Telangana High Court
Adluri Laxman Kumar, vs Eshwarkoppula, on 1 December, 2023
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
ELECTION PETITION No.12 OF 2019
ALONG WITH I.A.No.2 OF 2022
COMMON ORDER:
Heard Mr. Dharmesh D.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for Election
Petitioner and Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned Senior Counsel
representing Mr. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1.
2. As per the orders, dated 22.11.2019 passed by this Court in I.A.
Nos.2 and 4 of 2019, the names of respondent Nos.11, 12 and 13 - Chief
Election Commissioner, Chief Electoral Officer, Telangana and
Returning Officer, respectively, were struck off from the array of
respondents in the present Election Petition. As per the orders dated
25.10.2019 in I.A. No.3 of 2019, paper publications by way of
substituted service were published in Local Edition of 'Business
Standard' and District Edition of 'Andhra Jyothi' English and Telugu
Daily Newspapers respectively in so far as respondent Nos.5, 7 and 14
are concerned. Despite the same, none appears on their behalf. Despite
service of notice on respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9, none appears on
their behalf. The notice sent to respondent No.10 returned un-served
with an endorsement 'left without instruction'. Sending notice to the
KL,J
address of respondent No.10, furnished by her is sufficient as per Section
- 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore, there is no
representation even on behalf of respondent No.10.
3. The Election Petitioner - Mr. Adluri Laxman Kumar filed the
present Election Petition under Sections - 80, 80A, 81, 83, 84, 100 (1)
(d) and 101 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, seeking the
following reliefs:-
i. to declare the election of respondent No.1 as Returned
Candidate from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly
Constituency to the Legislative Assembly General Elections
held on 17.12.2018 as illegal, null and void and set aside the
same;
ii. to declare action of the Returning Officer declaring the
election of respondent No.1 without counting and
recounting at certain places the VVPAT slips available in
all the EVMs used for in the election of Dharmapuri
Assembly Constituency, Telangana State as violation of the
procedure prescribed under the ROP Act, 1951 and Rules
made thereunder and the same as a corrupt practice adopted
KL,J
to favour respondent No.1 to declare him as winning
candidate;
iii. to declare the petitioner as elected Member of Legislative
Constituency Election Petitioner is elected as a Member of
said Assembly Constituency after declaring the election of
the Applicant, as void.
iv. to direct the officials including the Returning Officer to
count or recount the VVPAT slips available in all the EVMs
pertaining to the said election and declare the result.
v. to declare the election petitioner herein as duly elected from
the said Assembly Constituency.
4. The case of the election petitioner is as under:
i) The Governor of the State of Telangana has, in exercise of
powers conferred upon him under Sub-clause (b) of Clause (2) of Article
- 174 of the Constitution of India, dissolved the Legislative Assembly of
the State on 06.09.2018. A Notification under Section - 15 (2) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act,
1951') was issued by the Governor. Thereafter, the Election
Commission of India vide Notification dated 12.11.2018 issued under
Sections - 30 and 56 of the Act, 1951, announced the programme for
KL,J
holding of Elections to the Assembly Constituencies including 022-
Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency. The details of notification,
such as filing nomination papers, scrutiny of the same, withdrawal of
nomination, date of polling and counting etc., are as under:
01. Filing of nomination papers 19.11.2018
02. Scrutiny of nomination papers 20.11.2018
03. Withdrawal of nomination papers 22.11.2018
04. Date of Polling 07.12.2018
05. Date of Counting of Votes 12.12.2018
ii) Pursuant to the said Notification, the election petitioner filed
his nomination as a candidate set up by the Indian National Congress to
022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency (hereinafter referred to
'subject constituency'). Respondent No.1 filed his nomination on behalf
of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti (TRS) to the subject constituency.
Respondent Nos.2 to 10 also contested on behalf of different political
parties or as independent candidates, details of which are as under:
Sl.No. Name of the Candidate Name of the Party
01. Mr.Adluri Laxman Kumar INC
02. Eshwar Koppula TRS
03. Kannam Anjaiah BJP
04. Tadagonda Nagaraju BS
05. Duda Mahipal NBP
06. Mothe Naresh NIP
07. Raindar Maddela BLP
08. S. Vijaya Kumar IPBP
09. Sathpadi Pranay Kumar JSP
10. Kuntala Narsaiah IND
11. Buradagunta Sangha Mithra IND
KL,J
iii) The polling was conducted by using Electronic Voting
Machines (EVMs) as contemplated under Rule - 49A of the Conduct of
Election Rules, 1961 (for short 'Rules, 1961'). There are 269 Polling
Stations in the subject constituency. As per the orders of Hon'ble
Supreme Court, Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) Printers
were introduced by the Election Commission of India (ECI) for arresting
any malpractice in the process of counting of votes.
iv) In the subject constituency, 269 EVMs were employed for
casting votes. The polling was concluded on 07.12.2018. Rule - 49S of
the Rules, 1961 requires that the Polling Officer at the close of the Poll
prepares an account of votes recorded in Form - 17C and enclose it in
separate cover with the words 'Account of Votes recorded' subscribed
thereon and furnish authenticated copy of the same to every polling
agent.
