Holding

A recount may be ordered only when the petition contains an adequate statement of material facts, the allegations are prima facie established by cogent evidence, and the court is satisfied that a recount is imperative for justice; these conditions were not met in this case.

Summary

In the 1977 Tamil Nadu Assembly election for the Taramangalam constituency, R. Narayanan was declared elected by a narrow margin of about 19 votes. S. Semmalai filed an election petition under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 alleging counting irregularities and seeking a recount and declaration of his own election under s.101. The Madras High Court ordered a recount, after which it held Semmalai duly elected. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a recount can be ordered only when the petition sets out specific material facts, the allegations are prima facie established by cogent evidence, and a recount is necessary for justice; the High Court’s order failed these tests. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s recount order and restored Narayanan’s election. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Issues considered

The criteria under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Conduct of Election Rules for ordering a recount in an election petition.
Whether the allegations of counting errors made by the respondent were sufficiently specific and supported by evidence to justify a recount.
Whether a narrow margin of victory alone can warrant a judicial recount.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 63(2), s. Rule 63(3)
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(d)(iii), s. 100(1)(d)(iv), s. 101, s. 8, s. 84

Subjects

Representation of the People Actrecountelection petitioncounting errorsmargin of victoryConduct of Election Rulesballot paper inspectionjudicial recount

Judgment

571

R. NARAYANAN
v. •
S. SEMMALAI AND ORS.
September 6, 1979
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, P. S. KAILASAM AND A. P. SEN, JJ.] D

Representation of the People Act, 1951-Recount-When could be ordered
"""
I• by the Court.

The appellant and the respondent, among a few others, were candidates in
the elections to the State Assembly in which the appellant was declared elected.
The respondent, in his election petition in the High Court, alleged that the appel·
!ant's election was void under s. !00(1 )(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 on the ground that there were numerous-errors in the
counting of votes as a result 6f which number of votes were wrongly rejected
or wrongly accepted and prayed for qrdering of recounting because. the margin
by which the appellant succeeded was extremely narrow, coming to about nine
votes. He also prayed that he might be declared elected under s. 101 of the Act.

The High Court ordered recount of votes and after recount held the respon-
dent to be duly elected under s. 101 of the Act.
Allowing the appeal
HELD : This is not a case in ·which a recount should have been ordered by the
High Court. [586C]
E
1. The relief of recounting. cannot be accepted merely on the possibility of
thei"e being an error. The allegations in the election petition must not only be
clearly made out but should also be proved by cogent evidence. The High Court
has held that the respondent bas not eStablished any specific instance of erro-
neous sorting and that the allegations made in the pleadings and the evidence
were genera]. Even so it accepted the respondent's case on such insufficient
and infirm evidence. [578F-G] F
" 2. The narrow margin by which a candidate has been declared elected, though
an important factor, would not by itself vitiate the counting of votes or justify
~.- an order of recount by the Court. [579EJ

In the instant case the grounds taken by the respondent impugning the election
were vague. No case for recount had been made out by him. [580B] G·
3. It is well settle~ that a court would be justified in ordering a recount of
the ballot papers only where (1) the election petition contains an adequate state-
,
ment of all the material facts on which the allegations of 'irregularity or of
illegality in counting are founded, (2) on the basis' of evidence adduced su.ch
allegations are prima facie established, affording a good ground for believing that
there bas been a mistake in counting and (3) the court trying the petition is prima Ht
facie satisfied that the. making of such an order is imperatively necessary to
decide the dispute and to do complete and effectual justice between the parties.
. [585H]
57.2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

-}\ Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind & Ors., [1975] Supp. SCR 202; followed.
Ram Stwak Jadav v. Hussain Kami! Kidwai & Ors., [1%4] 6 SCR 238; Dr.
Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh, AIR 1966 SC 7Z3; Jitendra Bahadur Singh v.
Kri•hna Behari & Ors., [!970] 1 SCR 852; Baltkv Singh v. Teia Singh Swa-
tantar & Ors., [1975] 3 SCR 381; Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Gopal
Singh & Or3., [1976] 1 SCR 191; Be/iram Bhalaik v. Jai Beharila/ Khachi & Anr.,
[1975] 4 SCC 417; Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shtv Ram Verma, (C. A. No:
1185 of 1973 decided on 20-12-1974); referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1978. ~

