Holding

The election petition was dismissed because the petitioner made false averments and failed to prove that the recount application was filed within the time allowed, warranting dismissal under Section 83 and the high standard of proof required under Section 100.

Summary

Mahender Pratap, who lost a Legislative Assembly election by 161 votes, filed an election petition seeking a recount of votes on the ground of alleged irregularities in electronic voting machine counting and non‑compliance with Conduct of Election Rules 56A and 63. He claimed that his application for recount was filed while the 23rd round of counting was in progress, whereas the Returning Officer’s order stated that the application was made after the final result was declared. The High Court rejected the petition, finding the averments inconsistent and false. On appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Supreme Court held that intentional false averments verified under Section 83 justify dismissal, and that a high standard of proof is required for a recount under Section 100. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and costs imposed.

Issues considered

The effect of intentional false averments, verified under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, on the disposition of an election petition.
Whether the petitioner established that the application for recount was filed within the permissible period under Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961.
The standard of proof required to obtain a recount of votes under Section 100 of the Representation of the People Act.
Appropriate remedial measures (costs, perjury, contempt) for filing false pleadings in an election petition.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. 56A, s. 63
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100, s. 116A, s. 83

Subjects

election petitionrecount of votesfalse avermentsRepresentation of the People ActConduct of Election Rulesperjurycontempt of courtelectronic voting machinehigh standard of proof

Judgment

MAHENDER PRATAP A
V.
KRISHAN PAL AND ORS

NOVEMBER 22, 2002

[M.B. SHAH AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] B

Representation of the People Act, 1951:

Ss.83 and JOO-False averments in election petition and verification
thereof-Election petitiofl,--{]round that application for recounting of votes C
wrongly rejected by Returning Officer-Inconsistency in averments made in
application for recounting and election petition-Returning Officer endorsing
on the application that it was filed after declaration offinal results-Election
petition containing averments that application was filed when 23rd round of
counting was in progress-Elec1ion petition rejected by High Court-Held, D
for making out a ground for recount, if intentional false averment is made in
an election petition and the said averment is duly verified to be true as provided
under s.83 then such election .petition could be rejected by the court- In
election petitions for recount of votes a high standard of proof of grounds is
required-Court allows an election petitior only on strict proof of one of the
grounds prescribed in s.100--lt is only after the election petitioner is able to E
demonstrate before the Court by leading satisfactory evidence that there was
serious flaw in the counting procedure which had materially affected the
result of election that the prayer for recount is generally allowed - Where
false facts are pleaded and false evidence is produced to mislead the court
into interfering with the people's verdict of election, such misconduct has to p
be viewed seriously and appropriate deterrent action like dismissal ofthe case
with costs, prosecution for perjury or initiation for contempt proceedings
should be taken by the court-This is a case in which despite the endorsement
by the Returning Officer that application for recount was filed after results
were declared, the election petitioner has tried to make out a point that it was
filed prior to declaration of results-Petitioner's case is based on misleading G
facts-Appeal dismissed with costs of rupees Twenty five thousand-Conduct
of Election Rules, 1961-rr.56A and 63.

Jee/ Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, [1999) 9 SCC 386;
Mahan/ Ram Prakash Dass v. Ramesh Chandra and Ors., [1999) 9 SCC 420
339 H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A and Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra Kumar Poddar and Ors.,
[19701 2 sec 411, referred to

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 551 of
2002.

B From the Judgment and Order dated 19.11.200 l of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in E.P. No. 6 of 2000.

P.P. Rao, G. Balaji and G.K. Bansal for the Appellant.

L. Naheshwar Rao, Ajay Chaudhary and Sanjay Bansal, Satpal Jain,
C Randhir S. Jain, Dungainder Singh and Ms. Savita Singh for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :

DHARMADHIKARI J. This is an appeal under Section 116 A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 [for short 'the Act'] against the judgment
D dated 19 .11.200 l passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Election
Petition No. 6 of 2000.

The appellant lost election to the Legislative Assembly seat for
Constituency No 52, Mewala Maharajpur by a margin of 161 votes.