v) Dr.V.R.K. College of Engineering and Technology,
Nookapally Village, Mallial Mandal, Jagityal District (for short
'Engineering College'), was a place notified for preservation of the
EVMs and for counting of votes. Rule - 49V of the Rules, 1961 and
Memo of ECI bearing NO.F-51/8/7/2018 - EMPS dated 13.11.2018
contemplates that the EVMs shall be transmitted to the notified place for
KL,J
preservation and the same shall be secured in Storage/Warehouse by a
double lock system. But, contrary to the said provisions, the EVMs were
transmitted to the Junior College, Dharmapuri on 07.12.2018 instead of
the Engineering and Technology. Only on the next day i.e., 08.12.2018,
the EVMs were taken to the said Engineering College and the same was
admitted by the Returning Officer as per the information obtained under
the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'). Therefore, the
said act was done with a mala fide intention to manipulate and tamper
the EVMs. The election petitioner and his agents were protested, but in
vain. Further, the Strong Room where the EVMs kept were not properly
locked and sealed as per the prescribed procedure which may lead to
serious suspicion.
vi) On conclusion of Polling i.e., 07.12.2018, the election
petitioner and his Agents received various complaints from their polling
agents about non-furnishing of Form - 17C by the respective Polling
Officers, more particularly, Polling Station Nos.77, 97, 120, 138, 164,
196, 218, 227, 235 and 237. Since the election petitioner and his Agents
did not have any data with reference to number of votes polled in the
aforesaid Polling Stations, they could not raise any objection with regard
to the counting of aforesaid counting units, when the counting was taken
KL,J
up on 11.12.2018. Despite seeking such information under RTI Act, the
same was not furnished.
vii) As per Hand Book of Procedure, for the Returning Officers
published by the ECI, the Returning Officer is required to submit voter
turnout report to the Chief Election Officer (CEO) on conclusion of poll.
The said report titled as Report No.22 submitted by the Returning
Officer of the subject constituency to the CEO of Telangana dated
08.12.2018 shows that the total voters turn out in respect of all 269
Polling Stations was 1,65,209 votes and percentage of voting was
79.96%.
viii) Rule - 66A of the Rules, 1961 provides for counting of votes,
where EVMs have been used, while Rule - 56C provides for counting of
votes. After counting of votes on 11.12.2018, the Returning Officer
(RO) announced the results, declaring respondent No.1 as Returned
Candidate (RC) and he won the election by a margin of 441 Votes over
the election petitioner herein. The RO issued Final Result Sheet (FRS)
in Form - 20 as provided under Rule - 56C (2) (c) of the Rules, 1961.
The RO issued certificate of election in Form - 22 as provided under
Rule - 66 of the Rules, 1961 declaring respondent No.1 herein as RC.
KL,J
ix) As per the Final Result Sheet (FRS) issued in Form - 20, the
candidates are shown to have been polled the following Votes:
Sl.No. Name of the Candidate Number of Votes Polled
01. Mr.Adluri Laxman Kumar 70,138
02. Eshwar Koppula 70,579
03. Kannam Anjaiah 5,272
04. Tadagonda Nagaraju 1,063
10. Kuntala Narsaiah 13,114
11. Buradagunta Sangha Mithra 1,259
x) Based on the FRS issued by the RO of all the Polling
Constituencies in Form - 20, the CEO issued Notification No.380/TS-
LA/2018 on 12.12.2018 under Section - 73 of the Act, 1951 declaring
the names of the Members elected to the constituencies in the Telangana
State Legislative Assembly. As per the said Notification, respondent
No.1 was declared as the RC from the subject constituency.
xi) After the results were announced, it was noticed that there was
a difference between the total votes polled as per Data/Information
furnished by the RO on 08.12.2018 in his report No.22 vide E/254/2018
and the total votes recorded in the EVMs as per the FRS. Suspecting the
foul play and tampering of the EVMs, the election petitioner submitted
KL,J
an application to the RO to count the VVPAT slips on 11.12.2018, but
the same was refused.
xii) In order to confirm the discrepancy, the election petitioner
filed an application to the RO under RTI Act seeking to furnish true copy
of Report No.22. On 20.12.2018, the RO furnished the same. As per the
said report also, the total number of votes polled were shown as 1,65,341
and the percentage of votes as 80.02%. The report No.22 furnished to
the petitioner was made up to match the entries made in the FRS
prepared in Form - 20.
xiii) After cross-verification of the information obtained under
RTI Act with the information earlier furnished under Report No.22, the
following irregularities were noticed in recording counting of votes:
Polling Report No.22 Report No.22 obtained Result Sheet Difference
Station No. (Votes Polled) u/RTI (Votes Polled) Form -20 of votes
77 412 413 413 1(+)
97 928 971 971 43(+)
120 643 633 633 10(-)
138 878 875 875 3(-)
164 736 746 746 10(+)
196 528 526 526 2(+)
218 386 396 396 10(+)
227 571 753 753 182(+)
235 575 475 475 100(-)
237 600 601 601 1(+)
xiv) It is manifest from the above that the EVMs were tampered
and hacked by using corrupt practices at the instance of respondent No.1
KL,J
in order to see that he is declared as elected candidate though the election
petitioner was polled majority votes. Hence, the election petition is filed
seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
5. Respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate filed his counter
refuting the allegations levelled against him. He further contended as
under:
i) The election petitioner has not mentioned the material facts on
which he relied as mandated under Section - 83 (1) (a) of the Act, 1951.
