Holding

Ballot papers whose markings, though not wholly within the candidate's column, clearly indicate the voter's choice must be counted, and the pamphlet Ex P3 was misleading, rendering the Returning Officer's rejections illegal.

Summary

In the 1980 Tamil Nadu Assembly election for the Ilayangudi constituency, the appellant was declared winner by a margin of 56 votes. The first respondent filed an election petition alleging that the Returning Officer had wrongly rejected ballot papers where the voter's mark was partially in the candidate's column and partially in the shaded area or demarcation line, based on a misleading illustration in a pamphlet (Ex P3) issued by the Chief Electoral Officer. The Madras High Court found that such rejections were illegal and ordered a re‑scrutiny and recount of the rejected votes. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the pamphlet’s illustration was indeed misleading, that the Returning Officer was improperly guided by it, and that under Rule 39(2)(b) of the Conduct of Election Rules a ballot should be counted if the mark reasonably indicates the voter's choice. Consequently, the High Court’s order was affirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether ballot papers with a mark partially in the candidate's column and partially in the shaded area or demarcation line should be rejected as invalid.
Whether the pamphlet issued by the Chief Electoral Officer (Ex P3) was misleading and caused the Returning Officer to err.
Whether the High Court was correct in directing a re‑scrutiny and recount of the rejected votes.

Legislation cited

Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 39(2)(b), s. Rule 56(2)
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(d)(iii), s. 100(1)(d)(iv), s. 101, s. 80, s. 81, s. 82, s. 83, s. 98

Subjects

election lawballot paper rejectionilliterate votersConduct of Election RulesRepresentation of the People Actpamphlet illustrationre‑scrutinyTamil Nadu Assembly election

Judgment

10<1
s. SIVASWAMl
A
v.
V. MALAIKANNAN AND OTHERS
. .
September 27, 1983
B •
[D._ A. DESAI, v. BALAKRISHNA BRAD; AND R: B. ~!SRA, JJ.

Election-Law-Representation of the People Act, 1951. Sections 80 to 83,
98, 100(1) (d) (iii) and (iv) and section 101.,-Rejection of ballot papers where
c the marking wa$ partially in the column of the cancUdate and partly in the shaded
area artd also those .where ihe matking was partially in the candidates colun1n and
partially on the dividing line in the botton1 as invalid, based on the illustration at
page .40 of the pamphiet co~taining instruciions in .Tanzi/ and issued by the Chief
Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu--Validity of-Conduct of Election Rtt!es, 1961-:-
Princip/e of Rule 39(2) (b) explained. ~

D
In the General Elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly held in May 1980,
the appellant contested for the Ilayangudi Assembly ~onstitl!ency seat and
was duly elected as ·he polled 34437 votes, The first respondent who had
polled 34381 'votes and missed by a narrow margin of 56 votes filed an election·
petition before the High Court of IVfadras on three grounds viz., (a) improper
rejection by the Returt'ling Officer of valid votes cast- in'faVour of the respon~ ·
dent; (b) improper reception of invalid votes cast in favour of the appellant
and (c) improp~r treatment of valid votes cast in' favour of the first respondent
and the 3rd respondent as votes cast in favour of the appellant. _ The High
Court accepted the petition on its finding on the first ground in favour of the
Ist respondent and ordered resc.rutiny of the votes rejected as invalid. Hence
the appeal by special leave. '

F ~Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1:1 The pamphlet iSsued in Tamil titled ".A pamphlet showing
illustrative cases of valid and invalid postal and ordinary ballot papers·
''(Ex P3) issued by the chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu ~is misleading and
therefore should be withdrawn. [111 DJ
G.
1:2. In the illust~ation of invalid papers app~aring at page 40 of the
Book (Ex P3), the major partion of the marking is in the sh~ded_ area and a
small portion of the. mark is in the column - of the candidate. Apparently
what was intended to be printed was· an illustration showing a ballot paper
in which the whole of the marking was in the shaded area only without any
H portion of it being in the column of the candidate. The illustration as printed
in the pamphlet obviously conveys the errOneous impression tliat a ballot paper
where the markin~ is partly in the column of the candidate and partly in the
shaded a:rea is to be rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid. This is
s. SIVASWAMI v. v. MALAIKANNAN ios
directly contrary to the intendment of the relevant rule and also the expr~ss
wordiilg of the instruction~ issued by the Election Commission. A
. . [IIO H; III A-BJ