E The appellant filed an election petition seeking relief of recount
of votes on the ground that serious irregularities were committed in
counting of votes on electronic voting machines which were used in
the above said election.

The main grounds urged inter alia for seeking recount of votes
F are non-compliance with the provisions of rules 63 and 56A of the
conduct of Election Rules, 1961 [hereinafter called as Rules]. It is
pointed out from the record produced in the election petition that in
some of the result sheets of counting, there are no signatures of
counting supervisors and in some of them only names of counting
agents of the candidates are mentioned but their signatures do not
G find place. It is also pointed out that in few result sheets, there are
cuttings and over-writings.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously argued
that all these glaring illegalities committed in the course of counting of votes
H have made out a strong case in favour of the appellant for grant of directions
MAHENDERPRATAPv. KRISHANPAL [DHARMADHIKARJ,J.] 341

for recount of votes. A
One of the important points urged in the election petition and pressed
before use in this appeal is regarding the alleged wrongful rejection of the
application of recount of vote~ made by the appellant before the Returning
Officer soon after completion of the last round of counting and before signing
of result-sheet in Form 20 in accordance with rules 63 of the Rules. B
The application made by the appellant before the Returning Officer
seeking recount of votes with the order of rejection passed thereon by the
Returning Officer as recorded on the application itself needs full reproduction
for decision of this appeal. Ii reads as under:-
c
"To,

Returning Officer,
52, Mewala Maharajpur Assembly Constituency,
Faridabad (Haryana). D

Sub: Application for Recounting.

Sir,

The undersigned applicant is not satisfied with the said counting
E
which has been done in haste. There is over-writing in all the details
of booth/polling station of Part-II.

Therefore, you are requested to get the recounting done and the
errors shown by the machines may kindly be got re-verified. F
Recounting may kindly be got done because the difference told by
you is only 161 votes.

This application has been made Application
after declaring the result 52 Mewala Sd/-English 25.2.2000
Maharajpur Assembly Constituency, Vijay Partap Singh G
when there is a signature of Election Agent
counting agents, candidates and Sh. Mahender Partap
election agents on the verification Singh,BSP Candidate
certificate, therefore, this application
is being returned in original without
H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A any action.
Sd/-
Returning Officer,
52, Mewala Maharajpur
Assembly Constituency
B -cum-Sub Divisional
Officer (Civil),
Fairdabad. 25.2.2000,
time 3.30p.m"
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant argues that the Returning
C Officer wrongly recorded in his order of rejection that the application for
recount of votes was made after the counting was completed at 3.30 p.m on
25.2.2000.

From the timings recorded in the result-sheets in each round, it is
shown to us that time recorded of completion of last round of counting is
D 3.30 p.m. Thus, an attempt is made on behalf of the appellant to demonstrate
that the application for recount which was made before the Returning Officer
in the interval between the announcement of result of counting and signing
of result sheet in Form 20, was wrongly rejected by stating in the order that
the application for recount was made after the final result and signing of
"verification certificate "by the counting agents and election agents of the
E candidates. Reliance has been placed on the contents of rule 63 and the
instructions contained in the handbook for Returning Officer. It is pointed
out that the rule and instructions permit filing of application for recount after
the final result of counting is formally announced by the Returning Officer
and before the final result sheet in Form 20 is signed.
F The ground, thus, urged for seeking recount of votes in the election
petition is that the application made on valid grounds at proper time was
arbitrarily rejected by the Returning Officer.

On behalf of the Respondent [Returned Candidate], the learned counsel
G points out that the facts pleaded, verified and which are tried to be proved
on oath in the deposition of the appellant in the election petition are inconsistent
with the contents of his application for recount which apparently does not
appear to have been presented before the Returning Officer on 25.2.2000 as
required by the rules in the interval between the announcement of final result
and signing of the result sheet in Form 20.
H
MAHENDER PRATAPv. KRISHAN PAL [DHARMADHIKARI. J.] 343

Attention of the Court has been invited by the learned counsel appearing A
for the respondent tO the avennents 1nade in paragraph 17 of the election
petition. It is shown that the averment 1nade is that the application for recount
was made when 23rd round of counting was in progress. It has been further
averred in the election petition that Returning Officer with held his application
for about 5 to 6 minutes and thereafter police party entered the counting
centre and forcibly drove out the counting agents from the centre. The relevant B
part of the pleadings in the election petition reads as under:-