He has also not set forth the full particulars of corrupt practice as
mandated by Section - 81 (1) (b) of the Act, 1951. He has not verified
the Election Petition as mandated by Section - 83 (1) (c) of the Act,
1951. The election petitioner has not filed the affidavit in Form - 25 as
required under Rule - 94A of the Rules, 1961 and the proviso to Section
- 100 (1) of the Act, 1951. Thus, the Election Petition is not in
accordance with the provisions of Section - 83 (1) of the Act, 1951 and,
as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
ii) The election petitioner has not challenged the declaration of
election in Form-21C issued under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961 and,
therefore, he is not entitled to seek the relief in the present Election
Petition.
KL,J
iii) The election petitioner has not filed any material to show that
the Engineering College was notified for preservation of EVMS and
counting of Votes. The allegation of the election petitioner that the
EVMs were first transmitted to the Junior College on 07.12.2018 and
then transmitted to the Engineering College on 08.12.2018 with a mala
fide intention to manipulate and tamper the EVMs is false and it is only
the assumption of the election petitioner. The election petitioner has not
pleaded the material facts relation to the person who had the mala fide
intention, the time, date and the names of persons and the manner in
which the EVMs were tampered.
iv) The election petitioner has not mentioned as to the manner of
protest and to whom and when such protest was made and the names of
his Agents etc.
v) The election petitioner has not mentioned the procedure to be
followed in locking and sealing the strong room. In fact, the agents of
the election petitioner and respondent No.1 watched the place of strong
room and satisfied that nothing untoward incident would happen.
Further, the lock and seals of the strong room were opened and the seals
of the EVMs were inspected by the election petitioner and his Agents
KL,J
before counting started. If there was any sort of tampering takes place,
the election petitioner and his agents ought to have objected then and
there.
vi) No complaints of whatsoever have ever been received from
any Polling Agent with regard to non-furnishing Form - 17C by the
respective Polling Officers in respect of Polling Station Nos.77, 97 120,
138, 164, 196, 218, 227, 235 and 237. The said allegation was made
only after receipt of report No.22 and the result sheet.
vii) Respondent No.13 after counting of votes on 11.12.2018,
announced the results by declaring respondent No.1 as returned
candidate having won the elections by margin of 441 votes over the
election petitioner. Respondent No.1 could have secured more votes but
for the confusion in the mind of the Voters as regards the Symbol
allotted to respondent No.9 i.e., Truck, which resembles as Car with the
features and, therefore, though respondent No.9 contested as an
Independent Candidate, got 13,114 Votes, which in the normal way if
there was no confusion relating to the similarities in the Symbols of the
Car and Truck, the said votes would have come to respondent No.1.
KL,J
viii) The election petitioner has not mentioned as to what is the
difference of votes between the report No.22 and the FRS. In fact, the
difference is only 132 votes which will not materially affect the results.
ix) The election petitioner has not complained to the Election
Observer, the CEO or Election Commission except filing a copy of
application alleged to have submitted to the RO. Neither the election
petitioner, nor his agents made any complaint about the counting
process. The application dated 11.12.2018 was only introduced as the
same has not seen the light of the day till the election petition was filed.
In fact, it does not make out any legally sustainable grounds for counting
of votes and VVPAT slips in respect of all the 269 Polling Stations.
Further, the agents of the Election Petition were present at every EVM
counting and they never raised any objection. The election petitioner has
not even mentioned the names of the Officials who have played mischief
and involved in corrupt practices and the manner in which the mischief
was played and involved in corrupt practices.
x) The safe custody of the EVMs was under the supervision of the
election petitioner and his Agents as well as respondent No.1, who put
their signatures on the locks and the police picket, was fixed all-around
KL,J
the area and the election petitioner himself while removing the locks had
satisfied by inspecting the premises. Though there is no allegation that
the difference of 136 votes (it ought to be 132 votes) between report
No.22 and the FRS were polled in favour of respondent No.1 by
tampering the EVMs and even after they are deducted from the majority
of 441 votes, still respondent No.1 got majority of 305 votes. Thus,
there is no cause of action to file the present Election Petition. The
prayer sought by the election petitioner is contrary to the facts.
xi) The elections were conducted fairly and transparently without
any irregularity under the observation of an Election Observer, who is an
IAS Officer appointed by the Election Commission of India for the
subject constituency. An EVM is designed with two units, the control
unit and the balloting unit. They were joined together by a cable. The
control unit of the EVM is kept with the PO or the Polling Officer. The
balloting unit is kept within the voting compartment for electors to cast
their votes. This is done to ensure that the Polling Officer verifies voter
identity. With the EVM, instead of issuing a ballot paper, the Polling
Officer will press the ballot button which enables the voter to cast the
vote. A list of candidates' names and symbols will be available on the
machine with a blue button next to it. The voter can press the button
KL,J
next to the candidate's name and symbol they wish to vote for. VVPAT
allows voters to verify their votes are cast as intended and this system
can serve as an additional barrier to changing or destroying votes. The
VVPAT includes a direct recording electronic voting system (DRE) to
assure voters that their votes have been recorded as intended.
