Holding

The writ petition is dismissed; the High Court’s interim orders are vacated and set aside.

Summary

The Calcutta High Court entertained a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the Chief Election Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Election Commission of India for allegedly issuing vague and arbitrary directions for a de novo revision of West Bengal's electoral rolls and for proceeding with elections despite alleged irregularities. The petitioners sought to restrain the officials from acting on those directions, from deleting names from the final rolls, from issuing a Section 15(2) notification and from holding the Legislative Assembly elections until all claims and objections were resolved. The Supreme Court held that while the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition, it was not justified in granting interim relief that would postpone an imminent election, especially on the basis of vague allegations and without concrete material. The Court further observed that the Election Commission’s directions, though binding for administrative purposes, do not have the force of law, and that preparation and publication of electoral rolls is a continuous process not part of the "election" under Article 329(b). Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, the High Court’s interim orders were set aside, and the connected civil appeals were disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the Calcutta High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to entertain the writ petition challenging the election process.
Whether the High Court was justified in granting interim orders that effectively postponed the imminent Legislative Assembly election.
Whether the directions issued by the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer have the force of law under the Representation of the People Acts.
Whether the preparation and publication of electoral rolls fall within the term "election" under Article 329(b) and are therefore barred from judicial interference.
Whether the alleged irregularities in the electoral rolls justify restraining the Election Commission from proceeding with the election.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961
Constitution of Indias. Article 168, s. Article 226, s. Article 324, s. Article 325, s. Article 326, s. Article 327, s. Article 329(b)
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960s. Rule 10, s. Rule 11, s. Rule 12, s. Rule 13, s. Rule 14, s. Rule 15, s. Rule 16, s. Rule 17, s. Rule 18, s. Rule 19, s. Rule 20, s. Rule 21, s. Rule 21A, s. Rule 22, s. Rule 23
Representation of the People Act, 1950s. Section 14(b), s. Section 15(2), s. Section 21, s. Section 22, s. Section 23, s. Section 24, s. Section 25
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. Section 15(2)

Subjects

Election lawElectoral rollsArticle 226Article 329(b)Election CommissionWrit petitionJudicial interferenceRepresentation of the People ActRegistration of Electors RulesDemocratic institutions

Judgment

493

LAKSHMI CHARAN SEN AND ORS ETC.
A
'·
A.K.M. HASSAN UZZAMAN AND ORS. ETC.
May 8, 1985/lanuary 12, 1983/March 30, 1981.
B
[Y.Y, CHANDRACHUD, C.l., D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN, BAHAi.VL
II!LAM AND i.S. YINbU.li.AWIAH, JJ.]

C•nstitution of India 1950.

Artie!~ 226-I61ection prOC4SI-lnt,ftunc• by Hith Court'-Po&tP<m•ment C
t~f ~ections-lnterim ortl"s •nd lir•ctlona-l'assint of-Caution and re/uc·
t•.,ce-Neceuity of.

Article 324-Elector•l rolls-Preparation of-Election Commiuion not
havint own staff-Central and State Government staff-Enumerators-Objections
ilf Jist-Disposal of-Efficiency and impartia{ity-EmphaJised. 0
Article 329 (b)-Electoral rol!s-Prtparation and ,ublication of-
Whether part of' election process'-Allegations of irregularities in electoral rolls-
btterference by High Court in electoral matters-Whether bar to illterferelfce.

The Represelftation Df PeDple Act 1950 Sectitms 14 (b) t1nti 21.
E
J'lre Represutation "f l'eople .4ct 1951.

Election Commfssion-Givlnr rJ/ directions t• Chief Klectoral O.ffictrs-
Whether have force of law-Violatiolf of direct/au- Whether creal• rights a11d
"(,ligations under Election Law.
F
Electoral Roll-Prept~ratlo1f tJnd r•vision-What is·-Spuial revis;,,._
JVIIM arises-'Qualifyillg dote' In regard to electoral rrJII-What is.

Tlf11 Registratitm of El«tors Rules 1960. Rules 10 to 20 a1ftl 2~.

Conduct of Election Rules 1961
G
'hasie roll of con!tituency'- What is- Voters list-Basis of free tJNd /tJfr
elections-Jnclusion in electoral roll deletion of inelitible person11 wrDngly
included-Rights a/ eligible Voter-Fee of 10 p. /or challenge-Levy of-
Wh'!ther unreasonable.

Administrat/Pe Law H
Co1utltutio111JI ilutitutio1u tJitd /uNcti(Jnarie$-DisclrtJrge ~f duties by-
PresumpliDif of existence of bottttlde&-Preferve (Jifd fTt?t~ct i11territy of b•TM·
494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985J SUPPL. S.C.R.

fides-Preserve and pretec/ integrity of constitutional institutions-Duty of
A courts.

A writ petition was filed in the Calcutta High Court claiming the
following reliefs : (I) That the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief
Electoral Officer be restrained from acting, either by themselves or through
their subordinates, in pursuance of the instructions or directions issued by
them from time to time ; (ii) that they should be restrained from scoring out
8 any names from the electoral rolls which were finally published ; (iii) that they
!ihould be restrained from issuing or publishing any notification under s. 15 (2)
of the Representation of People Act of 1951 without preparing the electoral
rolls de novo, after the disposal of the appeals against orders whereby claims
and objections were decided; and (iv) that they should be restrained from
holding elections to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly until the disposal
c of all the claims, objections and appeals under the Representation of People
Acts of 1950 and 1951,

The writ petitioners who were eight in number were enrolled as voters
in the electoral roll of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. Some of them
were office-bearers of political parties like the West Bengal State Muslim
D League, West Bengal Unit of the Janta Party, All India Christian Democrate
Party and West Bengal Congress Legislative Party. It was contended in the
writ petition that the guidelines or instru.::tions issued by the Chief Flectoral
Officer by circular dated March 12, 1981 asking all the District Officers and the
Sub-Divisional Officers to make a de novo intensive revision of the electoral
rolls for the general election to the Legislative Assembly, West Bengal. without
reference to the then existing electoral rolls are vague, unreasonable and
E arbitrary as a result of which it would not be possible to hold fre.! and fair
elections on the basis of those rolls,and that the guidelines or instructions
issued were blatantly violated in certain cases, and that the exact extent of the
polling areas was not demoarcated clearly, no house-to· house visits were made
and the names of the members of each household who had attained the age
of 21 year on tb.e prescribed date were not recorded in several cases. By a
F Memorandum dated May 12, 1981 which was after the work of the intensive
revision of the electoral rolls had begun, the Election Commission of India
informed the Chief Electoral Officers of all the States and the Union Territories
that its attention was drawn to certain irregulatities in the matter of revision
of electoral rolls and that in many cases lists pertaining to certain polling
booths were found to be defective. The Draft Elt:ctoral Roll which was
published in September 1981 were manipulated by including therein not only
G Bangladesh Nationals but minors, dead persons and refugees from Assam who
have living in refugee camps. These manipulations in the electoral roll became
possible because of the deliberate infiltration of the CPJ (M) members of the
Government staff in the election machinery as enumerators. The infirmities
in the electoral rolls were of such a basic and inherent character that unless a
further de novo revision of the electoral rolls was undertaken, it would be
H unfair to allow the elections to be held on the ba~is of the said electoral rolls.
Complaints relating to individual cases were sent to the Election Commission
but no attention was paid to them. The scheme of the Election Law and the
rules framed thereunder are so designed that unless aU the objections were::
L.C. SEN V. A.II.M.H. UZZAMAN 495

decided by the appellate authority and the Registration Officer and the

... electoral rolls are correspondingly amended especially when a de novo revision A
of the electoral rolls is directed to be made it is impermissible to issue a
notification under s. 15 (2) of the Act of 1951. It was further alleged that
nearly 8 lakhs complaints were filed in regard to the voters' lists but no notice
was issued to the concerned persons while deciding those complaints. Jn a
few cases where notices were sent not enough time was given to the complai-
nants to appear before the concerned authorities to make their contentions.
Article 329 was no bar to the filina the writ petition under Articl1 226 as the B
petitioners were not challenain& the 'commencement of pollin;'.

On February 12, 1982 a single judae of the Hiah Court issued a rule on
the writ petition and grante<i the ad-interim relief prayed for. The writ
petition was directed to be listed on February 19, 1982 when, after some
arguments, the matter was adjourned to February 25, 1982. Thereafter four C
5pecialleave petitions were filed in this Court a11ainst the ad-interim orders
passed by the Single Judge. On Febuary 23, 1982 certain directions were issued
in one of those special leave petitions and it was la~er ordered that the sinal•
judge of the High Court should proceed to hear the matter.

The writ petition was beard by the Single Judge on February 25, 1982,
who directed the respondents to the writ petition to take certain steps before D
is~uance of the notification under section 15 (2) of the Act of 1951, in effect,
confirming the ad-interim order dated February 12, 1982.

Tn the four appeals to this Court, the Mit petitioners who succeeded in
obtaining interim orders from the High Court are in the array of respondents.
Three of those appeals were filed by persons who contended that the High F.
Court ought not to have interfered with the election process which was
imminent. The fourth appeal was filed by the Election Commission of India,
the Chief Election Commissioner, and the Chief Electoral Officer who con ten.
ded that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition by
reason of Article 329 (b) of the Constitution, that the election process which
had already begun should not have been interfered with by the High Court F
and that the recommendation made to the Governor of West Bengal by tl.e
Election Commission under s. 15 (2) of the Act of 1951 was being thwarted by
frivolous and baseless objections raised by the writ petitioners. ln their
counter-affidavits to the writ petition it was c ntended that the electoral roll~
whichwere prepared de. novo after house to house enumeration in 198 1 and
which were intensively revised in all the 294 assembly constituencies were
finally published with the supplements on December 31,1981. On January 1, G
1982 the finally published electoral rolls with the supplements were published
in draft in the respective polling areas. Claims and objections were specifically
invited in the prescribed forms under the iaw. It was further alleged that the
petitioners were espousing the cause of unnamed and undisclosed persons
through a writ petition, which does not claim to possess a representative
capacity and that the upshot of the petition is that some three crores of voters B
were being deprived of an opportunity to exercise their franchise in order that
an investigation should be mad.;: as to whether the names of some 5 lakhs
~rsons should be included in or excluded from the electoral roll.
496 SUPREME COURT RBPORTS (1985) SUPPL, S.C.R.
HELD:
A [By th4 Court]

The Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution field
before the Calcutta High Court and transferred for disposal to this Court
be dismissed. All orders including stay, and the interim order aranted by
the High Court vacated and set aside. The four Civil Appeals will stand
8 disposed of in the liaht of the dismissal of the writ patition. [525 G-H]

[Per Majoril Chandrachud, CJ., Desai, Sen, Venkataramiah JJ.]

l. (a) The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in entertainina the
writ petition and in issuing a Rule Nisi upon it, since the petition questioned
the vires of the laws of election. But, it was not justified in passing the
c interim orders dated February 12, and 19, 1982 and in confirming those orders
by ita judgment dated February 25, 1982. Firstly, the High Court had no
material before it to warrant the pas~in~ of those orders. The allegations in
tho Writ Petition are of a vague and general nature, on the basis of which no
relief could be granted. Secondly, though the High Court did not lack the
jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition and to issue appropriate directions
therein, no High Court in the exercise of its power under Article 226 of the
D Constitution should pass any orders, interim or otherwise, which has the
tendency or effect of postponing an election. which is reasonably imminent and
in relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked {522 F-H]

(b) The High Courts must observe a self-imposed limitation on their
power to act under Article 226, by refusing to pass orders or given directions
E which will inevitably result in an indefinite postponement of elections to
legislative bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic foundation and
functioning of our Constitution. That limitation ought to be observed irrespec·
tive of the fact whether the preparation and publication of electoral rolls arc
&part of the process of'election' within the meaning of Article 329 (b) of the
Constitution. [523 C-D]

F 2. (a) The Election Commission, or the Chief Electoral Officer or th•
Electoral Registration Officers have not in any manner acted in violation of the
Constitution. the Representation of the People Acts of 1950 and 1951, or th•
Registration of Electors Rules, 1960. The Election Commission issued th•
v&rious directives ex debito justiae as steps·in-aid of a fair election. They are
bein& observed faithfully and honestly, and shall be so observed until th•
deadline mentioned in section 23 (3) of the Act of 1950. The manner in which
G the directives are being implemented cannot be regarded as unreasonable.
[523 F-G]

(b) It takes years to build up public confidence in the functioning of
constitutional institutions, and a single court hearing, perhaps, to sully their
image by casting aspersions upon them. It is the duty of the courts to prote<:t
H and preserve the integrity of all constitutional institutions, which are devised to
foster democracy. And when the method of their functioning is questioned,
which it is open to the citi:z:en to do, courts must examine the allegations with
moe. than ordinary care. [523 H; 524 A· B)
L.C. SEN V. A.K!.M.H. UZZAMAN 497