Appeal under Article 116-A of the R.P. Act, 1951 from the Judg-
ment and Order dated 27-2-1978 of the Madras High Court in
.C Election Petition No. 7 /77.
AND
Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1978.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order da.ted
15-2-78 of the Madras High Court in Recrintination Petition Un-
numbered but with D. No. 12962/77.
· A. K. Sen,· K. Parasaran, P. N. Ramalingam, R. Srinivasan and
A. T. M. Sampath for the Appellant.
Y. S. Chitale, T. N. C. Srinivasa Vardacharya, K. Jayarairl and
K. Ram Kumar, for Respond.ent 1 in CA 524/78.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
FAZAL ALI, J. Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1978 has been filed by
tho appellant R. Narayanan who was the respondent before the High
Court and in short would be referred to as the appellant. Civil
• Appeal No. 588 of 1978 has been filed by the appellant after obtain-
ing special leave from this Court and is directed against that part of
the order of the High Court which refused to entertain the recrimina-
tion petition filed by the appellant. The election petitioner before
the High Court for the purpose of brevity will hereafter be referred
to as the respondent. ·
G
Both the appellant and the respondent contested the election held
on 11-5-1977. The ~ppellant who was a Congress candidate with
the symbol of calf al}d cow wheras the respondent was put forward
as a candidate of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
and contested with the symbol of ''Two Leaves". There were 14
11 candidates in all whose nominations were found valid but out of them
7 withdrew. The appellant and respondents No. 1 to 6 before the
Hiah Court remained in the field as contesting candidates. The res-
R. NARAYNAN v. s. SEMMALAI (Fazal Ali, J.) 573

pondeilt filed an election petition in the High Court under sections 8 J. A
and 84 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) for a declaration that the election of the
appellant to the 85 Taramangalam Assembly Constituency of !he
Tamil Nactu Legislative Assembly was void under section 100(1) (d)-
(iii) and (iv) of the Act and further prayed that he may be duly
declared to be elected und~r section 101 of the Act. The other candi- B
dates who were in the field lost the election and could not be elected.

The sheet anchor of the case of the respondent was that there
were number of errors in the counting of votes as a result of which
number of votes were wrongly rejected or wrongly accepted. It was
also alleged that the electoral roll was inaccurate as jt contained the c
names of number of persons who were already dead who had sup·
posed to have cast their votes. The main relief sought by the res-
pondent was that a re-count should be ordered particularly because
the margin by which the appeilant succeeded was extremely narrow
being only 19 votes and if the postal ballots are included then the
difference would be only 9 votes. A number of allegations were made D
regarding the errors in the counting of votes. The appellant denied
all the allegations made by the respondent in his election petition and
after filing his written statement sought a petition for recrimination on
the ground that a number of persons had impersonated as the appellant
as a result of which the respondent got a number of wrong votes;
otherwise the margin would have become larger. The High Court
however found that the petition for recrimination was tim.e barred, .
and,, therefore, could not be entertained. The learned Judge who
heard the election ·petition rejected the recrimination petition which
is the subject matter of Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1978. In the view
that we take in this case, it jg not necessary for us to give any pro- F'
nouncement regarding the validity of the order of the Judge rejecting
lhe recrimination petition.

The counting of votes took place at St. Mary's Girls High School,
Mettur on 14-6-1977. The initial counting commenced at 1l a.m.
and ended at 3 a.m. on the 15th June, 1977. The counting is alleged G
to have been done in three rounds. After the counting was over the
respondent filed an application before the Returning Officer for a
re-count on the ground that there were a number of counting errors
due to the shortage of staff and the tables on which votes were
counted, paucity of light and the fact that the counting staff became
absolutely exhausted and tired. The Returning Officer rejected the H
prayer of the respondent for re-count and went ahead with the dec-
lacation of the results.
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1980) 1 s.c.R.
'
A The appellant's case was that there was sufficient space in the hall
in which the counting took place and the polling agents of all the
candidates were present when the countirig was done and none of
them raised any objection when the counting was actually done. It
was also alleged that there were sufficient number of tube lights in
the hall and that there was no question of there being any opportunity
B of committing mistakes in counting. All the ballot papers were open-
ed in the presence of the counting agents, including the counting agent 1
of the respondent and kept in the box which containned the ballot
papers of the candidates concerned. The allegation of the respondent
that some outsiders including one Perumal were also allowed to enter
the ball when the counting · was going on was also denied by the
c appellant.