xii) Before commencement of poll, the PO demonstrates to the
Polling Agents present that there are no hidden votes already recorded in
the machine by pressing the result button. Thereafter, he conducts a
mock poll with at least 50 votes in the presence of the polling agents and
tallies with the electronic result stored in the Central Unit (CU) to the
polling agents to satisfy them that the result shown is strictly according
to the choice recorded by them. Thereafter, the PO will press the clear
button to clear the result of the mock poll before commencing the actual
poll. Then, the PO again shows to polling agents by pressing 'Total'
button that it shows '0' and then he seals the Control Unit before starting
actual poll in the presence of polling agents. The VVPAT slips are
counted before entering the total numbers of votes polled in the polling
station.
xiii) After verification of EVMs and also after satisfaction with
mock poll by the polling agents, the PO has commenced the actual poll.
KL,J
At the end of the poll, the PO closed the poll and disconnected the ballot
unit from control unit of EVM to prevent tampering of EVM and sealed
by affixing labels, which bears the signatures of polling agents in every
polling station. All the polling agents of all polling stations of subject
constituency did not raise any objection about mode of conducting and
manner of conducting the elections as it was done in a peaceful manner
as per the Rules, 1961. Thereafter, all the EVMs and VVPATs of the
subject constituency LAC, Jagtial LAC and Korutla LAC of Jagtial
District were stored in respective safe and strong rooms in the
Engineering College and sealed the strong rooms by affixing labels on
doors with seal and signatures of the Election Authority and also sealed
the lock of said room which is completely under CCTV Surveillance and
also under police security.
xiv) On the date of counting, respondent No.1 and his agent, Mr.
K. Venkateshwar Rao and the election petitioner and other contesting
candidates along with their respective counting agents were present at
the counting hall in Engineering College. The RO of subject
constituency and an Election Observer and also the District Election
Authority allowed them inside the counting hall after verification their
I.D. Cards. Thereafter, the RO and an Election Observer allowed all the
KL,J
contesting candidates including the election petitioner and also their
agents to the strong room, where EVMs and VVPATs were stores, where
they have observed the seal labels on the strong room door and also its
lock and after their satisfaction only, the strong room was opened in their
presence which was fully video-graphed by the Election Authority.
After concluding all rounds of counting including the postal ballots,
respondent No.1 secured 441 more votes than the election petitioner.
Then the election petitioner also requested the RO to count VVPAT slips
of four polling stations of his choice. Accordingly, RO counted VVPAT
slips of four polling stations No.17, 47, 92 and 174 before the election
petitioner and his agents under the observation of an Election Observer,
wherein the VVPAT slips were tallied with the votes polled in EVMs.
The election petitioner was also fully satisfied after the recounting of the
said VVPAT slips which were tallied with the polled votes in EVM and,
as such, the election agent of the petitioner, Mr. NVS Lalith Babu, put
his signatures on the proceedings of Returning Officer by accepting
counting of VVPATs. Thereafter, the RO declared the election result
wherein respondent No.1 was declared as elected candidate.
xv) In view of the above, there were no irregularities, nor
malpractices committed in declaring respondent No.1 as elected
KL,J
candidate of the subject constituency and, as such, respondent No.1
prayed to dismiss the election petition with exemplary costs.
6. Basing on the aforesaid pleadings and the draft issues filed by
both the learned counsel for the election petitioner and learned counsel
for respondent No.1, this Court has framed fourteen (14) issues on
21.09.2022. However, on hearing both learned counsel for the election
petitioner and respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate, the following
issues are re-settled.
i) Whether the result of the election, concerning the Returned
Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 has been materially
affected?
ii) Whether the difference of 136 votes between Report No.22
furnished on 08.12.2018 and the Report furnished on
20.12.2018 would materially affect the result of the election
of respondent No.1?"
iii) Whether any corrupt practice has been committed by the
Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 or his Election
Agent or by any other person with the consent of respondent
No.1 or his election Agent?
iv) Whether the difference of votes between Report No.22 and
Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 and even it is a human
error, can be sufficient to order recount of printed paper
KL,J
slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to Dharmapuri
Assembly Constituency?
v) Whether the election of the Returned Candidate i.e.,
respondent No.1 can be declared to be void? If so, whether
the petitioner can be declared to have been duly elected
from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the
Legislative Assembly General Elections held on
07.12.2018?
vi) Whether the election of the returned candidate respondent
No.1 can be declared as null and void without challenging
the declaration of the result of election in Form - 21C under
Rule 64 read with Section 66 of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951?
vii) Whether the election of the 1st respondent can be declared
as null and void, when the contents of the election petition
and relief sought do not attract the provisions of Section
100(1) (d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
viii) Whether the strong room at Junior College, Dharmapuri, is
not properly locked and sealed, which resulted in tampering
of EVMs and the same amounts to corrupt practices?
ix) Whether counting or recounting of VVPATs slips of all
polling booths are permissible under election rules?
x) Whether the petitioner is entitled for costs? and
xi) To What relief?