In the instant case the Returning Officer was obviously misled by the
aforesaid illustration contained i'Il t.he pamphlet, Ex. P 3 and that was the sole
reason why he rejeCted as invalid the ballot papers where the marking was
contained partly in the column of the first respondent and partly on the
demarcating line or shaded area. Had the Returning Officer taken the trouble B
to -study the instructions contained in the "Handbook for the Returning
Officer" it should have been apparent to him that the illustration aforemen-
tioned contained in Ex. P3 did not· correctly .reflect the J:>OSition laid down in
the rules ~nd instructions. [111 C·DJ

2: 1 The essence of the principle in Rule 39(2) (b) of the Conduct Rulles,
1961, is that so long as the baliot paper bears a mark made with the instrument
c
11upplied for the purpose, the ballot papet shall not be rejected as invalid, if it
is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the marking as to
the identity of the candidate in favour of whom the vote had been given.
. [109 C-D]

2:2. Nearly 90% of.the electorate in this country consists of illiterate D
and uneducated rural folk totally unacquainted with the intricacies of the rules
and technicalities of procedure p2rtaining to electiOns. , Even if the best of
endeavour is made to explain to them such eomplicated rules· and ·procedures
they may not be capable of grasping and fully understanding all the impli-
cations and actually carrying thetilinto effect while exercising their.franchise.
If the right confened on the people to choose their representatives to the State
Legislatures and the Parliament through the process of free and fair elections
E
. is to be meaningful the will of the illiterate and unsophisticated voter expressed
through a mar'k:ing on the ballot paper. which though not strictly inside the
column of the particular candidate is clearly indicative of thC identity of the
candidate for whom: the vote. is cast ·has to be respected and giVen its full·
effect. The Election Commission has manifested due ."awareness of this stark
· ..- re~lity while issuing illstructions to the Retµrning Officers regarding the F
principles to be adopted for rejection of ballot papers in the "Handbook.for
Returning Officers" published by the Commission in 1982. and also a "Hand~
book for candidates' for election to the· House of People, Legislative
Assemblies of States i:i:nd Union·Territories etc. [109 D~G]

Observation : In order to avoid a recurrence of such unfortunate
!nstances of iliegal rejection of votes on' the .basis. of misleading illustration
G
contained in the pamphlet, [X. P3, it is essenr.ial that immediate action should
be taken by the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu to withdraw' the said
pamphlet containing illustr;:i.tions ·correctly reflecting the legal position under
relevant rules and instructions relating to the scrutiny acceptance or rejection
of ballot papers. [III F-GJ H
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1737 (NCE)
of 1981.
i06 SUPREME CoURT REPORTS (19841 I s.c.k.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
A the 29th June, 1981 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition
No. 3 of 1980.

R.K. Garg, V.J. Francis for the Appellant.

Dr. Y.S. Chita/e, K. Rajendra Choudhary and S. Srinivasan for
B
Respondents.

A. V. Rangam and Mrs, Sar/a Chandra for Respondent No. 5.

The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. At the conclusion of the hearing' of this
appeal arising out of an election petition filed under Sections 80 to
83, 98, lOO{l) {d) (iii) and (iv) and Section 101 of the Representation
of People Act, 1951, we passed the following order a!1nouncing the
decision arrived at by us : ·
D
"The appeal is dis~issed with no order as to costs. All interim
orders passed by this Court are vacated.

Reasons will follow."
E
We now proceed to state the reasons in support of the aforesaid
conclusion.