(c) The Election Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer and the
flectoral Registration Officers will not generate a feeling in the minds of the
public that the elections held hiterto in our country over the past thirty years
A
under the superintendence, direction and control of successive Election
Commissions have been a pretense and a facade. The public ought not to
carry any such impression and the voters must go to the ballot-box undeterred
by the sense of frustration which the petitioners' charges are likely to create in
their minds. There is no substame in the accusation that the voters' lists have
been rigged by the election authorities with the !1elp of enumerators belonging B
to any particular political party. Fnumerators are mostly drawn from amongst
teachers and Government servants and it is difficult to imagine that thirty-five
years after independence, they are totally colour-blind. They are the same in
every State and every constituency. The safeguard lies in the efficiency and
impartiality of the higher officers who have to decide objections filed in
relation to the voters' lists. TJ1at safeguard is not shown to have failed in the
instant case. [524 D-G] c
(d) There is no voter in our country who does not have or cannot raise
a sum of ten paise to ventilate his objection to the voters' Jist. [525 D]

3. Even assuming, that the preparation and publication of electoral
rolls are not a part of the process of 'election' within the meaning of Article D
329 (b), the High Court ought not to have passed the impugned interim orders,
where by it not only assumed control over the e1.ection process but. as a result
of which, the election to the Legislative Assembly stood the risk of being post-
poned indefinitely. [520 D-E]

4. Very often, the e:'\ercisc of jurisdiction, especially the writ jurisdic- E
tion, involves questions of property rather than of power. The fact that the
Court has the power to do a ce:tain thing does not mean that it must exercise
that power regardless of the consequences. (520 F]

5. Holding the elections to legislatures and holding them according to
law are both matters of raramount importance. On the one hand is the
individual's statutory right of franchise, on the other is the constitutional F
obligation imposed by Article 168. [513 A)

6. Preparation and revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process
not connected with any particular election. (513 q

G
7. The right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge the
inclusion of any name in the roll is a right conferred upon an individual and
not upon any political party. [513 FJ

N.P. Ponnuswa"!i v. ~etu,ning Officer Namakkal Constituency, [1952] H
SCR 218. Rampakav1 Ravappa Be/agali v. B.D. Jalli [1970] 3 SC ~
Moh'm, ~er s·Ingh G'll
l v. Ch'te1·" Election Commissioner, New' Delhi
147
[1978] L.2 SCR·
mre~~~ ·
498 SUl'RBMB COURT RJ!POllTIJ . [1985] SUPPL. S.C,Jt, .

· (Pu Balrarul Islam J. dlutntlnK)
A 1. It cannot bo said in the Instant case, that in the revlSJon of the
electoral roll, all possible care os enjoined by the letter and spirit of the
Constitution and tbo statutes was taken. [S39 E)

2. A political party is not eotilled to, under the law, to receive any
notice but in the background of the illilerncy and ignorance and lack or
8 political consciousness of D large &cCtiOD Of the eleClOrote, it is but proper and
in consonance with the "spirit of the Constitution and the Election Lows that
notices bo given to the leaders of political parties who file complaints or
omnibus complaints and claims nod objections. [537 G·H]

. 3•. No persons who are members or a political party or of an association
c nff•liated to a polilical party should be appointed to be enumerators of voters
&o that there may not be ony foul piny or rigging in tl1e preparation of the
electoral roll. Enumarators should be porsons who ore not affiliated, either
directly or lndireclly loony political party, whether in power or not; for this
purpose, it is de~irable that only Go,·emment officers Including teachers or
Government &ehools and colleges m•1 t:e appointed enUQlerotors and not or
non-government organ(z.Jtions or lnslltutiona, unless their rules debar theit
employees to be members of political pa rtie&. [539 C·D]

4. The ba~lc needs of a citizen or any civilized country are food,
clothing. education and health services. A citizen of ony modern democratic
State hat also an additionaloeed, which is a political right. It is the right of
participation in the aovernance or the .:ountry directly or indirectly. This
.E participation or an adult clt!z,o of our country starts with the right to vote for
a cand'date and elect a repr<1<'nt3th-.:. of hls choice to the leaislatures end
other self-covernina lnst(lutlons. This right to vote presuppose• a rlaht to bo
enrolled u an elector provided, he bas the requisite quoliOcatlons prescribed
by the Con•titutlon and the elect"H>O laws and other stat~tes and he has none of
the di!qu•lillcatioOJ enumerated in those laws. (527 C·D)
F
S.(l) The basi• or election oo adult franchise &nd the right to be reaistered
as a voter at an election of a penon with the requisite qualifications and havina
no di$Qualifications are coottitutlooal DlJDdate1. (II) Puli•ment has made pro-
vldons for tho purpose or tho prtP<Jrarlvn u/lh• ~/fctoral rolls ond mauen
connected therewith In tbe Ropresentatlon or People Act 19SO and tbo
Registration or Electors Rulet 1960. Por tho purpose or conduct of election
to the Houses of Parliament and to the .Houses or State Legislatures and to
mellen relatlna to such elect loot In the R~presentatlon or People Act, 19SI
tacit he Conduct or I!Jectlon Rule. 1961. [~27 0-H; 528 A) ::

6. The basis of a free and fair election Is the voters' list prepared In
Jl acc.ordance with the 19.10 Act and the 19GO Rules. 1f this Is not so done, thl
electoral rollt will ha•o no ~octily and the consequent election will also Ml
intpirc confid(nce of the !)fflple. ['29 q
L.C. SBN v. A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN 499
7. Article 314 shows that for the purpose of preparing the electoral
rolls for the purpose of conductio& the elections, the Election Commission, A
although a very high and independent constitutional functionary, does not
have a staff of its own appointed and removable by it. The staff made available
to the Election Commission for the aboye purposes are the employees of a
State or the Central Government. They are not independent like the Election
Commission, itself, but are liable to be influenced by the concerned Executive
Government. lllegal omission of the names of persons who were qualified
from the electoral roll or inclusion of the names of persons who are not B
qualified or who have disqualifications has for reaching consequences. (528D·E)

8. Section 21 of the 1950 Act provides for the preparation and revision
of electoral rolls. Qualifying date bas been defined under Section 14 (b) as the
" 1st day of January of the year in which it is so prepared or revised" in
relation to the preparation or revision of every electoral roll under Part III.
It is not permissible in normal circumstances to hold a general or bye-election
c
on an electoral roll unless it is revised under sub-section (1) of section 21.
[530 A-B; 531 Gj

9. The Elections Rules 1960 by Rules 10 and 11 provide for the publi-
cation of the draft roll and further publicity of the roll and the notice in Form
5, A combined reading of Rules 18, 19 and 20 show that they are based on D
the principle of natural justice keeping in view the right of an eligible voter to
be included in the electoral roll a nd the right of any person to see that the
names of a persons not so eligible, but wrongly included earlier, be delated
from the electoral roll. Rule 21 gives suo moto power to the registration
officer to include names inadvertently omitted . Rule 21 (A) gives suo n:oto
power to the registration officer to delete the names of dead electors or of E
persons who have ceased to be or are not ordinarily residents in the
constituency . Rule 22 is very important. It gives power to the registration
officer to prepare a li;t, after compliance of Rules 18, 21 and 21A and publish
the rol! together with the list of amendments by making a complete copy
thereof available for inspection and displaying a notice in Form 16 at his
office. Under sub-rule (2} of Rule 22, on such publication, the roll together
with the list of amendments.' 'shaH be the electoral roll of the constituency",
Under sub-rule (3), this roll s\1all be the " basic roll" for the constituency.
Rule 23 provides for appeal from the decision of the registration officer under
Rules 20, 21 or 21A to an a ppropriate authority. These provisions disclose the
importance to be given to the preparation of an electoral roll.
(532 C; 533 F-H; 534 A)
G
10. A perfect electoral roll is not possible. But at the same time, it
must be remembered that the name of any eligible voter should not be omitted
or the name of any disqualified person should not be included in the electoral
roll, in violation of any constitutional or statutory provisions. The ~rcor,
when pointed out, has to be removed. It must also be remembered that a large H
section of the electorate of our country consist of illiterate people and not
politically so conscious as to see that their names arc in the electoral roll. A
duty is cast on the political parties to educate the el~ctorate and take steps
that the names of elisible persons are included in the electoral rolls and that
500 SUPREMB COURT RBPORTS (1985) SUPPL. S.C.R.

names of ineligible persons are deleted. Erroneous inclusion or omJssJon of
A the names of a few persons may not be of much consequence. But if a.
considerable number of the names of such persoons are either wrongly included
in, or excluded from, the electoral roll, it will be of great consequence to a
particular party ;ither or in the opposition. The electoral registration officer,
therefore, cannot be fastidious as to whether the claims and objections are
strictly in prescribed forms. Even. when there are omnibus objections by a
political party or political parties, as in this case, filing claims and or
B objections, such claims and objections have to be inquired into and necessary
action taken so that the correct opinion of the electorate may be relected ift
the result of the election. [534 B-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 739 of
1982.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated February 12 and 19, 1982
of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. Nil of 1982.

AND
D
Civil Appeal No. 740 of 19~2

From the Judgment and Order dated February 12, 1982 of the
Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. (W) of 1982.

E AND
Civil Appeal No. 741 of 1982

From the Judgment and Order dated February 25, 1982 of the
Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. (W) of 1982.
F
AND
Civil Appeal No. 742 of 1982

From the Judgment and Order dated February 12, 1982 and
G February 25, 1982 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Writ No. (W)
of 1982.

AND

H Transferred Case No. 3 of 1982

K.K. Venugopal, S.N. Kacker, N.N. Gooptu, Soli J. Sorobjee,
Somnath Chatterjee, R.K. Garg, F.S. Nariltfan, Pronab Kumar
L.c. SEN .,, A.K.M.H. uz.iAMAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 501

Chatterjee, H.K. Puri, Miss Radha Rangaswamy, N.K. Chakravarthy
and B. V. Desai for the appearing Appellants. A

A.K. Sen, S.S. Ray, BN. Sen, B.P. Banerji, M. Mezumdar.
Kapil Sibal, Ashok Ganguly, L K. Gupta, U.N. Bannerjee, Parijat Sinha
and P.R. Seetharaman for the Petit1oners, and for the Respondents
I, 8 and 14 in C.A. No. 739·41 of 1982 and for Respondent No.6 in B
742 of 1982.

L.N. Sinha Att. Gen., K. Parasaran, Solicitor General, Milan
Kumar Banerjee, Addl. Solicitor General, K.S. Gurumoorthy, Miss
A. Subhashini, Ajit Panja and Mrs. Mithu chvkravarti for the
Respondents. c
M.C. Bhandare, P.R. Mridul, Mrs. S. Bhandare, A.N. Karkhanis,
Miss C.K. Sucharita, T. Sridharan and Vindet Kumar, for the
Respondents.
D
P.H. Parekh, R.N. Karanjawala for the Interveners in C.A. No.
739 of 1982. Indian Express News Papers (Bombay)

Mt31 Rani l1thma/ani for the Intervener. (Bar Council)

R.C. Kaushik for the Intervener in C.A. No. 742 of 1982. E
(Democratic Society).

The followini Judgments were delivered

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. : There are four appeals and a Transferred F
Case before us. The appeals arise out of interim orders passed by a
learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court on February 12 and
19, 1982 which were confirmed by him on February 25, 1982. Those
orders were passed in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution ask:ini for the writs of mandamus and certiorari, G
directing that the instructions issued by the Election Commission
should not be implemented by the Chief Electoral Officer and others;
that the revision of electoral rolls be undertaken de nora; that claims,
objections and appeals in regard to the electoral roll be heard and
disposed of in accordance with the rules; and that, no notification be H
issued under section 15(2) of the Repmentation of the People Act,
1951 calling for election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly,
until the roJJs were duly revised.
5o2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1985] SUPPL. s.c.R,

Transferred Case No. 3 of 1982 is that very writ petition. It was
A withdrawn for hearing and final disposal to this Court by an order
dated March 4, 1982. That writ petition was filed by eight persons
against the Union of India. The Election Commission, the Chief
Election Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal.
The writ petitioners, who succeeded in obtaining interm orders from
B the High Court are in the array of respondents in the four appeals.
Three out of those appeals are filed by persons who contend that the
High Court ought not to have interfered with the election process
which was imminent. The fourth appeal No. 742 of 1982, is filed by
the Election Commission of India, the Chief Election Commissioner
and the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal. Their contention is
c that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition
by reason of Article 329(b) of the Constitution, that tbe election
process which had already begun should not have been interfered
with by the High Court and that the recommendation made to the
Governor of West Bengal by the Election Commission under section
15(2) of the Act of 1951 was being thwarted by 'frivolous and base-
0
less' objections raised by the writ petitioners.