KL,J
7. Vide order dated 12.09.2022, this Court appointed Mr. S.V.V.
Natha Reddy, Retired District Judge, as Commissioner, to record the
evidence of parties. Pursuant to the same, the learned Commissioner
recorded the evidence of the election petitioner as PW.1 and marked
Exs.A1 to A8 documents. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and
got marked Exs.B1 to B11 documents, while the Returning Officer of
022-Dharmapuri (SC) LAC was examined as Court Witness i.e., CW.1
and got marked Exs.X1 to X10 documents. However, vide orders dated
21.06.2023 in I.A. No.9 of 2023, this Court eschewed the evidence of
PW.2 and he has to be treated as CW.1. Pursuant to the said orders, the
learned Commissioner treating PW.1 as CW.1 recorded his evidence and
marked Exs.X1 to X10 documents. Vide order dated 07.07.2023, this
Court marked the entire report of the Election Commission of India as
Ex.C1.
8. During the course of hearing, Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned
Senior Counsel representing Mr. Bachina Hanumantha Rao, learned
counsel for the Returned Candidate contended that the election petitioner
did not submit the present election petition in accordance with the
procedure laid down under law.
KL,J
9. In the light of the said submission, it is relevant to note that
Section - 81 of the Act, 1951 deals with presentation of election
petitions. It is relevant and the same is extracted below:
"81. Presentation of petitions.--
(1) An election petition calling in question any
election may be presented on one or more of the
grounds specified in sub-section (1) of section 100
and section 101 to the High Court by any candidate at
such election or any elector within forty-five days
from, but not earlier than the date of election of the
returned candidate or if there are more than one
returned candidate at the election and dates of their
election are different, the later of those two dates.
Explanation.--In this sub-section, "elector" means a
person who was entitled to vote at the election to
which the election petition relates, whether he has
voted at such election or not.
[***] Omitted by Act 47 of 1966
(3) Every election petition shall be accompanied by
as many copies thereof as there are respondents
mentioned in the petition and every such copy shall
be attested by the petitioner under his own signature
to be a true copy of the petition."
KL,J
10. In G.V. Sreerama Reddy v. Returning Officer 1, the Apex
Court held as follows:
"14. A close look at Section 81 reveals that the two
remaining sub-sections after the amendment
introduced by Act 47 of 1966 i.e. (1) and (3) deal
with two distinct, but interrelated issues. Sub-section
(1) deals with the necessary requirements of any
petition challenging an election, and sub-section (3)
deals with additional requirements as to the petition
presented. Sub-section (1) has five components:
(i) the qualification of the petitioner i.e. he/she
must be either "a candidate at such election" or an
"elector";
(ii) the petition must be presented "by" the
petitioner;
(iii) the petition must be based "on one or more of
the grounds specified in sub-section (1) of Section
100 and Section 101;
(iv) it must be presented in the High Court; and
(v) it must be presented within 45 days from, but
not earlier than the date of election of the returned
candidate, or if there are more than one returned
candidate at the election and dates of their election
are different, the later of those two dates.
Therefore, all these five requirements are extremely
specific and clear. This inference is further
. (2009) 8 SCC 736
KL,J
strengthened by Section 86(1) which provides that the
"High Court shall dismiss an election petition which
does not comply with the provisions of Section 81".
22. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
relied on a decision of the High Court of Rajasthan
(Jaipur Bench) in Bhanwar Singh v. Navrang
Singh [AIR 1987 Raj 63] . In the case before the
learned Single Judge, the election petition had been
presented by one Rajendra Prasad, Advocate and not
by the petitioner himself. It was argued by learned
counsel for the petitioner therein that the election
petition had been validly presented under Section
81(1) of the Act because Section 81(1) of the Act
only makes a provision as to who can file an election
petition and does not deal with as to who should
actually present it before the Registry. It is further
submitted that Section 81 of the Act nowhere
provides that the petitioner should be physically
present at the time of presentation of the election
petition. The learned Single Judge, after adverting to
the words "by", "presented" concluded that these
words used in Section 81(1) of the Act have to be
given wide meaning and found that the election
petition filed through an advocate without the
presence of the candidate or elector is valid. We are
unable to accept the said conclusion.
23. We have already pointed out that in spite of
provisions in CPC and the Evidence Act relating to
KL,J
institution of suit and recording of evidence, etc. this
Act provides all the details starting from the
presentation of the election petition ending with the
decision of the High Court. In such circumstances, it
is but proper to interpret the language used by the
legislature and implement the same accordingly.
24. The challenge to an election is a serious matter.
The object of presenting an election petition by a
candidate or elector is to ensure genuineness and to
curtail vexatious litigations. If we consider sub-
section (1) along with the other provisions in
Chapters II and III, the object and intent of the
legislature is that this provision i.e. Section 81(1) is to
be strictly adhered to and complied with.