The learned Judge after taking evidence of both the parties re-
jected most of the allegations made by the respondent but accepted
the allegation that there were some counting errors at two tables,
D that there was paucity of light and that the counting staff was com-
pletely tired and exhausted, during the third round.

We would, therefore, briefly summarise the allegations made by
the respondent in his election petition in order to show whether the
allegations were clear and specific.
E ~
In para 7 of the election petition the respondent alleged that the
·counting of votes was not done properly or with due care and dili-
gence, but was often hurried through amidst much noise and i.J)t~rrup
tion and disturbance. It was also alleged that the lighting in lie hall
I!' was poor and insufficient and there was much scope for error aytl
there were numerous errors in the counting throughout and speciahy
in the third round. It was also complained that there were only 24
tables and counting was done in three rounds and the third round
took place near about the mid-night and lasted till 3 a.m. It was
also said that as the margin of votes secured by the respondent and
G the appellant was only 19 this was the result of grave irregularities
and illegalities and errors in the counting. A perusal of para 7 of the
election petition clearly shows that all the allegations made by the
respondent were extremely vague, no particulars were given either of
th~ segments in which the voting was counted or number of tables
which contained the errors by the counting officers, no complaint was
.H made to the Counting Officers by the agents of the respondent when
the counting was being done and which according to the respondent
was defective or faulty. The narrow margin was attributed to grave
ll. NARAYNAN V, s. SEMMALAI (Fazal Ali, J.) 575

irregularities and illegalities. The statement of the respondent in para A
7 oil this point may be quoted thus : -
"The result announced was neither true nor correct. It
was the result of grave irregularities and illegalities and errors
in the counting. In the circumstances the Returning Officer
ought to have allowed and carried out a re-count of the votes B
under Rule 63(3} of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961".
In para 8 it was alleged that the appellant was a Councillor and
a former Chairman of the Mecheri Panchayat Union and the counting
~taff consisted largely of the members of the staff of the aforesaid
union who owed their employment to the appellant. It was also
alleged that the counting staff did not remain seated but was moving c
about. The appellant's brother who was the central agent was moving
about among all the tables all the time talking and disturbing. Des-
pite these serious allegations no complaint was made to the counting
~taff at the spot by the respondent or his agent. It was further alleged
that several outsiders particularly one Perumal who was a contractor
for the Salem Steel Plaut and treasurer of the Taluk Congress Com- D
mittee, Mettnr constantly remained in the hall and were talking to
the Returning Officer. Thus, though not expressly but by implication,
the respondent seemed to suggest that the Returning Officer was in-
11uenced by Perumal.

'' Para 9 of the election petition is also frightfully vague the relevant
portion of which runs thus : -
E

"The counting was particularly faulty and unsatisfactory
and defective during the 3rd round and at tables No. 8 to
10, 13".