The writ petitioners are enrolled as voters in the electoral roll
of the West Bengal Legislative Assembly. The validity of several
provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, the Repre-
E sentation of the People Act, 1951, the Registration of Electors Rules,
1960, and the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 was challenged in the
writ petition but, it is unnecessary to spend any time over that matter
since, the validity of none of those provisions was questioned before
us. Shorn of that challenge, it is doubtful whether the High Court
would have passed the impugned orders. Be that as it may, what is
F to be noted is that the points which are raised for our consideration
do not involve the validity of any law and are restricted to illegalities
and irregularities alleged to have been committed by the Chief
Electoral Officer, West Bengal, and by the officers subordinate to him
in regard to the preparation of the electoral rolls which would be used
G for the purposes of election to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly.

The Chief Electoral Officer, by a Circular dated March 12.
1981t asked all the District Officers and the Su~Divisional Officers
under him to make a de novo intensive revision of the electoral rolls
H for the general election to the Legislative Assembly, West Bengal,
without reference to the then existing electoral rolls. The grievance
of the writ petitioners is that the guidelines or instructions issued by
l.c. iBN li" A.C.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 503

the Chief Electoral Officer were not only not adhered to by the
subordinate officers but were blatantly violated in certain cases. It is A
alleged, for example, that the exact extent of the polling areas was not
demarcated clearly, no house-to-house visits were made and, the
names of the members of each household who had attained the age
of 21 years on the prescribed date were not recorded in several cases.
According to them, the guidelines issued by the Chief Electoral B
Officer for a de novo intensive revision of the electoral rolls are vague,
unreasonable and arbitrary, as a result of which, it would not be
possible to hold free and fair elections on the basis of those rolls.

By a Memorandum dated May 12, 1981, which was after the
work of the intensive revision of the electoral rolls had begun, the c
Election Commission of India informed the Chief Electoral Officers of
all the States and the Union territories that its attention was drawn to
certain irregularities in the matter of revision of electoral rolls and
that in many cases, lists pertaining to certain polling booths were
found to be defective. For example. the polling areas covered by the D
polling booths were not clearly demarcated, the polling booths were
not compact, care was not taken to ensure that voters belonging to
weaker sections or minority communities would be able to reach the
polling booth£ and that the Commission's instructions that polling
booths should be set U:J in colonies inhabited by Harijans and other
weaker sections of the society, even though the number of voters may E
be les~ than 500. were not carried out appropriately. According
to the petitioners, the instructions issued by the Election Commission
were not carried out in the State of West Bengal. They also contend
that the instructions issued by the Chief Election Commissioner in the
Circular dated May 12, 1981 were at variance with the instructions
F
issued by the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal on March 12, 1981,
thereby making it difficult for the Electoral Officers to carry out their
duly appointed duties. The petitioners have then referred in the writ
petition to radiogrammes dated June 21 and July 4, 1981 issued by
the Election Commission. It is contended that the directions issued
in those radio&rammes are arbitrary and illegal for various reasons. G

The further grievance made by the petitioners in the writ peti-
tion is that the preparation of electoral rolls on the basis of polling
stations was made arbitrarily and improperly in that, the total number
of voters in ~everal constituencies, after the house-to-house enumerll-! H
tion, differed in material particulars from the total number of voters
in the Draft Electoral Roll which wa~ published in the month of
5o4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (198S] su PPt. s.c,s..

September 1981. It is alleged that the Draft Electoral Rolls were
A manipulated by including therein not only Bangladesh Nationals but
minors, dead persons and refugees from Assam who were still living
in refugee camps. According to the petitioners, these infirmities in the
electoral rolls were of such a basic and inherent character that unless
a further de no11o revision of the electoral rolls was undertaken, it
B would be unfair to allow the elections to be held on the basis of the
revised electoral rolls. The revision work of the electoral rolls which
was undertaken in West Bengal could not possibly be finished within
the time prescribed since, so the petitioners say, the State was passing
through a difficult period, particularly in the matter of law and order
and because of natural calamities. The infirmities in the revised
c electoral rolls which are pointed out by the petitioners may be
summed up as the inclusion of teenagers and aliens therein, exclusion
of persons who are qualified to be enrolled as voters, the incorpora-
tion of fictitious entries and, mistakes and distortions in names and
surnames. One of the grievances of the petitioners is that these
manipulations in the electoral ro Jls became ·possible because of the
D
deliberate infiltration of the CPI(M) members of the Government
staff in the election machinery. It is alleged that complaints relating
to individual cases were sent to the Election Commission but, no
attt>ntion was paid to them.

E According to the petitioners, the scheme of the Election law
and the rules framed thereunder is so designed that unless all the
objections are decided by the appellate authority and the Registration
officer and the electoral rolls are correspondingly amended, especially
when a de navo revision of the electoral rolls is directed to be made,
F it is impermissible to issue a notification under section 15(2) of the
Act of 1951.

Yet another grievance of the petitioners is that nearly 8 lakhs
complaints were filed in regard to the voter's lists but, no notice was
issued to the concerned persons while deciding those complaints. In
G
a few cases where notices were sent, not enough time was given to the
complainants to appear before the concerned authorities to make
their contentions. Indeed, the petitioners so contend, the claim of
the Election Commission that it had already looked into most of the
H complaints was, on the face of it. exaggerated. Nearly 8 lakhs com·
plaints arc alleged to have been filed by the Indian National Congress
by way of a sample survey which related to 100 out of 294
constituencies in the State of West Bengal.
t.C. StlN v. A.Kt.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 505

The petitioners wind up the writ petition by asserting that the
ban imposed by Article 329 of the Constitution cannot prevent them A
from filing the writ petition under Article 226 since, they were not
challenging the 'commencement of polling'. Their cha11enge was to
the constitutionality of the law relating to elections and the arbitrary
actions on the part of the Election Commission. The writ petition
contains exactly 100 grounds on the basis of which the holding of the 8
impending elections to the West Bengal Legislative Assembly was
challenged. The Election Commission had declared on February
9 1982 in a Press Conference that the final voters' lists would be pub-
•
lished on March 1, 1982 and that the elections may be held at any
time between April and June 24, 1982.
c
We have set out the case of the petitioners at some length
became their writ petition was withdrawn for disposal by this Court.
The merits of the petition are being considered for the first time here,
which makes it necessary to know the state of pleadings and the
nature of the relief claimed in the petition.
D
By their writ petition, the petitioners ask for the following
reliefs : (i) That the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief
Electoral Officer be restrained from acting, either by themselves or
through their subordinates, in pursuance of the instructions or direc-
tions issued by them from time to time; (ii) that they should be E
restrained from scoring out any names from the electoral rolls which
were finally published, (iii) that they should be restrained from issuing
or publishing any notification under section 15(2) of tbe Act of 1951

- without preparing the electoral rolls de no1•o, after the disposal of the
appeals against orders whereby claims and objections were decided;
and (iv) that they should be restrained from holding elections to the
West Bengal Legislative Assembly until the disposal of all th~ claims,
objections and appeals under the Acts of 1950 and 1951.

On February 12, 1982, the learned single Judge of the Calcutta
High Court issued a rule on the writ petition and granted ad-interim
relief to the petitioners as prayed for by them. The writ petition was G
directed to be listed on February 19, 1982 when, after some argu•
ments, the matter was adjourned to February 25. Some time later,
four special leave petitions were filed in this Court against the ad-
interim orders passed by the learned Judge. On February 23, 1982
certain directions were issued in one of these special leave petitions
H
by a Bench consisting of three of us, namely, D.A. Desai J,
'
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (I985J ~UPPL. S.c.a.

.P. Sen J. and Baharul Islam J. It was directed that, since the High
A Court was seized of the writ petition and in view of the comity
amongst judicial functionaries, it was better that the High Court
completed the hearing by February 25, 1982. The order proceeded
to say : 'It is requested that the writ petition shall be placed on the
Board of the learned Judge on Wednesday, 24th February, 1982 and
B shall be heard and hearing completed and order pronounced before
the expiry of Thursday, 25th February, 1982....... The learned Judge
should proceed to hear the matter without considering any direction
about production of the documents by the Election Commission or by
any parties as that part of the order is stayed at the instance of
Election Commission. The parties are precluded from maldng any
c requests o~ adjournment ...

The writ petition was called out for hearing before the learned
Judge on February 25, wllen he directed the respondents to the writ
petition to take certain steps before the issuance of the notification
under section 15(2) of the Act of 1951. In effect, he confirmed the
D ad-interim order passed on February 12, 1982.

We will deal witll the legal contentions presently but, before
doing so, we would like to demomtrate that the grievance made by
the petitioners against the Election Commission, the Chief Electoral
E Officer and their subordinates is wholly imaginary and unjustified.
We were taken through the counter-affidavits filed by Shri Narayanan
Krishnamurthi, Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, and Shri
K. Oanesan, Secretary to the Election Commission, in answer to the

, writ petition. The fact~ stated therein, which are beyond the pale of
controversy, afford a complete answer to the petitioners' contentions.
. The following position emerges from the affidavit filed by the Chief
-
Electoral Officer :

Steps taken with regard to the intensive de novo
revision of electoral rolls tn 1981 under section 21 of th11
G Representation of the People Act,1950 read with Rule 25
of the Registration of Elector3 Rules 1960 and Rules 4 to
!3 of the said Rules.

(1) The general elections to the Lok Sabha were held in
H early 1980. The electoral rolls in the State of West Bengal for all
the 294 assembly constituencies were revised intensively in 1979,
along with the revision of rolls in all other States and Union
territoric!l, for the purpose of holding that election.
.L.C. SEN \1. A.K\.M,H. UZZAMAN ( Chandrochud, C.J.) 507

(2) After the said general election to the Lok Sabha, and the
general elections to certain State Assemblies which were held in June A
1980, the electoral rolls were revised summarily by way of special
revision throughout the country, under the new scheme of prepara-
tion of electoral rolls polling-stationwise, thereby making every part
of the electoral roll compact for a well-defined polling area and
making them as far as possible co-terminus with the polling 8
stations which then existed After the said special revision of the
electoral rolls, the 5ame were finally published by 3ht December,
1980.

(3) As the general election to the Legislative A~semblies of
the States of Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and West Bengal were c
due in 1982, the Election Commission of India directed that the
rolls in the aforesaid three States for all the constituencies should
be iotensively revised with reference to the qualifying date, which
was to be January 1, 198l.
D
(4) The Commission directed that the widest possible publi-
city should be given to the programme of revision of rolls through
mass media and that a meeting with the representatives of State
units of recognised political parties should be held to apprise them
of the revision schedule and to seek their active cooperation. E

(5) The following programme, as modified later, was
approved by the Election Commission for the intensive revision of
electoral rolls in the State of West Bengal

F
(a) For 274 assembly constituencies, bouse to house
enumeration was to be completed by June 30, 1981
and for the 20 constituencies by August 31, 1981.
Draft publication of printed electoral rolls for 274
assembly constituencies was to be made on
7.9.1981 and for the remaining 20 constituencies on G
22.10.1981.

(b) The period for lodging claims and objections was
fixed between 7.9.1981 and 21.9.1981 in respect of H
27 4 assembly constituencies and between 22.10.1981
and 12.11.1981 in respect of the remining 20
constituencies.
508 SUPRilME COURT REPORTS [1985) SUPPL. S.C.l,

(c) Final publication of the electoral rolls after disposal
A of claims and objections was to be made on
31.12.1981.

(6) The Chief Electoral Officer, according to the instructions
of the Election Commission, issued orders to the Electoral Registra·
B tion Officers of 2 t assembly constituencies in Calcutta where house
to house enumeration was first taken up, that 2 copies of the
electoral rolls as finally published should be supplied by December
31, 1980 to recognised political parties for the purpose of intensive
revision. Similar directions were issued to the officers of the remain-
ing constituencies for the supply of 2 copies of the electoral rolls,
c where the llouse to house enumeration was taken up later.

(7) Press releases and advertisements in all dailies of West
Bengal were issued on the question of intensive revision of electoral
rolls in respect of 21 constituencies in Calcutta, seeking cooperation
D from all citizens and political parties, with special reference to house
to house enumeration. In June 1981, similar advertisements were
issued in the dailies of West Bengal regarding the intensive revision
of electoral rolls in respect of other constituencies.

(8) Communications wer1 sent between January and July
E 1981 by the Chief Electoral Officer to all political parties regarding
the intensive revision of electoral rolls in respect of the assembly
constituencies in Calcutta, seeking their cooperation in the task of
complete revision of the electoral rolls.