"When 23rd round was going on, I lodged protest in writing by
submitting application Ex.A I. It is signed by me and I identifY my
signatures on it, The Returning Officer kept my application for about C
517 minutes and thereafter I saw that police people had entered inside
the counting centre. They used their batons and forcibly drove away
our counting agents from the counting centre. After the declaration
of the result, I lodged a complaint with the Election Commission of
India and Election Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh. I issued fax
messages at about 5 p.m. I have seen Exs. A3 and A4. These bear my D
signatures. Exs. A99, A JOO and A I 01 are the receipts acknowledging
the fax messages.

To prove the above averments in the election pet1t1on, the election
petitioner examined himself as PW-I and made the following statement on
~- E
"The final result was being processed and prepared by the Returping
Officer on the basis of the counting sheets prepared by the counting
supervisors. On certain counting sheets the counting supervisors did
not put their signatures. After I 0th -11th round of the counting my
lead started decreasing considerably. Thereafter the counting started F
rapidly. When counting of 23rd round was in progress and my lead
was decreasing rapidly, I suggested my election agent to draft an
application for recounting. Shri Vijay Partap Singh was my election
agent. When our prayer for recounting was not accepted, we brought
the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner, but to no effect. G
We also gave telegrams to the Chief Election Commission ofHaryana.
Thereafter, we also made a complaint to the Chief Election
Commission of India. Shri Vijay Partap Singh is my son. I am in a
position to identify his signature. I have seen the application Ex.A I.
It is signed by me. It is also in his hand-writing.
H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A It is not dispute and is cl~ar from election record of counting that the
counting was completed in 25 rounds. From the contents of application for
recount, it is apparent that the same was made. only after the last round of
counting was over and the respondent was declared elected by a margin of
161 votes. Had this not been the situation in the application for recount, it
was not possible for the appellant to have stated that the margin of votes was
B 161.

By highlighting the above discrepancies and contradictions in the facts
pleaded in the election petition those stated in the deposition of the election
petitioner and as found in the contents of the application for recount submitted
C to the Returning Officer, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents that the election petition deserves to be dismissed on the sole
ground of false pleas and evidence of the election petitioner. A few decisions
were cited before this court to pray that apart from the outright dismissal of
the petition for raising false pleas and leading evidence, the election petitioner
be held guilty of contempt for attempting to mislead the Court and perverting
D the judicial process.

The contents of Election petition as provided under Section 83 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 should contain a concise statement of
material facts on which appellant relies. It is also required to be signed by the
appellant and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure,
E 1908 for the verification of pleading. This verification cannot be held to be
mere formality. In Jagat Kishore Prasad Narain Singh v. Rajendra Kumar
Poddar and Ors., [1970] 2 SCC 411, this court observed that pleading in a
case has great importance and that is more so in an election petition particularly
when the returned candidate is charged with corrupt practices. He must know
p what the charge against him is, so that he may prepare his defence.

In Jeet Mahinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi, [1999] 9 SCC 386,
this Court referred to the settled to the settled legal principle in the field of
election jurisprudence as under-(para 40)

"(i) The success of a candidate who has won at an election should not
G
be lightly interfered with. Any petition seeking such interference must
strictly conform to the requirements of the law. Though the purity of
the election process has to be safeguarded and the court shall be
vigilant to see that people do not get elected by flagrant breaches of
law or by committing corrupt practices, the setting aside of an election
H involves serious consequences not only for the returned candidate
MAHENDERPRATAPv. KRISHANPAL [DHARMADHIKARI,J.] 345

and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as re-• A
election involves an enormous load on the public funds and
administration. Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh, [1954] SCR 892 and
Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Reghobaji Meghe, [1995] 5 SCC
347."