,. It was also alleged that Srinivasan was consistantly talking to Selvaraj
during the counting. Several allegations appear to have been made
F
in paragraph 9 also regarding the influence exercised by the appellant's
brother Srinivasan .but no complaint regarding this matter was made
to anybody and we shall presently show that even in the application
which the respondent filed before the Returning Officer most of the
allegations made by the respondent in the election petition are ·cons- G
picuously absent.
In para 11 it was also stated that there was no proper supervision
-0f the counting staff nor a proper check up at all. There was no
test check or re-check of the votes by the Returning Officer.
Similarly, a number of vague allegations regarding the manner H
and the time of counting were made in the petition. The learned
Judge after taking evidence and hearing counsel for the· parties dis-
(576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A believed the case of the respondent ahnost in its entirety but accepted
just a fragmentary portion of the case of the respondent. So far as
the fact that the counting staff was sleepy or was physically exhausted,
this matter was not even mentioned in the petition. The High Court
after examining the contention of the parties, framed the following
preliminary issues in the case :
B
"(1) Should there be a scrutiny and re-count of the ballot
papers as claimed by the election petitioner ?
(2) Is the election of the returned candidate, the first
respondent, liable to be declared to be void ?
(3) Is the election petitioner entitled to a declaration that
he himself has been duly elected ? and
( 4) To what relief?"
As already indicated, the Court after framing the issues rejected the
recrimination petition filed by the appellant. On the important alle-
D gation made by the respondent at the time of counting Perumal was
present and disturbing the counting staff, it was disbelieved and the
learned Judge observed as follows :
"After analysing the evidence of these witnesses in this
regard, I am inclined to take the view that Perumal's pre-
sence inside the counting hall has not been established."
E '
Similru:ly, the allegation that outsiders were allowed to enter the ~lf ·
was also disbelieved thus : -
"Even in the petition for recount there is no allegation
that unauthorised persons were allowed entry into the count-
ing hall and that it has affected the result of the counting.
F I have to therefore hold that there is no violation of Ru!• ....
53 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 as alleged by the
petitioner". L:,...
The. ground that there was no test check or proper scrutiny of doubtful
.Jt
votes was also rejected by the learned Judge and he held that these
G allegations were not established. Regarding the allegation that the
appellant was going round the hall openly announcing that a few votes
were required for winning the election was not proved. The learned
Judge ob8erved thus :
"I am, therefore, of the view that there is no truth in the
H allegation made against R. W. 1 that he was going round
the hall by openly announcing that only a few votes were
required by the first respondent for winning the election".
R. NARAYNAN ·v. s. SEMMALAI (Fazal Ali, 1.) 5 77

Regarding the paucity of light the Judge found that there were 7 A
tube lights and the complaint of the respondent that there was no
suflicieut light to enable the counting staff to do their work was clearly
an after-thought. · In this counection, the learned Judge observed ail
follows : -
"After aualysing the evidence adduced on this aspect, I
am of the view that this complaint is purely an afterthought. .I
If really the lighting was poor, not only the petitioner but
all the other candidates would have complained even at the
first instance to the Returning Officer".
Similarly, the allegation regarding the noise and disorder alleged
to have prevailed in the counting hall, the Judge held that there was c
no acceptable evidence to prove these allegations.
Another serious allegation of partiality was made by the respon-
dint that most of the counting staff was directly connected with the
appellant was also disbelieved and the Judge observed thus :
r
"Even if the facts alleged by the petitioner that some
of the counting staff owed their appointment to the first res- ~J
pondent and that they were working m the Panchayat
Union Council in which the first respondent was the Chair-
man are true, it will not automatically amount to proof o[
the allegation of partiality. It has been pointed out time
and again by the Supreme Court that to tarnish the count- E
ing staff with bias or partiality is easy for any party who
challenges the election of a returned candidate and that the
Court should be reluctant to lend quick credence to the
mud of partiality slung at counting officials by desperate and
defeated candidates."
The only ground which appears to have been accepted by the . E:
learned Judge was that although there was no clear evidence of
any irregularity having been committed in the first two rounds there
.....
' was a possibility that the staff was completely exhausted and this
may have led to erroneous sorting and counting of Totes. This was
because, according to the learned Judge, the staff started its work: at
G
11 a.m. on 14-6-77 and continued to work: without rest till about
3 a.m. on 15-6-77. They were provided with lunch in the afternoon of
14-6-77. It was also found by the judge that the counting staff
.was not supplied with focd in the night but was provided with tea
at only 7 p.m. In this connection, the learned Judge observed as
follows:- Bl
"The next ground urged by the petitioner is that the
counting staff were sleepy, exhausted and not alert durin.!I
S78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {1980] 1 S.C.R.