25. In view of the endorsement by the Registrar
(Judicial) on 7-7-2008 that the election petition was
presented only by an advocate and not by the election
petitioners, we accept the reasoning of the High Court
in dismissing the election petition. We further hold
that as per sub-section (1) of Section 81, an election
petition is to be presented by any candidate or elector
relating to the election personally to the authorised
officer of the High Court and failure to adhere to such
course would be contrary to the said provision and in
that event the election petition is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of improper presentation.
KL,J
26. Since the High Court has correctly dismissed the
election petition, the civil appeal fails and the same is
dismissed with no order as to costs."
11. In the light of the aforesaid provision and the law laid down
by the Apex Court, this Court vide order dated 01.08.2023, directed the
Registrar (Judicial-I) of this Court to submit report as to the presentation
of the present election petition by the election petitioner or his Advocate
in the immediate presence of the election petitioner in terms of Section -
81 (1) of the Act, 1951. In compliance with the said order, the Registrar
(Judicial-I) of this Court called for report from the Section Officer, New
Filing Section, O.S. Wing. Referring to the check list, proceedings vide
ROC No.156/67/B1 issued by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra
Pradesh at Hyderabad, with regard to the Rules to regulate the trial of
Election Petitions under the Act, 1951, the Registrar (Judicial-1)
submitted report stating that in view of the procedure adopted by the
High Court of Telangana, the election petition can be presented either by
the petitioner or his counsel. In view of the time gap, by looking at the
entire file, now the Scrutiny Officer or Receiving Clerk is unable to say
whether the election petition was presented by the petitioner in-person or
KL,J
through his counsel. However, the election petition is filed in
accordance with the procedure in vogue.
12. Rule - 3 (1) of the Rules to regulate the trial of election
petitions under the Act, 1951 vide ROC No.156/67/B1, is extracted
below:
"Every election petition shall be filed in the office of
the Registrar by the petitioner or an advocate duly
appointed by him."
13. In the light of the aforesaid report, according to this Court, the
present election petition was filed by the election petitioner in
accordance with the procedure laid down under law. Therefore, the
contention of learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the election
petition was not presented in accordance with the procedure laid down
under law cannot be accepted.
14. Issue No.(viii): Whether the strong room at Junior College,
Dharmapuri, is not properly locked and sealed, which resulted in
tampering of EVMs and the same amounts to corrupt practices?
i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that the
Engineering College was a place notified for preservation of EVMs and
for counting of votes. But, the EVMs were transmitted to the
Government Junior College, Dharmapuri on 07.12.2018 instead of
KL,J
Engineering College. Only, on the next day i.e. 08.12.2018, the EVMS
were taken to the Engineering College. Obviously, this was done with a
mala fide intention to manipulate and tamper the EVMs.
ii) It is the further contention of the election petitioner is that the
protest made by him and his agents went unheeded. By not transmitting
the EVMs to a notified place itself is a violation and non-compliance
with the orders and Rules made under the Act, 1951.
iii) In the light of the same, it is not in dispute that the
Engineering College is the notified place for preservation of EVMs and
for counting. According to CW.1 - Returning Officer, the register of
voters in Form - 17A including EVMs and other connected election
material were received in Receiving Centre. They are received in the
Receiving Centre under his control. It was his responsibility to transmit
the said material from polling stations to the Receiving Centre and from
there to Strong Rooms in Engineering College. The Receiving Centre is
Government Junior College, Dharmapuri. The said facts were admitted
by him during his cross-examination by the election petitioner.
iv) It is also relevant to note that during cross-examination, CW.1
has categorically admitted that the Collector had issued notification
KL,J
notifying Government Junior College, Dharmapuri, as Receiving Centre.
Ex.B3 - Memo (Instructions/Guidelines issued by Chief Electoral Officer
of Telangana) contains Report No.10 at page No.10. As per the said
report, he has prepared Report No.10 on 30.11.2018 and sent it to the
Chief Electoral Officer and Principal Secretary to the Government, T.S.,
Secretariat, Hyderabad. The said report is Ex.B4. In the said report,
column No.2, name of the Assembly Segment is mentioned. In column
No.3, Distribution Centre is mentioned as Government Junior College,
Dharmapuri. In column No.4, Reception Centre is mentioned as
Government Junior College, Dharmapuri. In column No.5, Counting
Centre is mentioned as Dr.V.R.K. College of Engineering and
Technology, 2nd floor, Nookapally Village, Mallial Mandal, Jagtial
District. From Dharmapuri Government Junior College, the election
material including EVMs, were distributed to the polling stations.
v) CW.1, during cross-examination further admitted that all the
EVMs and election material arrived at the reception centre by 12 'O'
Clock in the midnight. The verification of the election material and
EVMs take place at reception centre and after that they are loaded into
RTC closed buses and sealed. They were escorted to Counting Centre at
Engineering College. The entire process of verification, loading,
KL,J
transportation and unloading took place till 8.30 A.M. on 08.12.2018.