In the General Elections to the Tamil Nadu Assembly held in
F May 1980, the Appellant had contested for the Ilayangudi Assembly.
Constituency seat, and, the 1st Respondent was a rival candidate
sponsored by the Communist Party of India. Respond'ents 2, 3 and
4 had also stood for election in the same constituency as independent
candidates. The polling took place on the 28th 6f May 1980. The
counting of votes was commenced at 10.00 a.m. on the !sf of June
G 1980 and at 5.00 p.m. after the postal ballot votes were also counted,
the result of the election was "announced by the Returning Officer,
declaring_that the appellant was duly elected on the ground that he_ had
secured the highest number of votes among the contesting candidates.
According to the results or'the counting as announced, the appellant
H had secured 34, 437 votes and the lst respondent had polled 34, 381
votes. The other three candidates secured- only a very small number
of votes and had forfeited their deposits. Thus, it ·was only by a
s. SIVASWAMI v. V. MALAIKANNAN (Ba!okrishna Eradi, i.) io7
narrow margin of 56 votes that the appellant was declared to have
won the election. A

The validity of the election was challenged by the I st
respondent by filing the election petition before the High Court of
Madras praying for an order for the scrutiny and recounting of all
the ballot papers cast in the election to the Jlayangudi Assembly B
Constituency held on 28.5.80 and for a declaration that the election
of the appellant to that c'onstituency was void and that the 1st
respondent had been duly elected in' respect of that constituency.
The main grounds urged in support of the' prayer for setting aside
the election of the appellant were rhiee-fold, viz., (!) improper
rejection by the Returning Officer of valid votes cast in favour of the c
I st respondent; (2) improper reception of invalid votes cast in favour
of the appellant; and (3) improper treatment of valid votes cast in
favour of the first respondent and the 3rd respondent as votes cast
in favour of the appellant., A further ground was also taken in the
petition that the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer ·in the D
counting of votes and the declaration of the result of the election
was not in accordance with the"provisions of.the Representation of the
People Act (hereinafter called the Act), the rules and the instructions
issued in that regard. '

E
After a detailed discussion of the evidence adduced in the case
the learned single Judge of the High Court, who tried the election ·
petition, found that there was no basis for the allegation made in the
petition that the procedure adopted by the Returning Officer in the
~

counting of votes was not in accordance with the relevent provisions
of the Act, the rules and tbe instructions. It was further found by F
the Jearn!'d Judge that the averment made in the petition that valid
votes cast ii] favour of the !st respondent and the 3rd respondent had
been improperly treated as votes polled in favour of the. appellant
was devoid of factual foundation. However, on the issue relating to
the question whether there had been improper rejection .of valid votes
cast in fa-:our of the !st respondent herein (petitio;,er in the election
G
petition), the learned Judge found that it was clearly established by
the evidence that the Returning Officer had erroneously and ilJ~gally
rejected as invalid 'ballot papers in which the marking had been
done either on the demarcation line at the bottom of the I st
H
respondent's column-the fit;'lt respondent's name was printed on the
ballot paper as the last name immediately beneath the said name was
the demarcation line at the bottom -or partially on the demarcation .
SUPREME cOuRT REPORTS [1984] i s.c.R.

1
'
line and partially in the column of the I st respondent. The difference
in votes between the appellant and the !st respondent being· only
56, the learned Judge held that there should be a rescrutiny ·of the
'· rejected a
votes and recount in the light of such s~rutiny should be .
undertaken. The total number of votes rejeected on different counts
was 751. The .!st respondent deposed in his. evidence that there
were as many as about 300 votes cast in his· favour in which the.
B T marking was partially 0;1 the demarcation line and partially in the
column where his name was printed and they had all .been rejected.
The Returning Officer-, in his testimony, as R W 2, admitted that he
had treated such ballot papers as invalid but asserted that the total
number of ballot papers rejected on the said ground was only 127.
c The learned single Judge was of opinion that even if the version of
RW 2 regarding the number of ball~t pa;>ers rejected on the afore-
said ground was to be accepted as correct, the Returning Officer had
committed a manifest "illegality . while counting the votes and . the
declaration of the result made on the basis of such defective counting
had to set aside. Accordingly, the High ·court directed a re-scrutiny
D and a recount of all the rejected votes to . be carried out in the
premises of the High Court. The learned Judge appointed one of
Assistant Registrars ,.of the· High Court was Presiding Officer to
supervise the recounting~ The Chief Electoral Officer was. directed
· to cause the production of all the rejected votes in respect of the
Ilayangudi Assembly constituency at the election held on 28.5. 1980. ·
E A directipn was also issued. to "the Rel.urning Officer-5th respondent
-to render all necessary assistance to enable the re-scrutiny and
recounting to be properly carried out by the Assistant Registrar as
pre~iding officer. It is against the said decision of the High Court
that this appeal by special leave has been preferred.

