Gauhati HC: No Pre-Trial Inspection of Sensitive Election Docs (Rule 93(1)) to Prevent 'Fishing Expedition'; Rule 93(2) Docs Permitted - 2025-05-20

Gauhati High Court Denies Pre-Trial Inspection of Certain Election Documents to Prevent 'Fishing Expedition'

Guwahati , Assam: The Gauhati High Court, in a significant order dated May 19, 2025, partly allowed an interlocutory application for the inspection of election documents, drawing a clear line between records accessible under different provisions of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961. Justice Kardak Ete ruled that while certain documents could be inspected, others, particularly those falling under Rule 93(1), could not be accessed at the current pre-trial stage of an election petition to prevent a "roving enquiry" aimed at "fishing out materials."

The application (IA(C)/54/2025) was filed by Tadar Mangku , the election petitioner, who is challenging the election of Tai Nikio to the 19th Nyapin (ST) Assembly Constituency from the 11th Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly Election, 2024.

Case Background: Allegations and Prayer for Inspection

Tadar Mangku 's election petition [Election Pet./7/2024] alleges several irregularities, including the "reception of void votes, booth capturing and concealment and false information in Form-26," which he claims materially affected the election outcome.

In the current interlocutory application, Mangku sought permission to inspect a wide array of election documents and materials related to both the 19th Nyapin (ST) and 14th Doimukh Assembly Constituencies. These included: * Forms 17A (Register of Voters), 17B (Record of Tendered Votes), and 17C (Account of Votes Recorded) for specific polling stations. * Videography and CCTV footage of the election process. * Presiding Officer's and Returning Officer's diaries. * Marked copies of electoral rolls. * Documents related to postal ballots (applications, declarations, counterfoils, etc.).

The petitioner had previously secured an order from the Court on August 22, 2024, directing the District Election Officer (DEO)/Returning Officer (RO) to preserve these documents.

Petitioner's Arguments: Right to Inspect for Fair Adjudication

Mr. R. Biswas, counsel for the petitioner, argued that Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, and Rule 19.10 of the Handbook for Returning Officer, 2023, entitle the petitioner, as a candidate, to inspect election papers and videography. He contended that despite formal requests, access was denied.

The petitioner's counsel emphasized that two conditions laid down by the Supreme Court for granting inspection were met: 1. The election petition contained adequate material facts (allegations of dead, duplicate, bogus voters). 2. Inspection was necessary for a just decision, especially since the court had previously, in an order dated March 21, 2025 (in I.A. No. 182/2024), held that the election petition disclosed a valid cause of action and material facts justifying a trial.

Reliance was placed on precedents like Sethi Roop Lal Vs. Malti Thapar , where the Supreme Court allowed production of marked electoral rolls, stating it wouldn't impair vote secrecy, and A. Neelalohithadasan Nadan , where it was held that the "principle of ‘secrecy of ballot’ must yield to the principle of 'purity of election' in larger public interest."

Respondent's Objections: Premature Request and Risk of Roving Enquiry

Mr. P. K. Tiwari , Senior Counsel for the respondent (Tai Nikio), vehemently opposed the plea for inspection of certain documents at this stage. He argued that allowing inspection before the petitioner filed original documents in his possession, before issues were framed, and before the witness list was presented would amount to a "roving enquiry enabling applicant to fish out evidence to build his case."

The respondent's counsel categorized the requested documents:

* Documents under Rule 93(2)(a) & (b) (e.g., videography, Presiding/Returning Officer diaries, Form 20): He conceded that no court order was needed for these, and inspection could be allowed subject to Election Commission conditions. These included items D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, Q, and U from the petitioner's list.

* Documents under Rule 93(1)(a) to (e) (e.g., marked electoral rolls, Form 17A, postal ballot documents): He argued these cannot be inspected or produced except under a competent court's order, citing strict Supreme Court guidelines. These included items A, B, G, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V(1) to V(14).

Mr. Tiwari cited Chaitanya Kumar Aditya , where the Supreme Court held that inspection is justified only "when on the basis of evidence adduced allegations of irregularity are prima facie established." He also pointed to Hari Ram , arguing that vague allegations about dead voters without specific pleadings that such votes were cast were insufficient. He asserted the petitioner's request was an attempt to "fish out materials."

Court's Analysis: Balancing Transparency with Procedural Safeguards

Justice Kardak Ete meticulously examined Rule 93 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, which distinguishes between two categories of election papers:

Rule 93(1): This covers sensitive documents like packets of unused/used ballot papers, counterfoils, marked copies of electoral rolls, and registers of voters (Form 17A). These "shall not be opened and their contents shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or authority except under the order of a competent court."

Rule 93(2): This pertains to "all other papers relating to the election," which "shall be open to public inspection" subject to Election Commission conditions and fees.

The Court identified that documents listed as A, B, G, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, and V(1) to V(14) in the petitioner's application fell under the restrictive Rule 93(1).

The judgment extensively quoted Supreme Court precedents, including Ram Sewak Yadav , Chaitanya Kumar Aditya , and Hari Ram , which lay down stringent conditions for allowing inspection of such documents. The key conditions include: * Necessity in the interest of justice. * Adequate statement of material facts in the petition. * Prima facie satisfaction of the court. * Inspection cannot be a matter of course to support vague pleas or for a roving/fishing enquiry.

The Court noted the petitioner's reliance on Sethi Roop Lal and A. Neelalohithadasan Nadan regarding the non-impairment of secrecy by inspecting marked electoral rolls and the primacy of "purity of election."

However, the Court ultimately found the respondent's arguments regarding the timing and nature of the request for Rule 93(1) documents persuasive. Justice Ete stated: > "Having considered the documents and materials sought...and having been found the documents in serial Nos. A, B, G, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, V.1 to 14 covered by Rule 93(1)(a) to (e)... I am of the considered opinion that, at this stage, the prayer for a direction to allow to inspect and obtain the aforementioned particular documents and materials prior to filing of original documents, before framing of issues and prior to presentation of list of his witnesses, would not be necessary and would result in allowing the applicant/petitioner to make a roving enquiry to fish out materials for challenging the election of the opposite party." (Para 43)

The Court also took cognizance of its prior order dated August 22, 2024, which already directed the preservation of all requested documents.

The Verdict: Partial Allowance of Inspection

The Gauhati High Court disposed of the interlocutory application with a partial allowance:

Inspection Denied (at this stage): The prayer to inspect documents listed as A, B, G, M, N, O, P, R, S, T, and V(1) to V(14) – those covered by Rule 93(1) – was declined "at this stage."

Inspection Allowed: The petitioner was permitted to inspect and obtain copies of documents listed as D, E, F, H, I, J, K, L, Q, and U, as these fall under Rule 93(2)(a) & (b) and the respondent had not objected to their inspection under the rules.

This decision underscores the judiciary's cautious approach to granting access to sensitive election records, balancing the petitioner's need for evidence against the potential for misuse of the process for exploratory inquiries, especially at the preliminary stages of an election trial. The distinction between different categories of election documents under Rule 93 remains a critical factor in such adjudications.