A the third round which was started after mid-night and com-
pleted at 3 A.M. the next day and that as such there is
definite possibility of erroneous sorting and counting of
votes during that round. Almost all the petitioner's wit-
nesses have deposed that the counting staff who began their
work of preliminary counting at 11 A.M. on 14-6-1977
• continued to work without any rest upto 3 A.M. the' next
day, that they were provided with lunch only on the after-
noon of 14-6-1977, that the counting staff were not suppli-
ed with food during the night that they were provided
with only tea at 7 p.m. and therefore the counting staff
were completely exhausted and sleepy especially after mid-
c night and that they were not as vigilant and alert as they
were during the first and second rounds of counting. All.
the first respondent's witnesses also admitted that the count-
ing staff were not provided with food in the night but they
were merely supplied with tea at 7 P.M. and that they
D carried on the counting without any break till 3 A.M. the
next day. Though the petitioner has not established any
specific instance of erroneous sorting and counting of votes
during the third round, general allegations have been made
in the pleadings as well as in the evidence adduced on
behalf of the petitioner. There appears 'lo be considerable
E force in the submission of the petitioner in this regard".

In the first place the finding itself is based purely on speculation.
It is obvious that election being a technical matter the authorities
choose experienced peroons to do the counting and take every po11Si-
i.l ble care to see that the members of the staff do not commit any
error. Moreover, the relief of re-counting cannot be accepted
merely on the possibility of their being an error. It is well-settled
that such allegations must not only be clearly made but also proved f
by cogent evidence. The Judge himself holds that the respondent ,-.
has not established any specific instance' of erroneous sorting and
G that the allegations made in the pleadings as well as in the evidence
are general yet he accepts the case of the respondent on such in-
sufficient and infirm evidence. Moreover, it wonld appear from the
evidence of P.W. 23 the witness for the respondent that the first '
round started at 5 p.m. and ended at about 8.30 p.m., the second
round started at 9 p.m. and ended at 11.30 p.m. and the third round >"(
B started at 12 mid-night and ended at 2 a.m. The witness was asked
in cross-examination whether he had complained to the counting
staff at the spot and the witness admitted that when he pointed out
R. NARAYNAN v. s. SEMMALAI (Fazal Ali,!.) 579

the mistake it was rectified by the counting staff. From the timings A. .
of the rounds it appears that there were sufficient intervals between
the three rounds, and, therefore, the question of the staff being tired
and exhausted did not arise. This finding of the learned Judge,
therefore, is against the weight of evidence and cannot be legally
supported. Moreover, as we have already pointed out that re-count
should be ordered not on possibility of errors but when the matter B
is proved with absolute certainty. Similarly, the learned Judge spe-
culates that there must have been lot of. physical exertion and
ob!!erved thus : -
"It is not possible to exclude the possibility of physical
exertion on the part of the counting staff especially after c
midnight when the third round of counting took place.
Having regard to the minimal difference in votes it has
become necessary to find out whether the third round
of counting was carried on by the counting staff properly.
In the nature of things it is not possible to assume that all
~he 72 persons were alert and attended to the process of D
wunting with such :keenness as it deserved".
This finding is also based on pure speculation and cannot be main-
tained.
Lastly, the learned Judge was greatly influenced by the fact that E
the margin by which the appellant succeeded was very narrow. This
was undoubtedly an important factor to be considered but would
not hy itself vitiate the counting of votes or justify re-counting by
the Court.
, We would like to mention here that in fact the respondent had
F
made an application before the Returning Officer for re-count but
the actual application filed by the respondent has not been produced
for the reasons best known to the respondent. It appears from
Annexure II which is a certified copy of the order of the Returning
Officer that three gl'ounds were taken before the Returning Officer
by th~ respondent. In the first place, he expressed his suspicion G
that the votes. would have been mixed relating to Narayanan (Con-
gress) and other candidates; (ii) that many votes polled in his
favour had been rejected, (iii) Postal ballots have been rejected
without sufficient reasons. It may thus be pertinent to note that
Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appe!lant's main plank of argu-
ment was that there was overwhelming evidence to show that there H
were several counting errors at Tables 2, 3, 7, 9, 12, 15, 17, 8,
10, 13 particularly stress was laid on Tables 2, 4, e, 8, 9, 10 and 13.
580 SUPREME COURT REPOltTS [1980) 1. S.C.lt.