F The Returning Officer, in the testimony given by him as RW2,
Jias adm_itted in categorical terms that he had rejected as invalid
ballot papers where the marking was partially in the column of the
candidate and partially in the shaded area and also those where the
marking was partially in the candidate's column and partially. on the
G dividing line in the bottom. His explanation was that in doing so
he had strictly followed the instructions contained in the booklet P3,
entitled "In.structions to counting staff" issued in Tamil language by
the Chief Electoral Officer of'Tamil Nadu in connection with the
elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly, 1980. ·
H . ~ . '
'
Rule 39(2) (b) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 requires
!Ill elector to make a mark on the ballot paper with the instrument
s. SIVASWAMI v. v. MALAIKANNAN IBo/akrfahna Erodi, J.) JC9

supplied for the purpose "on or near the symbol of the candidate
for whom be intends to vote". Rule 56(2) directs the Returnina A
Officer to.feject a ballot paper "(a) ..................... ,. or (b) if it
bears no mark at all to indicate the vote, or it bears a mark else
where than on or ~ar the symbol of one of the candidates on the
face of the ballot paper or, it bears a mark made otherwise than with
• the instrument supplied for the purpose, or (c) ........ c............ , or
(d) if the mark indicating the votethereon is placed in such a manner B
as tO make it doubtful to which candidate the vote has been given."
The essence of the principle incorporated in the rule is that so long' .
as the ballot paper bears a mark made with the instrument supplied
for the purpose, the ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid, if it
is ··reasonably possible to gather a definite indication from the c
marking as to the identity of the candidate in favour of whom the
vote had been given. In this context it is necessary to remember
that nearly 90% of the electorate in this Cl)untry consists of illiterate
·and uneducated rural folk totally unl!cquainted with the intricacies
, of the rules and technicalities of procedure pertaining to e\ectipns.
D
Even if the best of endeavour is made to, explain to them such
complicated rules and procedures they may not be capable of grits·
ping and fully understanding' all the implications and actually
carrying them into effect while exercising their franchise. If the
right conferred on the p·eople to choose . their representatives to the
.. State Legislatures and the Parliament thrnugh the process of free E
and fair elections is to be meaningful the will of the illiterate -and
unsophisticated voter expressed through a marking on the ballot
paper which though not strictly inside that column of the particular·
candidate is clearly indicative of the identity of the candidate for
whom the vote is cast has to be respected and given its full effect.
It is gratifying to note that the Election Commission has manifested
due awareness of this stark reality while issuing instructious to the
Returning Officers regarding the principles to be adopted for rejec-
tion of ballot papers in the "Haudbook for Returning Officers"
published ,by the Commission in 1982. At page 90 of the book, the
Returning Officers have been instructed to reject a ballot paper
only-
G
•
. (i) when there is no mark at all on the front or the
,,, mark is made otherwise than with the instrument
supplied for the purpose ;
H
(ii) when the mark is in blank area, that is fo say, at the
back or entirely in the shaded ~real or
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1984] l s.c.R.

(iii) w~en there are marks against two or more candiates ;
A or

(iv) when there is any writing or mark by which the voter
can be identified ; o'.