For making out a ground for recount being granted, if intentional false B
averment is made in an election petition and the said averment is duly verified
to be true as provided under Section 83 of the Act then such election petition
could be rejected by the Court. In Mahant Ram Prakash Dass v. Ramesh
Chandra and Ors., [ 1999] 9 SCC 420 considering the contention of irregularity
in counting, the Court held thus:- C
"13. A candidate or his agent has an opportunity to ask for re-count
at two stages: the first, before election result is finally declared, and
the second, by way of election petition before the High Court. An
application under Rule 63(2) of the Conduct of Elections Rules is to
be given immediately after the votes secured by each of the candidates D
is announced under Rule 63(1 ), but such an application cannot be
• given after the candidate is declared elected under Rule 64. If an
application is made under rule 63(2) the Returning Officer shall decide
the matter either by allowing the application in whole or in part or
may reject it in its entirety, if it appears. to him to be frivolous or
unreasonable. The decision shall be in writing containing reasons E
therefor. The application for re-count should contain valid precise
grounds on which the re-count is asked for . When the rules provide
for enough opportunity to a candidate or his agent to watch the
counting process before the result is declared and if any objection is
raised as to the validity of any ballot paper and if such objection is F
rejected improperly, it would afford a basis for re-count in an election
petition. The secrecy of the ~ote has to be maintained and demand for
recount should not ordinarily be granted unless the election petitioner
makes out aprimafacie case with regard to error in counting of such
magnitude that the result of the election of the returned candidate
may be affected. Smallness of the victory margin by itself may n0t G
be sufficient ground for re-count. However, if a prima facie case is
made out as to error in counting, a small margin by which the returned
candidate succeeded in the election assumes significance, inviting re-
count."

In this appeal, it has been sought to be projected that the application H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A for recount was made in the pe_rmissible interval between the announcement
of the result of counting and signing of result-sheet in Form 20. This plea
raised in the appeal is contrary to the appellant's own pleadings and evidence
and is thus, clearly, an after thought. We thus find that the petitioner's case
is based in on misleading facts. The least we can do is to dismiss his appeal
B and confirm the order of the High Court rejecting his election petition.

As seen from the decided cases mentioned above, in election petitions
which are filed with prayer for recount of votes, the court has always insisted
upon a high standard of proof of grounds as would impel the court to direct
recount of votes and recheck the election results. It is only after the election
C petitioner is able to demonstrate before the court by leading satisfactory
evidence that there was serious flaw in the counting procedure which had
materially affected the result of election that the prayer for recount is generally
allowed.

In such a state of election law, the court legitimately expects the parties
D to approach it with genuine grievances on truthful facts. Where false facts are
pleaded and false evidence is produced to mislead the court into interfering
with the people's verdict of election, the misconduct of the parties to the
election has to be viewed seriously. The court allows an election petition
..
only on strict proof of one of the grounds prescribed in Section I 00 of the
Act. If the parties to the election petitions are allowed to take court lightly
E even though attempts are skillfully made by them by false pleas and evidence
to mislead the Court, the whole judicial process would be misused by clever
parties to their advantage and to the detriment of the interest of the electorate
who are vitally interested in the result of election.

F This is case in which despite the endorsement by the Returning Officer
that application for recount was filed after results were declared, the election
petitioner has tried to make out a point that it was filed prior to the declaration
of the results.

In Election petition, if the parties are found to have made incorrect
G statements in their pleadings, affidavits or depositions and there is thereby an
intention on their part to mislead the court, appropriate deterrent action like
dismissal of their cases with costs, prosecution for perjury or initiation of
contempt proceedings should be taken by the court lest the judicial process
would continue to be polluted and misused by undeserving parties who have
no real grievance or clause for seeking aid of judicial forums. Such false
H cases not only contribute to the work-load of the court and kill its precious
MAH ENDER PRATAPv. KRISHAN PAL fDHARMADHIKARL J.] 347

ti1ne but create hurdles in the ways of genuine litigants who sincerely need A
assistance of the court for obtaining justice.

With the aforesaid observation, we dis1niss this appeal and i1npose cost
of Rupees twenty five thousand on the appellant. From the cost deposited, a
sum of Rupees twenty thousand should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal
Aid Committee and the remaining sum of Rupees five thousand be paid to B
Respondent No. I-the Returned Candidate.

R.P. Appeal dismissed.

'