.A It was also said that despite protests being made by the respondent's
agents to the polling staff no action was taken at all.. Indeed, if this
was so then we should have accepted such an allegation being
made prominently in the application given by the respondent to the
Returning Officer. The absence of any· such allegation in the appli-
,
cation of· the respondent before the Returning Officer clearly shows
B that this allegation was clea:ly an after-thought and, therefore, no
'implicit reliance can be placed on the oral evidence by the respondent
before the court. It would thus be seen that all the three grounds
taken by the respondent before the Returning Officer were absolutely .
vague and could not make out a case for re-counting by the Returning
Officer much Jess by the court. It may be relevant to note that in the
•
c application filed by the respondent .the question that the appellant
succeeded by a narrow margin was mso not mentioned. On this
application the Returning Officer passed the following order :-·
"Under the above circumstances he requested that a
recount may be ordered and justice rendered. The candi-
0 date, his election and counting agents were watching the
process of counting and no objection or complaint was
raised by· any of them during the course of counting regard-
ing any mistakes. The suspicion expressed by hi.m that
many of the votes relating to him would have been includ-
ed in the votes relating to Narayanan and other candidates,
E is without basis and 'hence not correct: . All the doubtful
· vo:es were scrutinised by me in the presence of can-
didates and their a·gents and orders passed. His version
that many of the votes in his favour were rejected is not
correct since the scrutiny was done in their. presence. He
F has not made any specific 'mention abont the round or table
to be recounted. The petitioner has requested recount in
general of all the votes .polled for all candidates under the
presumption that his ballot papers wonld have been mix6d
up in other bundles .
. His petition is frivolous and unre~•onable. This part
G of his request is therefore rejected."
·The Jaw on the subject is absolutely clear and whiie the learned
Judge had relied on some of the decisions of this Court he has failed
to apply them correctly to the facts and circnmstances of this co.se..
. On the question of re-count as far back as in the case of Ram Sewak
B ladav v. Hussain Kami/ Kidwai ~ Ors.(') this Court pointed ont as
follows
(I) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 238.
R. NARAYNAN V, S. SBMMAILAI (faza/ Ali,].) 581

"But the Election· Tribunal is not on that account with- A
out authority in respect of the ballot papers. In a proper
case where the interests of justice demand· it, the Tribunal
may call upon the· Returning Officer to produce the ballot
papers and may permit inspection by the parties before it
of the ballot papers." B
"An order for inspection may not be granted as a mattec
of course; having regard to the insistence upon the secrecy
of the ballot papers, the Court would be justified in grant-
ing an order for inspection provided two conditions are ful-
filled :
c
( i) that the petition for setting aside an election con-
. tains an adequate statement of the material facts
on which the petitioner relies in support of his case;
and
' (ii) the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that in order D
to decide the dispute and to do complete justice
beween the parties inspection of the ballot papers
is necessary.

But an order for inspection of ballot papers cannot be
granted to support vague pleas made in the petition not E
supported by material facts or to fish out evidence to
support such pleas. The case of the petitioner must be ~et
out with precision supported by averments of material facts.
To establish a case so pleaded an order for inspection may
undoubtedly, if the interests of justice require,. be granted.
But a mere allegation that the petitioner suspects or believ- F
es that there has· been an improper reception, refusal or
rejection of votes will not be sufficient to support an order
for inspection''.

"Therefore a candidate who seeks to challen~e an G
election on the ground that there has been improper recep-
tion refusal or rejection of votes at the time of counting,
has ample opportunity of acquainting himself with the
manner in which the ballot boxes were scrutinized and
opened, and the votes were counted. He has also opportu-
nity of inspecting rejected ballot papers, and of demanding H
a re-count. It is in the light of the provisions of s. 83(1)
which require a concise statement of material facts on which
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.R.

A the petitioner relies and to the opportunity which is defeated
candidate had at the time of counting, of watching and of
claiming a recount that the application for inspection must
be considered".