B (v) when the ballot paper is mutilated beyond recog·
nition ; or

(vi) when the ballot paper is not. genuine or it is spurious. ·

The Election Commission has also issued a "Handbook for
c ·candidateds" for election to the House of the People, Legislative
· Ass1,mb!ies of States and Union Territories, etc. At page 78 of the
book, it is specificially stated that the Returning Officer will not
reject any ballot paper simply becuse the mark is only partially
within the column of one candidate and and the rest of the .mark
is in the blank area. It _has also clarified that that a ballot paper
D shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the mark indicating
thd vote is indistinct or made more than once, if the intention that
the vote is for a particular candidate clearly appears from the way
the paper is marked. The matter has bee{l further clarified in a
.•pamphlet •issued by the Election Commission of India in 1982
E entitled" A Pamphlet showing illustrative cases of valid and invalid
postal and ordinary ballot papers". The illustration at page 17 of
the pamphlet depicts a case where the mark affixed on the ballot paper
is partially in the column of the candidate No.I, the rest of it being
in the shaded area and it is clearly directed that in such cases the
ballot paper should be treated as containing a valid vote in favour of
F Candidate No. I. The ChiefE!ectoral Officer of Tamil Nadu had
issued a similar pamphlet contaning instructions 'in Tamil to the
counting staff purporting to be in terms identical with those contain-
ed in the Handbook and the pamphlet issued by the Election Com-
mission of India, Ex.P3 ·marked in tJ:iis case is the pamphlet so' .issued
G in Tamil by the Chief Oftlccr, Tamil Nadu. Ex.P3 contains illus-
trative cases of valid and invalid postal and ordinary ballot papers
and in pub!ishing·it, the obvious' intention was to have the illus-
trationson indentical lines as those found in corresponding pamphlet •
issued by the ·Election Commission cf IndiJl. Unfortunately, however,
H in the Hlustration of invalid 'ballot papers appearing at page 40·of the
Book (Ex.P3);the major portion of the marking is in the shaded area
and a small portion of the mark is in the column of the candidate:
Apparently what was intended to· be printed was an illustration
-
s. S!VASWAMI v. v; MALAIKANNAN (Balakrishna Eradi, .T.) 111

showing a a ballot paper in which the whole of the marking was in
the shaded area only without any portion of it being in the column A
of the candidate. _ The illqstration as printed in the pamphlet
obviously conveys the erroneous impres&ion that a ballot popenvhere
the marking is partly in the column of the candidate and partly in
the shaded area is to be rejected by the Returning Officer as invalid.
! This is directly contrary to the intendment of the relevant rule and B
also the express wording of the instructions issued by the Election
Commission.

'
In the case before us, the Returning officer was obviously
misled by the aforesaid illustration contained in the pamphlet, Ex.P.3
and that was the sole reason why he was rejected as invalid the c
ballot papers where the marking was contained partly in the column
of the first respondent and partly on the demacrating line or shaded
area. Had the Returning Officer taken the trouble to study the
instructions contained the "Handbook for the candidates" and the
··"'<' "Handbook for the Returning Officers" it should have been appar~nt D
to him that the illustration aforementioned contained in Ex. P3 did
not. correctly reflect the position laid down in the rules and instruc-
tions. It follows that the High Court was perfectly right in holding
that the counting and declaration of the results in the instant ca~e
were vitiated by serious illegality and in directing a re-scrutiny and

-
recounting of all the rejected votes. The appeal is, therefore, devoid E
cif merits. ·

Before we part with the case,. we consider it necessary to
observe that in order' to avoid a recurrence of such unfortunate
instances illegal rejection of votes on the basis of the misleading F
illustration contained in the pamphlet, Ex. P3, it is essential that
immediate action should be taken by the Chief Electoral Officer,
Tamil Nadu, to withdraw the said pamphlet from circulation and to
substitute it by issuing a fresh pamphlet containing illustration corre-
ctly reflecting the legal position under relevant rules and instructions
relating to the scrutiny, acceptance of rejection of ballot papers. G

The Registrar will forward copies of this judgment to the
)

,. Election Commission of fndia and to the Chief Electoral Officer;
Tamil Nadu, for necessary early action being taken in the light of
H
our foregoing observations.

S.R. Appeal dismissed.