F (9) After the Election Commis5ion issued revised condensed
instructions for the enumeration of electoral rolls in the State of
West .Bengal, the Chief Electoral Officer communicated those
instructions to all the Electoral Registration Officers in the State,
together with his own directions reaardini the proaramme of enu.,
meration, checkine and lupcrvision.
G
(10) On Much 19, 1981 a press release was issued in all the
dailies of West Bengal, giving the details of the programme of
enumeration, of the publication of the rolls in draft, inviting claims
H for inclusion of names in the rolls and objections to the inclusion
of names, if any, and also inviting objections to the particulars in
respect of entries in the draft roll so published. The press release
explained the procedure for filling up the enumeration cards.
L.C. SEN V. A.K.M,H. UZZAMAN (Chandfachud, G.J.) 509

(11) In terms of the instructions issued by the Election
Commission on May 13, 1981, corresponding details instructions A
were issued by the C.E.O. to the District Election Officers and
Electoral Registration Officers regarding the preparation and
finatisation of the list of polling stations.

(12) On June 29, 1981 the Preiidenti and Secretaries of all B
political parties were informed by a communication that a meeting
will be held at the Writers' Building in Calcutta on 8.7.1981 at
11.00 A.M. in regard to the de novo intensive revision of electoral
rolls with 1.1.1981 as the qualifying date and requesting them to
make it convenient to attend.
c
(13) On July 7, 1981 a press release and press advertisement
were issued in all dailies of West Bengal regarding the programme
of revision of electoral rolls and the preparation and finalisation of
the list of polling stations.
D
(14) On July 8, 1981 a meeting with political parties wa1 held
under the chairmanship of the C.E.O. in which, representatives of
different political parties participated. In that meeting, the pro-
gramme and procedure governing the remaining stages of intensive
revision were explained to the participants. They were requested to
bring to the notice of the concerned Electoral Registration Officers E
the complaints and defects, if any, regarding the enumeration work
and the electoral rolls that were scheduled for publication in a draft
form in September-October 1981.

(15) On July 8, 1981, letters were addreMed to the political F
parties by the C.E.O. regarding the programme ofintensive revision
and finalisation of polling stations. In those letters, it was specifically
atated that "as this is a very gigantic exercise involving intensive
field work and spot enquiry and careful and laborious office work,
your cooperation is solicited to make this operation a success".
G
(16) In September and October 1981, printed draft electoral
rolls were published in the offices of the Electoral Registration
Officers and in the polling areas of each constitutency concerned for
the convenience of the public so that they could inspect the rolls
and file their claims and objections near their places of residence.
H
Such draft electoral rolls were published on 7.9.1981 in respect of
274 Assembly constitutencies and on 22.10.!981 in resvect of the
510 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPPL••S.c.R.

remaining 20 Assembly constituencies. The draft rolls were kept for
A public inspection for 21 dayil. ...
(17) On September 7, 1981 yet another press advertisement
in all dailies of West Bengal was issued, not only reaffirming the
draft publication of rolls regarding 274 Assembly constituencies on
B 7.9.1981. but also indicating the procedure for filing claimil and
objections under the law.

(18) On October 9, 1981 a communication was sent by the
O.E.O. to all the political parties regarding draft publication of the
electoral roll of the remaining 20 constituencies on 22.10.1981
c indicating again the pro.;edure for filing claims and objections.

(19) In early December 1981, Shri Ajit Kumar Panja of the
Indian National Congress made a complaint regarding the non·
inclusion and wrong inclusion of certain entries in the electoral roll
of 15S·Burtola Assembly constitutency. A special check was made
D and remedial action taken in respect of 6000 entries before the
finalisation of the intensively revised rolls of 31.12.1981. The
Blectoral Registration Officer, who is the Collector of Calcutta,
made a report in that behalf, a copy of which is annexed to the
counter·affidavit of Shri Krishnamurthi.
E (20) The final publication of intensively revised electoral rolls
which were prepared de novo during 1981, after a house to house
enumeration in all the 294 Assembly constituencies, was made with
printed supplements on 31.12.1981. The revision was made with
reference to the qualifying date as 1.1.1981. With this, the process
F of intensive revision which was commenced on 1.1.1981 in the State
of West Bengal was completed.

(21) The total number of claims received in the prescribed
form No. 6, and those admitted, and the total number of objections
filed in the prescribed from No. 7, and those allowed, were as
G follows:

Total number of claims field in Prescribed 4,17,231
Form No.6
Total number of claims admitted 3,05,072
H
Total number of objections filed in
prescribed form No. 7 1,09,865
Total number of objections allowed 65,430.

1
L.C. SEN II. A.II.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, G.J.) 511

Steps with regard to summary revision of the
electoral rolls undertaken in 1982 under section 21 of A
the Representation of the People Act, 1950 read with
rule 25 and rules 9 to 23 of the Registration of
Electors Rules, 1960 so as to bring the Electoral Rolls
up-to-date i.e. with reference to the qualifying date as
1.1.1982. B
(1) On December 9, 1981, the Election Commission directed
the Chief Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories
(except Assam, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Meghalaya, Nagaland
and Tripura) to undertake summary revision of electoral rolls in
1982 with reference to 1.1.1982 as the qualifying date and chalked C
out a programme for the ilame.

(2) On December 14, 1981 the Commission wrote a letter to
all political parties at their Head-quarters giving the details of the
above programme for the summary revision of electoral rolls and D
wliciting their cooperation.

(3) A press release and an advertisement were issued in all
the dailies of West Bengal on 23.12.1981 informing the public about
the draft publication of the electoral rolls, in the course of summary
revision of rolls in 1982. A copy of this release was also endorsed
to all political parties on 23.12.1981.

(4) A circular letter was addressed to the General Secretaries
and Presidents of all political parties in West Bengal by the C.E.O.
giving details of the programme of summary revision of electoral
F
rolls in 1982 and soliciting their cooperation. By this letter, politi·
cal parties were also informed that 2 copies of the supplements to
the draft electoral rolls, being intensively revised then and, due for
publication on 31.12.1981, would be supplied to each political party
free of cost.
G
(5) The electoral rolls which were prepared de novo after
house to bouse enumeration in 1981 and which were intensively
revised in all the 294 assembly constituencies in the State were
finally published with the supplements on December 31, 1981 .
H
(6) On January l, 1982 the finally published electoral rolls
with the supplements were published in draft in the respective
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1985] SUPPL. S.C.R.

polling areas by all the Electoral Registration Officers for the
A purpose of summary revision undertaken in 1982. Claims and
objections were specifically invited in the prescribed forms under the
·.
law.

(7) Due to the internal misunderstanding between Shri Ajit
B Kumar Panja and Shri Anand Gopal Mukherjee of the Indian
National Congress, the authorities were unable for some little time
to discover who, between those two, was entitled to receive copies
of the electoral rolls. The rolls were supplied after the position
was clarified.

c (8) On January 4, 1982 an advertisement was issued in all
dailies of West Bengal informing the public as to the exact contents
of Forms 6, 7 and 8 of the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960 and
also intimating to them that no fees wlll be required to be paid for
submitting claims or objections in these forms.
D
(9) The draft rolls were kept for public inspection in the
respective polling areas and in the offices of the Electoral Registra-
tion Officers concerned. Claims and objections were asked to be
presented either to the officer designated for the purpose under the
law or to the Electoral Registration Officer concerned.
E
(10) The following Table shows the position regarding the
claims and objections made in the prescribed form and accepted ;

Claims in Objections in Objections to
Form No.6 Form No.7 particulars in
F Form No.8

Filed 3,34,993; 1,49,548 ; 89,300 ~

Accepted 2,31,583 ; 80,592; 80,798 ~~
G These facts establish in an ample measure that the grievances
made by the petitioners are unsupported by facts. It is significant .
;.;

that none of the petitioners has been denied a place in the electoral
roll nor were the objections raised by any one of them dismissed.
As we have stated earlier, none of the four persons who forwarded
he omn.i-~;.ls complaints even filed an affidavit in support of those
complaints.
L.C, SEN V. A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud. C.J.) 513

Holding the elections to legislatures and holding them accord-
ing to law are both matters of paramount importance. Qn the one
A
hand is the individual's statutory right of franchise, on the other is
the constitutional obligation imposed by Article 168 that "For every
State there shall be a Legislature ... " ··We find it somewhat odd that,
in the instant case, individuals whose rights are alleged to have been
violated have not come to the Court at all. Not one out of the eight B
lakhs. Persons who have come to the Court are members of a
political party who claim to represent them. While we are on this
question, it must be emphasized that Election laws do not recognise
political parties except in rule 11 (c) of the Registration of Electors
Rules, 1960. The Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment)
Order, 1968, and Explanation l to section 77 (1) of the Act of 1951. a
The right to be included in the electoral roll or to challenge the
inclusion of any name in the roli is a right conferred upon an
individual and not upon any political party. The petitioners are
espousing the cause of unnamed and undisclosed persons through a
writ petition, which does not even claim to possess a representative D
capacity. The upshot of the petition filed by them is that some 3
crores of voters were being deprived of an opportunity to exercise
their franchise in order that an investigation should be made as to
wltether the names of some 5 lakhs and odd persons should be
included in or excluded from the electoral roll.
E
The fundamental error from which the writ petition suffers is
this : The fact that the revision of electoral rolls, either intensive
or summary, is undertaken by the Election Commission does not
have the effect of putting the electoral roll last published in cold
storage. The revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process which F
has to go on, elections or no elections. For example, the revision
of electoral rolls has to be undertaken under section 21 of the Act of
1950, whether or not an election is impending. Sub-section (1) of
section 21 provides that the "electoral roll for each constituency
shall be prepared io the prescribed manner by reference to the
qualifying date and shall come into force immediately upon its final
G
publication in accordance with the rules made under this Act" Sub-
·~ section (2) of section 21 provides for the revision of the electoral roll
prepared under sub·section (l). The proviso, which is important,
says that if the electoral roll "is not revised as aforesaid'\ the validity H
or continued operation of the "said" electoral roll shall not be
affected. The controversy whether the proviso governs clause (b) of
~ection 21 (2} only or whether, it applies to clause (a) of that section
514 SUPRBME COURT RBPORTS (l985J iUPPL. S.C.R.

also is futile, though it may be intereiting from the point of view
A of a text-book writer on the 'Interpretation of Statutei'. The crux of
the matter is that if an electoral roll is not revised, iti validity and
continued operation remain unaffected, at lea~t in a clas& of case~.
That exemplifies an important principle which applit~ in tht caie of
electoral rolls.
8
Section 21 (3) of the Act of 19.50 confen 1pon the .llectioa
Commission the power to direct a special revision of the electoral
roU. The proviso to that sub-section also says that until the
completion of the special revision so d:rected, the electoral roll for
the time being in force shall continue to be in force. That prov~
c the point tha1 Election laws abhor a vacuum. Insofar a& the
electoral rolls are concerned, there is never a moment in the life of
a political community when some electoral roll or tht other i1 not Ia
force.

Section 23 (3) of the Act of 1950 abo pointl in tht &amt
D direction. Under that )rovision, no amendment, transpoilition or
deletion of an entry can be made under lilection 22 and no direction
for the inclusion of a n1me in the electoral roll of a constituency
can be given, after the last date for makini nomination for an
election in the particular constituency. The election has to be held
on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last date
for making nominations. If that v.ere not so, the easiest expedient
which could be resorted to for the purpose of postponing an election
to the legislature would be to file complaints and objections,
omnibus or otherwise, which would take days and months to decide.
It ls not suggested that claims and objections filed in the prescribed
F form should not be decided promptly and in accordance with Jaw.
But, the important point which must be borne in mind is that
whether or not a revision of an electoral roll is undertaken and, if
undertaken, whether or not it is completed, the electoral roll for tht
time being in force must hold the field. Elections cannot be post-
G poned for the reason that certain claim~ and objections have still
remained to be disposed of. Then, claimants and objectors could
even evade the acceptance of notices and thereby postpone indefi-
nitely the decision thereon. The holding of elections to the legisla-
tures, which is a constitutional mandate, cannot be made to depend
H upon the volition of interested parties.

