Kalyan Kumar Gogoi vs Ashutosh Agnihotri and Anr. [2011]
Facts:
A notice was published inviting nominations for the Assam State Legislative Assembly Elections. The appellant filed his nomination, and the respondent No. 2, representing the Bharatiya Janata Party, filed his nomination as well. The Returning Officer declared both nominations valid. On election day (April 3, 2006), the notified polling station at Manik Dutta L.P. School (Madhya) was not set up, causing confusion among voters. The polling was eventually conducted at a different school. The polling station was shifted after the appellant’s complaint, but due to the initial confusion, some voters left without voting. When the votes were counted, respondent No. 2 won by a margin of 175 votes. The appellant requested a repoll at the polling station, but his complaint was dismissed. The appellant appealed the decision before the Gauhati High Court, which also dismissed the appeal. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether there was a breach of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Sections 25, 56) and the Election Rules of 1961 due to the change of the polling venue.
2. Whether the breach materially affected the election result of the returned candidate (respondent No. 2).
Relevant Sections:
• Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951: An election can be declared void if non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Election Rules materially affects the result of the election.
• Sections 25 and 56 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, and Rule 15 of the Election Rules of 1961: These provisions pertain to the conduct of elections and the setting up of polling stations.
Court Reasoning:
The Supreme Court agreed with the findings of the learned Single Judge of the High Court that there was a breach of provisions related to the polling station setup. However, the Court emphasized that non-compliance must materially affect the election result to invalidate the election. The appellant failed to prove, with reliable and cogent evidence, that the shift in the polling station resulted in a significant number of voters being deprived of their chance to vote. The evidence provided by the appellant’s witnesses was largely hearsay, and the Court found the assertions regarding the number of voters who left without casting their votes to be exaggerated and unreliable. The Court also noted that the appellant’s claim that 200-300 voters left without voting was not supported by any conclusive evidence or proper documentation. Even assuming some voters left, there was no proof that these voters would have voted for the appellant, and the voting patterns in India are influenced by many factors, making it difficult to predict how many voters might have shifted their support.
Conclusion:
• The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Gauhati High Court, which had dismissed the appellant's petition.
• The Court concluded that the appellant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the breach in the conduct of the election materially affected the election result.
• The appeal was dismissed, and there was no order for costs.
-GAYATRI
Comments