To the same effect is a later decision of this Court in the case of
B
Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh.(') In the case of Jitendra
Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari & Ors.( 2 ) this Court observed as
follows

"In the instant case apart from g1vmg certain figures
c· whether true or imaginary, the petitioner has not disclosed
in the petition the basis on which he arrived at those
figures. His bald assertion that he got !Pose figures from
the counting agents of the congress nominee cannot afford
the necessary basis. He did not say in the petition who
those workers were and what is the basis of their informa-
D tion ? It is not his case that they maintained any notes or
that he examined their notes, if there were any. The material
facts required to be sfatecl are those facts which can be con-
sidered as materials supporting the allegations made. In
other words they must be such facts a~ to afford a basis for
the allegations made in the petition".
E
"The trial court correctly came to the conclusion that
before an order of inspection of the ballot papers can be
made it must be prima facie satisfied that in order to decide
the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties,
inspeciion of the ballot papers is necessary. It did say
F
that it was so satisfied but it gave no reasons whatsoever
as to how it came to be satisfied. A judge can be satisfied
only on the basis of proof and not on the basis o~ mere
allegations".

G In Halsbury's Laws of England (Vol. 14 at page 310 paragraph
599), it is observed :

"A recount is not granted as of right, but on evidence'
·of good grounds for believing that there has been a mistake
on the part of the Returning Officer".
H
(1) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 723.
(2) [1970] 1 S.C.R. 852.
R. NARAYNAN v. s. SEMMALAI (Fazal Ali, J.) 583

Similarly, Fraser in his Law of Parliamentary Elections and Elec- A
tion Petitions at p. 222 observed thus :-·
"A strong case must be made on affidavit before an
order can be obtained for inspection of . ballot papers or
counterfoils''.
In the case of Baldev Singh v. Teja Singh Swatantar (Dead) B·
& Ors.(') Krishna Iyer, J. speaking for the Court observed as
follows : -
"Disingenuous averments do not promote prospects of
judicial recount and will be dismissed as devices to comply
with requirements suggested in some ruling or other".
"Where the margin of difference is minimal, the claim
c
for a fresh count cannot be summarily brushed aside as
futile or trumpery".
"If formal defects had been misconstrued at some table
as substantial infirmities, or vice versa, resulting in wrong-
ful reception or rejection, the sooner it was set right the D·
better, especially when a plea for a second inspection had
been made on the spot. Many practical circumstances or
legal misconceptions might honestly affect the legal or arith-
metical accuracy of the result and prestige or fatigue should
not inhibit a fresh, may be partial, check. Of course, .K
baseless or concocted claims for recount or fabricated
grounds for inspectiqn or specious complaints of mistakes
in counting when the gap is huge are obvious cases of
frivolous and unreasonable demands for recount. Mala-
fide aspersions on counting S!ilff or false and untenable objec-
tions regarding validity of votes also fall under the same
category. We mean to be illustrative, not exhaustive, but
underline the need, in appropriate case, to be reasonably
liberal in re-check and re-count by Returning Officers.
'· After all, fairness at the polls must not only be manifest
but misgiving about the process must be erased at the
earliest. Indeed, the Instructions to Officers are fairly clear
and lay down sound guidelines".
Reliance . was placed by the High Court on an observation of
Krishna Iyer, J. in this case that where the margin of difference is
minimal the claim for the fresh poll cannot be summarily brushed
aside. In the first place, this observation was really meant for the 1£
Returning Officer because at the time when request for re-count to
(!) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 381.
584 OOPREME COURT REPORTS ~1980] l s.c.R.