According to sub-rule (3) of rule 23 of the Registration of
Electors Rules, 1960, the "presentation of an appeal under this rule
L.C. SEN l'. A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 515

shall not have the effect of staying or postponing any action to be
taken by the Registration Officer under rules 22". Rule 22 impose& A
upon the Registration Officer the obligation to publish the electoral
roll which, together with the list of amendments, becomes the
electoral roll of the constituency. Thus, the fact that an appeal is
pending under rule 23 (1) against the decision of a Registration
Officer under rule 20, 21 or 2lA does not constitute an impediment
8
to the publication of the roll and to the roll, upon such publication,
coming into force. Rule 20 provides for inquiry into claims and
objections ; rule 21 provides for inclusion of names which are left
out of the roll owing to inadvertence or error ; while, rule 21A
provides for the deletion of names of dead persons and of persons
who cease to be, or are not, ordinary residents of the particular c
constituency. Notwithstanding the fact that the roll contains these
errors and they have remained to be corrected, or that the appeals
in respect thereof are still pending, the Registration Officer is under
an obligation to publish the roll by virtue of rule 22.
D
As a result of this discussion, it must follow that the fact that
certain claims and objections are not finally disposed of, even
assuming that they are filed in accordance with law, cannot arrest
the process of election to the legislature. The election has to be
held on the basis of the electoral roll which is in force on the last
date for making nominations. E

One of the questions which was debated before us and to which
we must now turn. is whether the directions given by the Election
Commission to the Chief Electoral Officers have the force of law
under the Acts of 1950 and 1951. There is no provision in either of F
these Acts which would justify the proposition that the directions
given by the Election Commission have the force of law. Election
Laws are self-contained codes. One must look to them for identify-
ing the rights and obligations of the parties, whether they are
private citizens or public officials. Therefore, in the absence of a
G
provision to that effect, it would not be correct to equate with Jaw.
the directions given by the Election Commission to the Chief
Electoral Officers. The Election Commission is, of course, entitled
to act ex debito jwtitiae, in the sense that, it can take steps or
direct that steps be taken over and above those which it is under H
an obligation to take under the law. It is, therefore, entitled to
issue directions to the Chief Electora\ Officers. Sucb directions are
binding upon the latter but, their violation cannot create rishts and
Si6 SUPREME COUR.T RBPOR TS (1985}1UPPL. S.C.R.

obligations unknown to the Election Law. To take a simple
A example, if the Election Commission issues a directive to a Chief
Electoral Officer to invite leaders of political parties for a meeting
to consider their grievances pertaining to the electoral roll, the
failure to hold such a meeting cannot be equated with the failure to
comply with the provision of a law. Leaders of political parties
B who were asked to be invited by the Election Commission cannot
challenge the process of election on the ground that the directive
issued by the Election Commission was violated by the Chief
Electoral Officer. The question is not whether the directions issued
by the Election Commission have to be carried out by the Chief
Electoral Officers and are binding upon them. The plain answer is
c that such directions ought to be carried out. · The question is
whether, the failure on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer to
comply with the directions issued by the Election Commission
furnishes any case of action to any other person, like a voter or a
candidate, to complain of it. We are of the opinion that the
D directions issued by the Election Commission, though binding
upon the Chief Electoral Officers, cannot be treated as if they are
law, the violation of which could result in the invalidation of the
election, either generally, or specifically in the case of an individual,
In the instant case, the Cnief Electoral Officer carried out faithfully
the directions issued by the Election Commission. But, even if he
E had not, he could not be accused of disobeying a law.

We have already adverted to the various steps taken by the
Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officer for removing
the apprehensions of the petitioners and a few others. · The following
F narration of events will complete that picture. The facts stated
below appear in the countet-affidavit of the Chief Electoral Officer,
Shri N. Krishnamurthi.

Steps taken by the Chief Electoral Officer, in the
G exercise of his suo motu powers under rules 21 and 21 A of
the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, with regard to
inquiries into omnibus complaints.

1. In late December 198 I and early January 1982, Shri Bhola
H Nath Sen and Shri Ajit Kumar Panja of the Indian National
Congress wrote letters to the Election Commission complaining of
rigging of electoral rolls. Replies were sent to them stating
specifically that~ under the law, <,:laims and objections were required
· t.C. SEN v. A.E:.M.H. UIZAMAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 517

to be lodged before the Electoral Registration Officers who were
statutorily charged with the duty of deciding those claims and A
objections. They were further informed that if any Electoral
Registration Officer failed to deal with those ~!aims and objections
in accordance with law, complaints could be lodged with the
Election Commission and the C. E 0. in order t.o enable them to
investigate into them. They were also assured that, in the mean· 8
time, the lists forwarded by them were being looked into. Similar
replies were sent to other complainants.

2. Shri Anand Oopal Mukherjee, President of the Pradesh
Committee of the Indian National Congress. West Bengal, Shri
Bhola Nath Sen, Leader of the Legislature Party of the Indian C
National Congress, West Bengal, Shri Priya Ranjan Das Munshi,
Shri Sougat Roy and Shri Pradip Bhattacharya met the Chief
Election Commissioner and brought to his notice that the rolls in
West Bengal had been manipulated to a large extent by inclusion of
under-aged persons, dead persons and temporary residents. They D
were requested to examine the rolls as finally published on December
31, 1981. It is significant that none of these persons has filed
any affidavit in the present proceedings in support of their
complaint.

3. In reply to a letter dated January 7, 1982 from Shri A.K. E
Sen, the Commission advised him also that the Electoral Registra·
tion Officers were constituted as authorities to prepare and bring
the rolls upto date and, therefore, all claims and objections should be

-- filed with them.

4. On January i 5, 1982 Shri A.K. Panja made several F
complaints to the Chief Election Commissioner and alleged, parti-
cularly, that the electoral m chinery of the State was influenced by
the Co-ordination Committee of CPI (M). 1t is noteworthy that
none of the omnibus complaints made by Shri Panja bore the
signature of any person, though the printed form contains a column G
for the signature of the complainant.

5. The omnibus complaints made by Shri Panja and by Dr.
Gopal Das Nag were referred to the concerned Electoral Registra·
tion Officers, even though they were not in the prescribed form.
The District Election Officers submitted detailed reports to the
B
C.E.O. controverting the a11egations with the help of facts and
fiaures.
SIS SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985j ~tiPPL. S.C.lt

6. The authorised representatives of the Indian National
A Congress in the various constituencies were given copies of the
intensively revised electoral rolls.

7. Between January 22 and January 25, 1982 radiogram
messages were sent by the C.E.O. to the Electoral Registration
Officers stating that they could use their .suo motu powers even on
B
the basis of unsigned complaints, if the complaints appeared to be
genuine.

8. On January 22, 1982 the Election Commission of India
decided to send a Team of its Officers to West Bengal to look into
c the complaints regarding large scale errors and omissions in the
electoral roJJs. On January 27, the Commission's Team of Officers
went to Calcutta for the purpose of making a sample survey of the
work done in the matter of revision of electoral rolls.

9. In order to facilitate a proper inquiry into the omnibus
D complaints, the date of official publication of the electoral roll was
postponed with the approval of the Election Commission of
India.

10. Radiogram messages were sent on January 28 and 29,
E 1982 to the District Election Officers and the Electoral Registration
Officers, explaining the procedure which they should adopt under
rules 21 and 21A of the 1960 Rules, for correcting the electoral
roJls.

F 11. These messages were sent in pursuance of the specific
request made by Shri Anand Gopal Mukherjee and Shri Abdul
Sattar to the Secretary of the Election Commission on February 2,
1982. They had also asked that notices of hearing of cases under
rules 21 and 21A of the 1960 Rules on the basis of the omnibus
complaints should be served on the local representatives of the
G parries. Notices were delayed in certain cases, as in case of Shri
A.K. Panja who had given his address at Calcutta, without mention-
ing the name and address of his local representative.

H 12. The Team of Officers deputed by the Election Commission
visited various places in Calcutta and conducted an on-the-spot
verification of complaints on a selective basis. It examined
documents, reports and the electoral rolls and it met various
t..c. SIN )'. A.K.M.H. WZZAMAN (ChDndrachud, C.J.) 5i9

leaders of the Indian National Congress. On a careful inquiry, it
found that the allegations made by them were not borne out by the A
facts.

13. On the basis of the report submitted by the team of
officers deputed by the Election Commission, it was decided on
February 9, 1982 that no case was made out for undertaking a
further de noYO revision of the electoral rolls, especially since the
8
percentaa• of errori wai far too small.

lei. The work of investigation into the omnibus complaints
was intercepted as a result of the ad-interim injunction granted by
the Calcutta High Court on February 12, 1982. It was only after c
the orders passed by this Court on March 4, 1982 that further
investiiation into the omnibus complaints could be undertaken.

We need no greater proof than this of two things : one, that
the Chief Electoral Officer, West Bengal, carried out the directions
of the Election Commission a1, indeed, he was bound to, and two, D
that there ii no imbstance in the grievance of the petitioners in
re2ard to the prepiration or revision of the electoral roll.

It is unnece~sary to refer to the counter·affidavit of Shri K.
Ganesan, Secretary to the Election Commission of India since E
counsel for the petitioner~, particularly Shri A.K. Sen, stated before
us that there was no complaint to make against the Election
Comminion.

The only question which remains outstanding is whether the
preparation and publication of electoral rolls are a part of the F
process of 'election' within the meaning of Article 329 (b) of the
Con~titution. That Article provides :

"Bar to Interference by courts in electoral matters.-
Notwithstanditll anythin& in this Constitution. G
(a) Xll xu XXX

(b) no election to either House of Parliament or to
the House or either House of the Legislature of H
a State shall be called in question except by an
election petition presented to such authority and
ii such manner as may be provided for by or
520 SUPREMil COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPPL. S. C.it

under any law made by the appropriate
A Legislature."

On the conclusion of arguments in this case, we had passed an order
-
on March 30, 1982 by which we had indicated that we will pronounce
upon the question above stated later in our judgment. In the light
of the conclusion recorded by us that the petitioners have not made
8
out any case for the grant of relief claimed by them, it is unnecessary
for us to decide the question whether the expression 'election' which
occurs in Article 329 (b), comprehends the preparation and publica·
tion of electoral rolls. Besides, as indicated by us in the order
dated March 30, 1982, the view which we took was that though the
c High Court was justified in entertaining the writ petition and issuing
a rule therein since, the writ petition apparently contained a
challenge to several provisions of Election laws, it was not justified
in passing any order which would have the effect of postponing the
elections which were then imminent. Even assuming, therefore,
that the preparation and publication of electoral rolls are not a part
D
of the process of 'election' within the meaning of Article 329 (b),
we must reiterate our view that the High Court ought not to have
passed the impugned interim orders, whereby it not only assumed
control over the election process but, as a result of which, the
election to the Legislative Assembly stood the risk of being post-
E poned indefinitely. The order dated March 30, 1982 which we will
presently reproduce, contains our reasons in support of this conclu-
sion. Very often, the exercise of jurisdiction, especially the writ
jurisdiction, involves questions of propriety rather than of power.
The fact that the Court has the power to do a certain thing does
not mean that it must exercise that power regardless of the conse~
F
quences. As observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in
N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency(!):
"Having regard to the important functions which the
legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it
has always been recognised to be a matter of first impor·
G tance that elections should be concluded as early as
possible according to time schedule and all controversial
matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be
postponed till after the elections are over, so that the
H election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or pro·
tracted." (p. 234).

(1) [1952} S.C.R. 218.
t..c. SEN v, A.l~.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, C./.) 521

On the question as to the connotation of the word 'election'
in Article 329(b), we may point out three decisions of this Court, one
A
of which is N.P. Ponnuswami.referred to above, the other two being
Rampakari Rayappa Belagali v. B.D. Jatti(l) and Mohinder Singh Gill
v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Dellti.eJ It was held in Ponnu-
swami that the word 'election' is used in Article 329(b) in the wide
sense of covering the entire process culminating in the election of the B
candidate. Fazal Ali J., who 'poke for the court in that case, has
referred to a passage in Halsbury's Laws of England to the following
effect:

"Tt is a question of fact in each case when an election
begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned
c
responsible for breaches of election law, the test being
whether the contest is "reasonably imminent". Neither
the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of
election can be looked to as fixing the date when an
election begins from this point of view. Nor, again, does D
the nomination day afford any criterion." (p. 227).

In Rampakavi Rayoppa Be/agali, it was held that the scheme of the
Act of 1950 and the amplitude of its provisions show that the entries
made in a electoral roll of a constituency can only be challenged in
accordance with the machinery provided by the Act and not in any
E
other manner or before any other forum unless, some question of
violation of the provisions of the Constitution is involved (p. 150). In
Mohinder Singh Gill, Krishna lyer J., speaking for the Constitution
Bench, has considered at great length the scope and meaning of
Article 329(b) of the Constitution. Describing that Article as the F
''Great wall of China", the learned Judge posed the question whether
it is so impregnable that it cannot be bypassed even by Article 226.
Observing that "every step from start to finish of the total process
constitutes 'election', not merely the conclusion or culmination" the
judgment concludes thus:
G
"The rainbow of operations, covered by the com-
pendious expression 'election', thus commences from the
initial notification and culminates in the declaration of ·
the return of a candidate."
B
(1) [1970)3 s.c.c. 147.
(2) [1978]2 S.C.R. 272.
S22 StJ'PRBME COURT Rl!PORTS (1985] SUPPL. t.C.J\.