The EVMs and election material were stored in the Strong Room at
Engineering College. The strong room is locked and sealed in the
presence of contesting candidates and their agents. Their signatures
were obtained on the seals. Throughout the said process, CW.1 and
Election Observer were present and contesting candidates and their chief
election agents were also present. The strong room is under the
surveillance of Central Police Force day and night.
vi) The aforesaid facts would reveal that the Government Junior
College, Dharmapuri is a notified distribution centre and reception
centre. Engineering College is the counting centre. The same is also
evident from Ex.A8 and Ex.B4.
vii) During cross-examination, the election petitioner (PW.1)
categorically admitted as follows:
"I received the notice dated 27.11.2018
from the Returning Officer fixing the date
28.11.2018 for commissioning of EVMs. As
an Agent on behalf of our Congress Party, Sri
S. Dinesh attended the EVMs programming
on 28.11.2018 at Government Junior
College, Dharmapuri. By that time, I was not
given the B-Form by the Congress Party. I
KL,J
have filed my nomination on 20.11.2018.
The Congress Party gave B-Form to me on
18.11.2018.
It is true that Commissioning of EVMs
was postponed to 29.11.2018. It is true that
on 27.11.2018 the Returning Officer has
issued the notice of commissioning of EVMs
to all the contesting candidates. My party
President (Mandal Congress President) Sri S.
Dinesh attended before the Returning Officer
on 29.11.2018 at 7.00 A.M. I cannot identify
the signature of the said Sri S. Dinesh on the
notice dated 27.11.2018. As I was in the
canvassing for the elections, I could not
attend the commissioning of EVMs on
29.11.2018. The persons who attended the
EVMs commissioning on 29.11.2018 have
signed in Annexure - XV. On my behalf, Sri
NVS Lalith Babu attended the said
programme. NVS Lalith Babu is my Chief
Election Agent. After commissioning of the
EVMs on 29.11.2018, they were kept in
strong room in the Government Junior
College, Dharmapuri.
It is true that on 31.11.2018, during
commissioning of EVMs, a mock poll was
conducted. After conducting mock poll,
EVMs were kept in the strong room. I was
KL,J
not present at the time of said mock poll. As
per Annexure - XVIII (Page No.19 of
Ex.A8), 1000 votes have been cast on 5%
randomly selected EVMs during mock poll.
Lalith Babu has not given any complaint to
me after the mock poll that the EVMs are not
working properly.
In Gazette Publication filed as Ex.A1, the
place of storing of EVMs is notified. When
the witness was asked to point out in Ex.A1
as to where it is mentioned, the witness says
that it is not there in Ex.A1, but it is there in
some other document.
The process of collecting the election
material, sealing of EVMs took place at
about 8.30 P.M. Thereafter, the EVMs were
transferred to Junior College at Dharmapuri.
Our polling agents have not signed the
sealing of EVMs at some places where Form
- 17C were not furnished. I stated in my
Election Petition that my polling agents have
not signed the sealing of EVMs where they
have not received Form - 17C. Our polling
agents have not accompanied the
transportation of EVMs from polling stations
to Junior College, Dharmapuri where they
were stored as the police did not allow my
polling agents. Witness adds that police did
KL,J
not allow any party polling agents to
accompany transportation of EVMs to the
Junior College, Dharmapuri. None of the
polling agents or other private persons stayed
at the Junior College, Dharmapuri after
transportation of EVMs to the Junior
College. I have stated in the Election
Petition that the police did not permit our
agents to be present at Dharmapuri Junior
College.
It is only my allegation that EVMs were
tampered at the Junior College, Dharmapuri,
but there is no evidence as such. I have not
given any written complaint against the
storing of EVMs at Junior College,
Dharmapur either to the Election Authority
or the Election Commission. But, I have
informed the District Collector/Election
Authority and Returning Officer over phone.
I have no record of two phone calls to show
that I have complained to them. I have not
made any effort to secure the call list at the
time of filing the Election Petition, but if
necessary I will procure it and file.
It is true that in the Election Petition, I
have not stated that the Returning Officer and
Mr. Sarath have taken undue advantage of
their official favour to cause benefit to the
KL,J
respondent No.1 and thereby materially
affect the election as now stated in para 11 of
my chief examination affidavit. The EVMs
were tampered and hacked by the Assistant
Returning Officer Mr. Venkat Reddy with
the help of technicians. I have definite
information about the said tampering. I have
made a complaint to the Election Authority
about the Assistant Returning Officer with
regard to the tampering of EVMs. I have not
filed copy of the said complaint in this
election petition. In para 15 of my election
petition, I have not mentioned about the
involvement of Assistant Returning Officer
and about the complaint given against him to
the Election Authority/District Collector. It
is my assumption that EVMs were
tampered and manipulated when they
were kept in Govt. Junior College,
Dharmapuri since it is not a notified place.
I or my election agent have not seen the
said tampering and manipulation since we
were not allowed to stay at Govt. Junior
College, Dharmapuri."
viii) Thus, PW.1 - election petitioner himself during cross-
examination categorically admitted about Notifying Government Junior
College, Dharmapuri as Receiving Centre, commission of EVMs, mock
KL,J
poll at the said Centre. Polling Agents have signed the sealing of EVMs
at some places where Form - 17C were not furnished. He has also
admitted that it is only his assumption that EVMs were tampered at the
Junior College, Dharmapuri, but there is no evidence as such.
ix) In the light of the aforesaid admissions, the contention of the
election petitioner that the strong room at Government Junior College is
not properly locked and sealed which resulted in tampering of EVMs and
the same amounts to corrupt practices cannot be accepted and it is
unsustainable. Therefore, this issue is answered against the election
petitioner.