.A the Returning Officer is made the electoral process is still continuing
and if there are any counting errors they can be rectified before the
· election process is complete. This however cannot apply to the
Court while dealing with an election petition because if a re-count
is ordered at that stage then the electoral process has to be restaried
afresh. In our country the election is an extremely expensive proce~s
and unless very clear case for recount is made out the candidates
should not be put to unnecessary trouble and expense. Moreover,
in the case of Ram Autar Singh Bhadauria v. Ram Go[l.11 Singh &
Ors.(') this Court to which Krishna Iyer, J. himself was a party
observed :
·C "The above being the law on the point, it is clear that
the learned Judge was in error in ordering general inspec-
tion and recount of the total votes polled at the election,
merely because in these Additional Pleas the returned can-
didate also had by way of recrimination, complained of
wrong reception and rejection of votes and wrong counting of
votes. The pleas at this stage could not be investigated even
in the recriminatory petition filed by the returned candidate.
They were beyond the scope of the enquiry into tho peti-
tioner's case which (as set up in Para 11 of the Petition)
fell under sJOO(l)(d)(iii) of the Act".
£
Similarly in the case of Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shiv Ram
Verma( 2 ) this Court observed as follows : -
"A democracy runs smooth on the wheels of periodic
and pure elections. The verdict at the polls announced by
the Returning Officers lead to the formation of Govern-
ments. A certain amount of stability in the electoral pro-
cess is essential. If the counting of the ballots are inter-
fered with by too frequent and flippant recounts by courts
a new system is introduced through the judicial instrument.
Moreover, the secrecy of the ballot which is sacrosanct
becomes exposed to deleteriou~ prying, if recount of votes
G
is made easy. The general reaction, if there is judicial re-
laxation on this issue, may well be a fresh· pressure on
luckless candidates, particularly when the winning margin
is only of a few hundred votes as here, to ask for a re-
count. Micawberishly looking for numerical good fortune or
H windfall of chance discovery of illegal rejection or reception
- (i)[l976J-iS.c.R.19L
(2) C.A.1185 of 1973 decided on 20-12-1974.
R. NARAYNAN v. s. SEMMALAI (Fazal Ali, J.) 5 85'

of ballots. This may tend to a dangerous disorientation
which invades the democratic order by injecting widespread
scope for reopening of declared returns, unless the Court
restricts recourse to recount to cases of genuine apprehen-
sion· of miscount or illegality or other compulsions of justice
necessitating such a drastic step".
In the case of Beliram Bhalaik v. Jai Beh:1rilal Khachi and
Anr. (') this Cqurt again reiterated the same principles in the follow-
ing word~:-
"A whimsical and bald statement of the candidate that
he is. not satisfied with the counting is not tantamount to a
statement of the "grounds" within the contemplation of c
Rule 63(2). The application was thus not a proper appli-
cation in the eye of Jaw. It was not supplemented even by
an antecedent or contemporaneous oral statement of the
author or any of his agents with regard to any irregularities
in the counting. It was liable to be rejected summarily under
sub-rule (3) of Rule 63 also".
"Although no cast-iron rule of universal application can
be or has been laid down, yet from a breadroll of the ded-
sions of this court two broad guidelines are discernible;
that the court would be justified in ordering a recount or per-
mitting inspectian of the ballot papers only where (i) all the E
material facts on which the allegations of irregnlarity or ille-
gality in counting are founded, are pleaded adequately in the
election petition, and (ii) the Court(fribunal trying the peti-
tion is prima facie satisfied that the making of such and
order is imperatively necessary to decide the dispute and to
do complete and effectual justice between the parties". F
Finally, the entire case Jaw on the subject regarding the circum-
stances under which re-count could be ordered was fully summarised
and catalogued by this Court in the case of Bhabhi v. Sheo Govind &
Ors.( 2 ) to which one of us (Fazal Ali, J.) was a party and which may
be extracted thus : - G
"The Court would be justified in ordering a recount of
the ballot papers only where:
( 1) The election petition contains an adequate statement of
all the material facts on which the allegations of irre-
iularity or illegality in counting are founded; g,
------
(!) [1975] 4 s.c.c. 417.
(2) [1975] Supp. S.C.R. 202.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
..
[1980] l S.C.R.
586

(2) On the basis of evidence adduced such allegations are
prima facie established, affording a good ground for
believing tlrat there has been a mistake in counting;
and
(3) The court trying the petition is prima facie satisfied
that the making of such an order is imperatively
necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete
and effectual justice between the parties."
Thus, on a consideration of the principles deduced from the autho-
rities mentioned above and the evidence led in this case by the parties,
we are satisfied that this was not a case in which a re-count should
c have been ordered by the .learned Judge.
For these reasons, Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1978 is allowed with
costs throughout and the order passed by the High Court setting aside
the election of the appellant and declaring the respondent to be elected
is hereby quashed. In this view of the matter no order need be passed
in Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1978 in view of the order passed by us in
"Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1978. ·

;p,B.R. 'J J •
Appeal allowed.