We have expressed the view that preparation and revision of
A electoral rolls is a continuous process, not connected with any parti·
cular election. It may be difficult consistently with that view, to
hold that preparation and revision of electoral rolls is a part of the
'election' within the meaning of Article 329(b). Perhaps, as stated in
Halsbury in the passage extracted in Ponnuswami, the facts of each
individual ca~e may have to be considered for determining the
B question whether any particular stage can be a part of the election
process in that case. In that event, it would be difficult to formulate
a proposition which will apply to all cases alike.

The delay in pronouncing this judgment is to be regretted. A
c large number of factors have contributed to it but, no more about
them.

The order dated March 30, 1982, passed by us reads thus :

''The Transferred Ca~e and the Appeals connected with it raise
D important questions which require a easeful and dispassionate consi-
deration. The heuing of these matters was concluded four days
ago, on Friday, the 26tll. Since the judgment will take some time to
prepare, we propose, by this order, to state our conclusions on some
of the points involved in the controversy :

(1) The High Court acted within its jurisdiction in
enteraining the Writ Petition and in issuing a Rule
Nisi upon it, since the petition questioned the vires
of the laws of election. But, with respect, it was not
justified in passing the interim orders dated February
F 12, and 19, 1982 and in confirming those orders by
its judgment dated February 25, 1982. Firstly, the
High Court had no material before it to warrant the
passing of those orden. The aJiegations in the Wri•
Petition are of a vague and general nature, on the
G basis of which no relief could be granted. Secondly,
though the High Court did not lack the jurisdiction
to entertain the Writ Petition and to issue appro-
priate directions therein, no High Court in the
exercise of its powers under article 226 of the Con·
H stitution should pass any orders, interim or other-
wise, which has the tendency or effect of postponin1
an election, which is reasonably imminentand in
relation to which its writ jurisdiction is invoked.
t.c. SEN l'. A.lC.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, C.l.) Sl3
The imminence of the electoral processs is a factor
which must guide and govern the passing of orders in A
the High Court's writ jurisdiction. The more imminent
such process, the greater ought to be the reluctance
of the High Court to do anything, or direct anything
to be done, which wiU postpone that process inde-
finitely by creating a situation in which, the Govern-
ment of a State cannot be carried on in accordance
B
with the provisions of the Constitution. India is an
oasis of democracy, a fact of contemporary hi~tory
which demands of the C"ourts the use of wise states-
manship in the exercise of their extra-ordinary powers
under the Constitution. The High Courts must c
observe a self-imposed limitation on their power to
act under article 226, by refusing to pass order or
give directions which will inevitably result in an
indefinite postponement of elections to legislative
bodies, which are the very essence of the democratic
foundation and functioning of our Constitution. That D
limitation ought to be observed irrespective of the
fact whether the preparation and publication of
electoral rolls are a part of the process of 'election'
within the meaning of article 329(b) of the Constitu-
tion. We will pronounce upon that question later in
our judgment.

(2) We are unable to accept the argument advanced on
behalf of the petitioners that the Election Commis-
sion, or the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral
Registration Officers have in any manner acted in F
violation of the Constitution, the Representation of
the People Acts of 1950 and 1951, or the Registration
of Electors Rules, 1960. The Election Commission
issued the various directives ex dabito justie, as
~teps-in aid of a fair election. They are being obser-
G
ved faithfully and honesty, and shall be so observed
until the deadline mentioned in section 23(3) of the
Act of 1950. The manner in which the directives
are being implemented cannot be regarded as
unreasonable, in the circumstances of the case.
H
It takes years to build up public confinedce in
the functioning of constitutional institutions, and a
524 SUl>REME COURT REPORTS (1985J SUPPt. S.C.I.,

single court hearing, perhaps, to sully their image by
A casting aspersions upon them. It JS the duty of the
courts to protect and preserve integrity of all con~
stitutional institutions, which are devised to foster
democracy. And when the method of their function·
ing is questioned, which it is open to the citizens to
do, courts must examine the allegations with more
8 than ordinary care. The presumption, be it remem-
bered, is always of the existence of bona fides in the
discharge of constitutional and statutory functions.
Until that presumption is displaced, it is not just or
proper to act on preconceived notions and to prevent
c public authorities from discharging functions which
clothed upon them. We hope and trust that the
charges levelled by the petitioners against the Election
Commission, the Chief Electoral Officer and the
Electoral Registration Officers will not generate a
feeling in the minds of the public that the elections
D held hitherto in our country over the past th[rty years
under the superintendence, direction and control
of successive Election Commissions have been a
pretense and a facade. The public ought not to
carry any such impression and the voters must
.E go to the ballot-box undeterred by the sense of
frustration which the petitioners' charges are likely
to create in their minds. We see no substance in
the accusation that the voters' lists have been
rigged by the election authorities with the help
of enumerators belonging to any particular political
F party. Enumerators are mostly drawn from amongst
teachers and Government servants and it is difficult
to imagine that thirty-five years after independence,
they are totally colour-blind. They are the same in
every State and every constituency. The safeguard
.G lies in the efficiency and impartiality of the higher
officers who have to decide objections filed in rela~
tion to the voters' lists. That safeguard is not shown
to have failed in the instant case.

H (3) Surprisingly, though rightly, no argument was
made before us on behalf of the petitioners on the
question of the constitutional validity of any of the
L.C. SEN v. A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN (Chandrachud, C.J.) 525

provisions of the Acts of 1950 and 1951 or the Rules.
'Surprisingly', because, the major part of the writ A
petition is devoted to the adumbration of a challenge
to some of those provisions and yet no argument was
urged before us in support of that challenge.
'Rightly', because, there is no substance whatsoaver
in that challenge and counsel exercised their judg~ 8
ment fairly and judiciously in refusing to waste the
time of the Court in pursuing an untenable conten~
tion. Only one learned counsel, Shri Bhola Nath
Sen, complained that the fee of ten paise prescribed
by Rule 26 of the Rules of 1960 is unreasonable
since, there are many voters who cannot afford to C
pay ten paise. The argument must be rejected out
of hand as devoid of substance and as lacking in
awareness of Indian Economics. There is no voter
in our countrY who does not have or cannot raise a
sum of ten paise to ventilate his objection to the D
votes' list. Counsel should not grude at least that
modest achievement to our successive Governments
which have been fighting a relentless war against
poverty. The reason for our mentioning that a large
part of the writ petition is devoted to a statement of
constitutional challenge to election laws, is, that it is E
upon a petition of this nature that the High Court's
jurisdiction was invoked. The petition is dressed up
in constitutional attire but, before us, no counsel tried
even to have the feel of it, except Shri Bbola Nath
Sen. We will have occasion to demonstrate how, in a F
petition of this nature, no interim relief was premissi-
ble, especially in terms of prayer clause (f), by which
the entire election process was brought to a stand~
still.

For these reasons and those which we will give in our judg· G
ment later, we dismiss the writ petition filed in the Calcutta High
Court which was transferred for disposal to this Court. All orders,
including interim orders, passed by the Calcutta High Court are
here by set set aside. Civil Appeals 739 to 742 of 1982 will stand
disposed of in the light of the dismissal of the writ petition, out of
H
which they arise, There will be no order as to costs''.
i26 SUPIU!MB COURT REPORTS [1985] SUPPL. S.C.R.

Our learned Brother Babarul Islam J. passed a separate order
A which reads thus :

"I regret my inability to associate myself with
some of the observations made by Lord, the Chief
Justice, in para 2 of the order just pronounced.
B While I do not have any doubt in the integrity and
impartiality of the Election Commission, I am not
satisfied that all the Electoral Registration Officers
concerned and all the staff working under them, were
beyond reproach in their conduct in implementing
the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the Repre-
c sentation of Peopl" Acts of 1950 and 1951, tht
Electoral Registration Rules, 1960 and the directions
given by Election Commission in the preparation of
the electoral rolls. I, however, agree that the writ
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed
D before the Calcutta High Court and transferred to this
Court be dismissed and the stay orders granted by the
the High Court be vacated, for reasons to be given
In my judgment to follow.

Mr. Nariman, learned counsel for the Election
E Commission told us at the time of hearing that the
claims and objections already filed had been, and
were being, looked into. ft is hoped that claims and
objections, if any outstanding. yet, will be disposed
of, and names included, in the electoral rolls still the
F last date of making nominations, as permissible under
Section 23(3) of the Representation of Pepole Act,
1950."

We order accordingly.

G
B.A.HARUL l5L.,.M, J. The Constitution of India envisages a
Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic Republic. Each of the
terms 'Sovereign' 'Socialist', 'Secular', 'Democratic' and 'RepubHc'
is significant and pregnant with meaning deeper than the apparent.
H Unless their true significance if properly realized, no provision of
the Constitution or any other statute can be interpreted in its true
per~pective. Republic connotes the existence of a President. The
Indian Con~titution has provided for a democratically elected
L.C. SEN v. A.K.M.H, UZZAMAN (Bahrul Islam, J.) $27

•. President. The Constitution also has provided for a form of
Government by the People's representatives democratically elected A
on the basis of adult franchise irrespective of caste, creed, race or
sex. The term 'Secular' has been incorporated in the Preamble by
the Constitution (Forty-Second Amendment) Act, 1976 and is
effective from January 3, 1977. The addition of the term 'Social;st'

- is not for mere ornamentation, but with a definite object. The term
'Socialist' bas both an economic as well as a political content. The
basic needs of a citizen of any civilized country with any form of
B

Government are food, clothing, education and health services. A
citizen of any modern democratic State has also an additional need,
which is a political right. It is the tight of participation in the
aovernance of the country directly or Indirectly. This participation c
of an adult citizen of our country starti with the right to vote for a
condidate and elect a representative of his choice to the legislatures
and other self-governing institutions. This right to vote presupposes
a right to be enrolled as an elector provided, of course, he has the
requisite qualifications prescribed by the Constitution and the
D
election laws and other statutes and has none of the disqualiftcations
e~~.umerated in those laws.

l. Chapter XV of th~ Constitution provides for f.lections to
the House of People and the Legislatures of the States. Article 326
of the Constitution provides for elections to the House of People or
to the Legislative Assemblies of the Statei on the basis of adult-
suffrage : that is to say, every person who is a citizen of India and
who is not less than 21 years of age on a particular date and is not
otherwise disqualified under the Constitution or any law on tht
around of non-residence and unsoundness of mind, crime, corrupt F
or illegal practice shall be entered into the regiJter QJ voter for
such election. The basis of election on adult franchise and the
right to be registered as a voter at an election of a person with the
requisite qualifications and having no disqualifications are constitu-
tional mandates. By virtue of powers given under Article 327 of the
Constitution, the Parliament has already made provisions, inttr alia,
G
for the purpose of the preparation of the electoral rolls and matters
connected therewith in the Representation of People Act, 1950
(hereinafter referred to as 'the 1950 Ad) and the Registration of
Electors Rules, 1960, (hereinafter 'the Electors Rules, 1960') and for H
the purpose of conduct of election to the Houses of Parliament and
to the Houses of State Legislatures and to matters relating to such
elections in the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter
528 SUPREME COURT llEPO&TS (1985j SUPPL. S.C.&.

referred to as 'the 1951 Act') and the Conduct of Election Rules,
A 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Election Rules, 1961 ').

Article 324 (I) of the Constitution vests the superintendence,
direction and control of the preparation of electoral rolls for the
conduct of all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of a
State and of elections to the offices of President and Vice-President
B
on the Election Commission, the Constitution of which is provided
for under Article 324 (2). Sub-Article 6 of Article 324 provides that
the President or the Governor of a State shall, when so requested
by the Election Commission, make available to the Election
Commission as may be necessary for the discharge of the functions
c conferred on the Election Commission under Clause I of Article
324. This shows that for the purpose of preparing the electoral
rolls for the purpose of conducting elections, the Election
Commission, although a very high and independent constitutional
functionary, does not have a staff of its own appointed and removea·
ble by it. The staff made available to the Election Commission for
D
the above purposes are the employees of a State or the Central
Government. In other words, as the staff working for the prepara·
tion of the electoral rolls and the conduct of the elections are not
the staff of the Election Commission, they are not independent like
the Election Commission, itself, but are liable to be influenced by the
E concerned Executive Government. This is an important thing to
be remembered, and I shall have to refer to it later.

