Elections must adhere to statutory timelines and requirements; amendments to voter rolls before the nomination deadline are valid.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant-petitioner in Election Case No.1/2021 has preferred this appeal under Section 27 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 (in short 'KMC Act') being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 29.9.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, sitting as the Election Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the said impugned order, dismissed the election Petition filed by the appellant questioning the election of the first respondent to the post of Councilors of Ward No.26 of the Channapatna City Municipal Council. The appellant, having unsuccessfully contested the said election, has specifically alleged that, the nomination of the first respondent was invalid and that his election ought to have been declared void under the provisions of the KMC Act, 1964.

2. The factual matrix surrounding this dispute is that, general elections to the Channapatna City Municipal Council was scheduled in accordance with the calendar of events published by the State Election Commission. The calendar of events dated 29.3.2021 was issued under the authority granted to the Election Commission by Article 243(ZA) of the Constitution of India and by the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964 . The last date for filing nominations was, 15.04.2021, scrutiny was to take place on 16.4.2021, the last date for withdrawal of nominations was 19.4.2021 and polling was scheduled on 29.4.2021. Further, the counting of votes and declaration of results was to be conducted on 30.4.2021. In this election, the appellant and first respondent were among the candidates who filed nominations to contest from Ward No.26, a Ward reserved for scheduled caste candidates.

3. It is the specific allegation of the appellant that, the first respondent was not a validly qualified candidate for contesting the said election as his name was not found in the electoral roll of the relevant Municipal area on the date the election process commenced. It was contended by him that, the first respondent, a resident of Bengaluru had on, 8.4.2021 applied for inclusion of his name in the voters list of Ward No.4 of the Channapatna City Municipal Council, and that the said name was allegedly inserted into the voters list by way of a correction list published on 15.4.2021. The appellant contends that, such an inclusion was in breach of the statutory mandate under the KMC, 1964 particularly under Section 14 of the Act, which restricts any amendment inclusion or deletion in the electoral rolls once the election process begins.

4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced by both the parties, including oral testimony and documentary records came to the conclusion that, the inclusion of the first respondent's name in the electoral roll was not in violation of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. The Tribunal, further held that, the first respondent had established sufficient material to show his residence and connection to Channapatna town and therefore, eligible to contest from Ward No.26.

5. I have heard the arguments of both the side.

The learned Sr.Counsel Sri. Vighneshwar S. Shastry would submit that, when the election process began, the name of respondent no.1 was not included in the voters list of Channapatna and subsequent to that, his name came to be inserted so as to make him to contest the election for the post of counselor from Ward No.26. He submits that, in view of the circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka and the mandatory provisions of KMC Act, the very inclusion of name of respondent no.1