been filed under the provisions of Order XIV Rule 8 and Order XVI Rule 1 and 4 of the Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He would submit that none of these provisions apply to the instant application. Order XVI Rule 1 relates to the presentation of list of witnesses and production of documents. Order XVI Rule 4 relates to Subpoena being issued to public servant to give evidence or summons to produce documents to be served through head of department. Therefore, he would submit that the application has been made under provisions which are neither applicable nor relevant. Howe