3. Article 325 of the Constitution provides that there shall
be one general electoral roll for every territorial constituency for
F election to either House of Parliament or to the House or either
House of Legisiature of a State and no person shall be ineligible
for inclusion in any State electoral roll or claim to be included in
any special electoral roll for any such constituency on grounds only
of religion, caste, sex or any of them. In other words, so long as an
adult citizen of India has requisite qualifications to be registered as
G an elector and has no dis-qualifications to be regist~red as such, he
has a constitutional right to be registered as an elector. Illegal
omission of the names of persons who were qualified from the
electoral roll or inclusion of the names of persons who are not
qualified or who have disqualifications has far reaching consequences.
H
Let us take a hypothetical illustration. Suppose, in India or in a
State of India, there are .two political parties, A & B with near
equal strength. Let us also suppose that Party A is in power either
L.C. SEN~. A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN (Bahru/[8/am, J.) 529

at the Centre or in the States or both and suppose Party B 1s m
opposition either in the Centre or in the States or in both. Unless A
the electoral roll is prepared strictly in accordance with the provisions
of the 1950 Act and the 1960 Rules, the electoral roll will have no
sanctity, and the election conducted on such defective electoral roll
wilJ tilt the balance of power. On the other hand, if names of
foreigners who are sure to support a particular party are included in
the voters' list, or names of eligible persons who will not vote for
B
a particular party and vote for another particular party, the result is
obvious.

4. The basis of a free and fair election is the voters' list
prepared in accordance with the 1950 Act and the 1960 Rules. c
If this is not so done, the electoral rolls will have no sanctity and
the consequent election will also not inspire confidence of the
people.

5. The next question is whether tbe objection to the inclusion D
of wrong names or claims to inclusion of eligible names in the
electoral rolls can be taken in an election petition under Section 100
of the 1951 Ad. It cannot be. Mr. Nariman, counsel appearing
for the Election Commission, su' mits that a qualified citizen has a
right to be enrolled in the electoral roll, but he has no right to vote
E
in a particular election. He is apparently-and only apparently-
right. For Article 326 itself, says that an eligible citizen "shall be
entitled to be registered as a voter at any such election." But the
enrolment of the name of a person in the electoral roll is absolutely
meaningless unless he can also exercise his vote. If before the
claims and objections of above eight lakhs voters, as alleged in this F
case are disposed of, the election be held, the result would be a
farce and will not reflect the will of the people. It has been argued
by Mr. Nariman that eight Jakhs are voters of the State and the
claims and objections in a particular constituency may be about a
few thousands. Even in the counter-affidavit, filed on behalf of the
Election Commission, it has been stated that the error may be 2 or
c
2.1/2 per cent. This percentage, though looks small, is very materal
in an election fought by multiplicity of political parties and indepen-
dent candidates as is notoriously the case in India.
H
6. The statutory provisions dealing with the preparation of
the electoral rolls for Assembly ConstituenCies are Part III of 1950
I'
Act that deals with "Electoral Rolls for Assembly Constituencies"
530 SUPREME COU.lT llBPOllT! [1985] 1iUPPL. S.C.ll,

and Part II of 1960 Rules that provides for the preparation of the
A electoral rolls for Assembly Constituencies. Section 21 of the
1950 Act provides for the preparation and revision of electoral rolls.
Sub-section (1) of this section provides that the electoral roll for
each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed manner by
reference to the qualifying date and shall come into force immedia-
8 tely upon its final publication in accordance with the rules made
under this Act. Qualifying date has been defined under Section
14 (b) of the 1950 Act as the "Jst day of January of the year in
which it is so prepared or revised" "in relation to the preparation
or revision of every electoral roll" under Part III. Section 1~
provides that for every constituency there shall be an electoral roll
c which shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. The preparation has to be made under the superintendence,
direction and control of the Election Commission. Section 16
provides that a person who is not a citizen of India, a person of
unsound mind, a person who is found to be guilty of corrupt prac-
D tices and other offences in connection with the elections shall not be
registered as electors. Sections 15 and 21 are mandatory. Sub·
section (2} of Section 21 provides that the aforesaid electoral roll
shaJI be revised in the prescribed manner with reference to the
qualifying date (I) before the general election to the Legislative
Assembly of a State or the House of the People and (ii) before each
E bye-election to fill a casual vacancy in a seat allotted to the
constituency, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission
for reasons to be recorded in writing. In other words, revision
before a general election or a bye-election of the electoral roll is the
rule and non-revision is the exception which is permissible only when
the Election Commission directs for reasons to be recorded in
F
writing. Clause (b) of sub-section (ii) provides that the electoral
roll shall be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by referance
to the qualifying date if such revision has been directed by the
Election Commission. In other words, the Election Commission
may direct that an electoral roll be revised in any year although
G there may be no ensuing general or bye-election. There is a
proviso added after clause (b). It is in the follow ingterms :

"If the electoral ro11 is not revised as aforesaid, the
H validity or continued o~ra~ion of t~e ~~id eJ~ctoral rol.\
shall not be affc::cte~v·
L.C. SEN 1', A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN (Bahru/lsfam, J.) 531

There is a controversy in the interpretation of the proviso.
One argument is that this proviso governs both the clauses (a) and
(b) of sub-section (2). The other argument h that the proviso
controls only clause (b). In my opinion, the proviso controls clause
(b) only and not clause (a} ; for after the word "shall", clause (a)
starts with "unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission
for reasons to be recorded in writing". ln clause (b) also "that the
revision shall be made in any year if such revision is directed by the
B
Election Commission". In other words, either in the entire State
or in a particular constituency of the State, there is no general or
bye-election during the period of five years, the electoral roll may
not have to be revised but the existing roll will be a valid roll for
other purposes. For example ; if some elector wants to show for c
the purpose of election either to the Council of States or for any
other purpose, other than election in the constituency, the entry in
the existing electoral roll will be proof-enough for that purpose. But
the unrevised electoral roll will not be valid for the purpose of
holding general or a bye-election. The reasons are obvious. For
D
example, if an electoral roll is prepared before a particular general
election to a Legislative Assembly but there has been no revision for
one reason or the other, say, for four or five years, or for a longer
period, no general election can be held on the basis of the electoral
roll prepared earlier. The reasons again are obvious; for, during
this period of four or five years or a longer period, a large number E
of young people have become adults, And a number of persons
whose names were registered in the existing electoral rolls must
have died or left the constituency. As the election has to be held
on adult franchise under the mandate of the Constitution, those
who were below 21 years before four or five years have now a
constitutional right to be enrolled as voters. And if the names of
J
the dead persons or the persons who have migrated from the con·
stituency are not deleted, there is the possibility of bogus voting in
the names of those persons. Therefore, it is not permissible in
normal circumstances to hold a ~eneral or bye-election on an
electoral roll unless it is revised as directed under sub-section (1) of G
Section 21. The above interpretation is consistent with the basic
objective of election indicated above.

7. Section 22 of 1950 Act provjdes for the correction of
entries in the electorol rolls. Section 23 is important. It deals with H
the inc1usion of names in the electoral rolls. Sub-section (I) of
: . ·, ·, ·.\ ~. ~ .~ l ' : .'· . ' 1

532 SVPUWJI OOUI.T lli!POI.TI (198i) ilRPL. LC.I..

/· 2J
'S~tio'n provide II that person ~hos• n~m~ any
!lOt inelud_ ed ia is
A . the electoral roll . of. a constituency. may apply . to tho electoral
.registratioil officer for the inclusion of hii name in that roll. .. Sub-
·section (2f of Section 23 provides '.'that the electoral registration
officer shall, if 'satisfied that the 'applicant entitled to be' regbtered is
in the electoral roll, direct his name to be included therein subjeCt to
.the proviso to Section 23 (2). s·ub~section (3) of Section 23 .·enjoins
. ../that.
- .
after
. . .
th~ - last date for .making
. nominations' for an electio'n ~a '

particular constituency, no amendment, transposition or deletion of
,any entry is permissible. Section 24 provides for appeals .against the
,.
orders of an electoral registration officer under Section 22 23 , to or
~
the -. Chief
' -
Eie~toral.
. .- . -
-.
Officer
.- . in the
.. p~scribed'
. .
~ .
manner.. . . .
~
··' .
I - ~ • • • -~ ~• : • • I I • : •. J .• !

: :,Let us now tum to Part II of the Elector& Rules, 1960. Rules
,1_0; ·and 11 provide ,fo~ the publication of the draft roll and further
·publicity of the roil and the notice in Form~. . Rule 12 provides for.
Jodging claims and objections within a perit?d of thirty days from the
.<Jate of publication of.the roll.in d~aft under Rule 10 for incltision or
. deletion of names. .Rule 13 provides that the ·claims have to : be
preferred in Form 6; objections have to be preferred in Form 7 and·
objections to a particular or particulars in an entry. have to be made
in Form 8. There are other restrictions also in lodging -claims and{
in
or objections Forms 6, 7 and 8.· Rulel4 provides that every claim
E or objection shall be. presented to the registration officer or any other
officer i. designatCd by him in this behalf. . Rule 15 provides ·that . the
officer mentioned in Rule 14 shall maintain in duplicate ·a Jist of
claims in Form 9, a Jist of objections to the inclusion of names hi Form
tO and a Jist of objeCtions to particulars in form II and keep exhF
bited one copy of eacbsuch lists on a notice board in his office. Rule
is is mandatory• . After-~ complying with sub-rule (I) of RuleJ5, tho
designated . officer after complying with the requirement of sub-rule
(i) forward with' his remarks, if any, the list of claims and objections
in Forms 9, 10 and 11 tothe appropriate registration officer. Under
~ute. 16, the. registration officer also. shall maintain in duplicate the . '
three lists in Forms 9, 10 and 11, entering thereon the particulars of
every claim or objection as and when it is received by him, whether
directly under Rule 14 or on being torwarded to him under Rule 15;
and keep exhibited one ... copy of such list on a notice board in his
:.r ofliee. Rule 16 is also mand,atory~ . .
H ~ • • • ;t •

The registratit;>n officer, under Rule 17, has th'e -Power to reject
any claim or objection wllich h lodsed within the prescribed time or

'
t.c. SliM )i, A.tc.M.H. tJz:iAMAN (Bahru/lsiam, J.) 533
in the prescribed form and manner. Under Rule 18, if the registra·
tioo officer is satisfied as to the validity of any claim or objection, A
he may allow it without further inquiry after the expiry of one week
from the date on which it is entered in the list ex~ibited by him
under clase (b) of Rule 16. There is, however, a restriction on the
power of the registration officer under the proviso to Rule 18. That
restriction is that if there be a demand for inquiry in writing to the
registration officer by any person against the acceptance of claim or
8
objection, such claim or objection shall not be allowed without
further inquiry. Rule 19 provides that where a claim or objection
is not allowed under Rule 17 or 18, the registration officer shall give
notice of hearing of the claim and objection. Under Sub·rule (2) of
Rule 19 that the notice mentioned in sub·rule (1) of Rule 19 may be c
given either personally or by registered post or by affixing it to the
person'& residence or Iaiit known residence within the constituency.
Rule 20 gives power to the registration officer to hold a summary
inquiry into claim and objection under Rule 19. Under sub·rule (2)
to Rule 20, the hearing of the claimant or the objector and the
person objected to and any other person who, in the opinion of the D
registration ofl\cer, is likely to be of assistance to him, shall be entit-
led to appear and be heard. Sub·rule (3) to Rule 20 gives a discre·
tion to the registration officer to require any claimant or objector or
any person objected to appear in person before him, or require that
the evidence tendered by any person shall be given on oath and E
administer an oath for the purpose.

A combined reading of Rules 18, 19 and 20 show that they are
based on the principle of natural justice keeping in view the right of
an eligible voter to be included in the electoral roll and the right of F
any person to see that the names of persons not so eligible, but
wrongly included earlier be deleted from the electoral roll. Rule 21
jive11 suo mota power to the registration officer to include names
inadvertently omitted. Rule .21 (A) give suo moto power to the
• registration officer to delete the name of dead electors of persons
who have ceased to be or are not ordinarily residents in the con"! G
stituency. Rule 22 is very important. It gives power to the
registration officer to prepare a Jist, after compliance of Rules 18, 20,
21 and 21A and publish the roll together with the list of amendments
by makina a complete copy thereof available for inspection and
displaying a notice in From 16 at his office. Under sub-rule (2) of
H
Rule 22, en sun pu~lieatien, the roll together with the Jist of
534 sUP.ltBME cotillT llBPORTS (198$] SUPPl.. S.C.l.

amendments "shall be the electoral roll of the constituency,..
A Under sub rule (3), this roll shall be the "basic roll" for the con·
stituency. Rule 23 provides for appeal from the decision of the
registration officer under Rules 20, 21 or 21A to an appropriate
authority. These provisions disclose the importance to be given to
the preparation of an electoral roll.
B
8. It is true, as submitted on behalf of the Election Commis-
sion, that a perfect electoral roll is not possible. But at the same
time, it must be remembered that the name <.' f any eligible voter
should not be omitted or the name of any disqualified person should
c not be included in the electoral roll, in violatian of any coustitutional
or statutory provisions. The error, when pointed out, has to be
removed. lt must also be remembered that a large section of the
electorate of our country consist of illiterate people and not politi-
cally so conscious as to see that their names are in the electoral roll.
Needless to say that ours is a democratic country with a parliamen·
D tary from of government that is run on party basis. The parliamentary
form of goverment depends on political parties. A duty therefore is
east on the political parties to educate the electorate and take steps
that the names of eligible persons are included in the electoral rolls
and that names of ineligible persons are deleted. Erroneous inclusion
E or omission of the names of a few persons may not be of much
consequence. But if a considerable number of the names of such
persons are either wrongly included in, or excluded from, the
electoral roll, it will be of great consequence to a particular party
either in power or in the opposition. The electoral registration
officer, therefore, cannot be f.1stidious as to whether the claims and
F objections are strictly in prescribed forms. Even when there are
omnibus objections by a political party or political parties, as in
this case, filing claims and/or objections, such claims and objections
have to be inquired into and necessary action taken so that correct •
opinion of the electorate may be reflected in the result of the
G eJection.

9. ln the instant case, it must be said in fairness to the Election
Commission, on receipt of omnibus complaints and objections on
behalf of a large number of persons, the Election Commission direc-
II ted the Chief Electoral Registration Officer of West Bengal to inquire
into these claims and objections and take appropriate action. But it
does not appear or there is nothing on record to show that those
t.c. SEN v. A.K.M.H. UZZAMAN (Balttu!Tsiam, i.) 535

claims and objections, albeit omnibus, may be sometimes not strictely
in the prescribed forms, were disposed of by the Electoral Registra. A
tion Officer after issue of notices as required by the rules. The
affidavits filed on behalf of the Election Commission by Mr.
Krishnamurthi, and Mr. Oanesh:m vaguely state that they were
"duty" disposed of.
B
In para 46 of the affidavit of Mr. N. Krishnamurthi, the Chief
Electoral Officer of West Bengal, it has been, inter alia, stated,
"Similarly, as regards the letter dated January 17,1982 of Shri
Bholanath Sen addressed to me regarding his complaints in respect
of the Bhatar Assembly Constituency I say that all specific complaints
contained in his letter hm•e been duly looked into by the Electoral
c
Registration Officer and I have also e~tamined the same. I crave leave
to refer to the reports in this regard at the time of bearing" (emphasis
added). It bas not been stated that the complaints were inquired
into after issue of notices as required by law.
D
In clause (z) of Part I of another affidavit filed by Mr. Krishna-
murthi, it has been stated :

''In early December, 1981, Shri Ajit Panja, Leader of
Indian National Congress, made a complaint regarding E
the non-inclusion and wrong inclusion of certain entries
in the electoral roll of 158 of Burtola Assembly consti·
tuency. A special check was made and remedial action
.. taken in respect of 6000 entries out of 89,000 entries
before the finalisation of the intensively revised rolls of
31.12.1981. A copy of the report of the Electoral Regis· F
tration Officer who is the Collector of Calcutta is
annexed a~ Annexure 19".

The second part on pa&e 4 of Annexure 19 reads :
G
"At the time of house to house enumeration, enumera·
tors approached the head of households and banded
over to them their electoral cards under their signature.
At this time, the Supervisors also signed both the copies
H
of the electoral cards. After the electoral cards were
deposited in our office, the Supervisors made a test check
of about 30% of the electoral cards. Myself alongwitb
$36 SUPRI!ME COURT REPORTS {19851 SUPPL, S,C.t.

my Assistant E.R.Os made a test check of about 10%.
A On such test case, large number of voters were included
in the draft roll. In particular, in Burtolla Assembly
Constituency, more than 6000 voters weres included by
the Assistant E.R.Os at the time of their test check. A
test check of about 5 to 10% was conducted in respect of
B the decreases in number of voters in all the constituencies
by special squads. In Burtolla Assembly Constituency
such test checks were conducted by Sr. A. Roy
Chaudhury, Addl. Treasury Officer and Assistant
E.R.O ....-.... ·---"·

c
It has not been stated as to what happened to, and what reme·
dial measures were taken in respect of, the other 83,000 entries. It
has also been stated in this affidavit that in Form 6, (I) total number
of claims received was 4,17,231; (2) total number of claims allowed
was 3,05,072. It has not been explained as to what was done to the
D other claims of 1,12,159, or that these cases rejected after hearing
as required by law. It has also been stated in the.affidavit that the total
number of objections received Form 7 was 1,09,865 and the total
number of objections allowed was 65,430. It has not been explained
as to what was done in respect of the difference of 44,435 objections
E or that these objections were rejected after hearing as enjoined by
law. What has been stated in para (o) at page 26-A of the affidavit is
"All the above claims and objections in Forms 6, 7 and 8 were to be
'duly dealt with and disposed of by the Electoral Registration
Officers by that date". But it has not been stated that they were
disposed of as required by law. It must be said in fairness to Mr.
F Krishnamurthi that as Dr. Gopal Das Nag had intimated to him that
he (Dr. Nag) had not been able to file his specific complaints with the
concerned Electoral Registration Officers before January 16,1982
which was the dead-line date, and as these omnibus complaints had
been given to him prior to 16. 1.1982, "in order not to be too techni·
cal (though in law the complaint and objections had to be in the
G
prescribed forms and had to be submitted to the respective Electoral
Registration Officers within the prescribed time) by a radiogram I
requested the concerned Electoral Registration Officers of 16 consti-
tuencies in respect of which the omnibus complaints were made by
H the complainant in question, to accept them and promptly enquire
into them and take remedial action under rules 21 and ~I A of 1960
rules so that the enquiry could be completed with the utmost promp-
L.C. SEN l'. A.K.v.H. UZZAMAN (Bahrullslam. J.) S31

titude and to report back with respect to the remedial action taken".
But there is nothing to show that his directions were in fact carried A
out by the Electoral Registration Officers in accordance with the
relevant Rules.

It has been stated in clause (p) at page 38 of the affidavit that
"pursuant to the various radiogram messages, the District Election
B
Officers had take the following action and were continuin& to take the
following actions :-

(i) In respect of complaints in Forms 6,7 and 8, tltey were
being dealt with and disposed of.
c
( ii) In respect of the specific cases in omnibus complaints.
they were being enquired into and treated as information for action
under rules 21 and 21A of 1960 Rules after due investigations mostly
with 1OO% on the spot verification. Proformas indicating the manner
in which the omnibus complaints were accepted or rejected or dis· D
posed of were duly filled in after determination and forwarded to the
Chief Electoral Officer".

With regard to the complaint that notices were not receiYed by
the claimants and objectors, it has been admitted that "due to postal
delay, the intimation neither reached Shri Ajit Kumar Panja or his
agent about the hearing. In fact, the law does not require any inti-
mation to be given to any representative of political parties in con•
nection with enquiries under rules 21 and 21A except that reasonable
opportunity should be given to the affected person whose names for
deletion is included in the list under rule 21A of the 1960 Rules. The
procedure set out on 2nd Februrary, 1982 was only to facilitate an
expeditious disposal of the complaint if found to be &eouine".

Technically, Mr. Krishnamurthi is right that a political party
is not entitled to. under the law, to receive any notice but in the back-! G
ground of the illiteracy and ignorance and lack of political conscious.,;
ness of a large section of the electorate, it is but proper and in
consonance with the spirit of the Constitution and the Election Jaws
that notices be given to the leaders of political parties who file com-
plaints or omnibus complaints and claims and objections. It has H
also been stated in para (r) at page 41 of the affidavit that .. The
team visited various places in Calcutta and ~n the districts of H~o&hly
538 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) SUP PL. S.C.tt

24-Parganas, Midnapore and Maida for on·the·spot verification
A of complaints on selective basis". There is nothing to show that
these on-the-spot verifications were made with prior notice to the
complainants/objectors and/or their representatives. Obviously, a
thorough enquiry into the complaints /Objections were not made, "in-
as-much as the percentage of errors, with reference to the total
electors was too low and below normal", as pleaded on behalf of the
B Election Commission. But it must be remembered that the fate of
a political party is decided by small margin of votes in our country
as the political forces have not yet fully crystalised and as there are
too many political parties in our country, and the e ections are
multi-cornered.
c
There may be another reason for a Registration Officer for not
strictly following the provisions of law in disposing the claims/objec-
tions inasmuch as ''the proceedings under rules 21 and 21A of 1960
Rules are summary in nature having regrad to the necessity of expedi-
D tious revision of electoral rolls within a time bound programme",
as contened on behalf of the Election Commission in their affidavits.
It has also been asserted in para 27 at page 64 of the affidavit that
the decision in disposing of tht: claims and objections under rules 21
and 21A of 1960 Rules, ''The Electoral Registration Officer is not
required to communicate his decision to any person making claims
and objections when taking decision under rules 21 and 21A of 1960
Rules as the proceedings under rules 21 and 21A are taken under his
suo moto power".

10. The Writ Petition has been filed by eight writ petitioners of
F . whom Petitioner No. (I) is the General Secretary of the West Bengal
State Muslim League and also member of the National Executive of
Indian Union Muslim League and a member of existing West Bengal
Legislative Assembly, No. (2) is a member of the Polti Bureau of the
all India Communist Party, No. (3) is the President of the all India
Christian Democratic Party, No. (4) is the Vice-President of the West
G
Bengal Unit of the Janta Party and Executive Member of National
Committee of Janta Party and ex-M.P., No. (5) is a member of the
All India Congress Committee (Socialist) and an ex-M.P., No. (6) is
a sitting member of the existing West Bengal State Legislative Assem-
H bly and Secretary of the Congress Legislative Party, West Bengal
Assembly, No. (7) is a member of the Republican Party of India, and
No. (8) is the Vice-President of All India, Forward Block Central
'committee.
t.c. SEN v. A.JLM.H. tJZ~AMAN (Bahrul Islam, i.) S39

The petition contains 98 paragraphs of which paras 3 to 70
refer to the provisions of law, para 73 to the alleged anomalies in the A
voters' lists. Paras 86,93 and 95 refer to the alleged illegal inclusion/
omission of the names of about 8,00,000 voters. It has been stated
in paragraph 72 that 14 constituencies were affected by cyclones and
other calamities, about 1000 to 5000 teenagers were included in the
voters• lists, a large aumber of aliens were included in the voters, B
Jist, a large number of bona fide voters were excluded, ficti-
tious enteries were made and distorted names were recorded. It was
also alleged that CPI (M) enumerators having allegiance io the
party in power in West Bengal were appointed for the preparation of
the voters' lists. The answer on behalf of the Election Commi~sion
is that the enumerators were teachers who are normally appointed as C
enumerators. In my opinion, no persons who are members of a
political party or of an association affiliated to a political party
should b~ appointed to be enumerators of victors so that there may
not be any foul pl:.l.y or rigging in the preparation of the electoral
roll. Enumerators should be person~ who are not affiliated, either D
directly or indirectly to any politica I party, whether in power or not;
for this purpose, it is desirable th1t only Government officers inclu-
ding teachers of Government schools and colleges may be appointed
enumerators, and not of non-government organizations or institutions.
unless their rules debar their employees to be members of political
~~ E

It, therefore, cannot be said that in the revision of the electoral
roll, all possible care as enjoined by the letter and spirit of the
Constitution and the statues was taken in this case.
F
I l. Now about reliefs, in this case, however, reliefs prayed
for, are not po!losible to be granted. It is not the petitioners,
case that the electoral rolls in all the 294 constituencies in
West Bengal have not been revised in accordance with law. They
have made allegations only with respect of constituencies and omnibus
complaints were filed only in respect of two constituencies namely, G
Bartolla and Bhatar. Although there no electoral rolls prepared
in accordance with law for BartoiJa and Bhatar constituencies the
genera] election of the entire state cannot be held up, as electoral
roUs are prepared and published constituency-wise. It is, therefore
not possible to hold up the election in r~spect of all the constituencie~ H
unless a case is made out that no election can be held in any of aU
the 294 constituencies. Secondly, no concrete name of persons have
540 SUPREME COUllT REPoRTS (198SJ SUPPL. S.C.l.
been mentioned in the Writ Petitions and so it is not possible to issue
any rite of Mandamus to the electoral registration officers for the
inclusion or exclusion of the names of those persons, as the case may
be, in or from the electoral rolls. Thirdly, the authorities actually
responsible for inclusion or exclusion of names are the electoral
registration officers but they have not been made parties to the
petition and so writ of Mandamus can be issued against them; and
B it is not possible to make them parties so late.

)(.'f....