15. Issue No.(ix): Whether counting or recounting of VVPATs
slips of all polling booths are permissible under election rules?
i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that
despite specific request, Returning Officer did not carry out counting of
VVPAT slips.
ii) In the counter filed by respondent No.1, it is contended that
except filing of copy of application dated 11.12.2018 said to have been
submitted to the Returning Officer, the election petitioner has not stated
as to why he has not complained to the Election Observer, Chief
Electoral Officer or Election Commission of India. The election
KL,J
petitioner deliberately suppressed the fact that upon the choice made by
the election petitioner, the Returning Officer had carried out the counting
of VVPATs in four polling booths and no discrepancy was found. The
election petitioner was satisfied about the same and even then he filed
the present election petition making false and baseless allegations. Thus,
the election petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands.
i)
iii) In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to
extract Rules - 56C and 56D of the Rules, 1961
"56C. Counting of votes.--(1) After the returning
officer is satisfied that a voting machine has in fact
not been tampered with, he shall have the votes
recorded therein counted by pressing the appropriate
button marked "Result" provided in the control unit
whereby the total votes polled and votes polled by
each candidate shall be displayed in respect of each
such candidate on the display panel provided for the
purpose in the unit.
(2) As the votes polled by each candidate are
displayed on the control unit, the returning officer
shall have,--
(a) the number of such votes recorded separately
in respect of each candidate in Part II on
Form 17C;
(b) Part II of Form 17C completed in other
respects and signed by the counting
KL,J
supervisor and also by the candidates or their
election agents or their counting agents
present; and
(c) corresponding entries made in a result sheet in Form 20 and the
particulars so entered in the result sheet announced."
"56D. Scrutiny of paper trial.- (1) Where
printer for paper trail is used, after the entries
made in the result sheet are announced, any
candidate, or in his absence, his election
agent or any of his counting agents may
apply in writing to the returning officer to
count the printed paper slips in the drop box
of the printer in respect of any polling station
or polling stations.
(2) On such application being made, the
returning officer shall, subject to such
general or special guidelines, as may be
issued by the Election Commission, decide
the matter and may allow the application in
whole or in part or may reject in whole, if it
appears to him to be frivolous or
unreasonable.
(3) Every decision of the returning officer
under sub-rule (2) shall be in writing and
shall contain the reasons thereof.
(4) If the returning officer decides under
sub-rule (2) to allow counting of the paper
KL,J
slips either wholly or in part or parts, he
shall-
do the counting in the manner as may be
directed by the Election Commission;
if there is discrepancy between the votes
displayed on the control unit and the
counting of the paper slips, amend the result
sheet in Form 20 as per the paper slips count;
announce the amendments so made by him;
and
complete and sign the result sheet."
Therefore, the election petitioner has to make out the aforesaid grounds
for recounting of VVPAT slips in respect of all the polling booths of the
subject constituency.
iv) As discussed supra, it is the specific allegation of the election
petitioner that despite specific request, Returning Officer did not act
upon his application for counting of VVPAT slips. The Returning
Officer and the District Election Officer have taken undue advantage of
their official position to cause benefit to respondent No.1 and thereby
materially affected the election.
v) However, during cross-examination, PW.1 has categorically
admitted as follows:
KL,J
"....The further statement that in spite of my
request wherein I mentioned to count the
VVPAT Slips of these 9-10 polling stations
was rejected. This statement was also not
stated in my Election Petition. The further
statement that the random counting of
VVPAT Slips of 5 EVMs as provided in
guideline 16.6 of the Handbook was also not
followed, and everything was recorded in the
Videos and CC TVs footages. This
statement was also not mentioned in my
Election Petition...."
"...At the time of opening strong rooms,
I was informed that all the EVM machines
are proper but when the EVMs were brought
into the counting room and after starting of
counting of votes, the Returning Officer and
Assistant Returning Officer informed that
four (04) EVMs are not opening and told that
they will summon the technicians for
opening those four (04) EVMs. After
technicians came and inspected the EVMs,
they declared that the said four (04) EVMs
cannot be opened. Thereafter, the VVPATS
of the said four (04) EVMs were counted at
the end of counting. We agreed for the
process of counting of VVPATS. It is true
that I did not state the above stated facts of
KL,J
not opening of four (04) EVMs and counting
of VVPATS of such EVMs in my Election
Petition. It is true that I have not
complained/informed about the above stated
facts to the District Election Authority or to
the Election Commission."
"......When the Returning Officer refused to
receive the application filed by me for
counting of VVPATS, I complained to the
Election Authority about the action of the
Returning Officer through e-mail. The
witness again states that he gave a complaint
to the Election Observer, but not to the
Election Authority and he forwarded the
complaint through e-mail to the Election
Commission of India, New Delhi. The
witness again states that he has given
complaint to the Returning Officer and the
Returning Officer has given the same to the
Election Observer and the Election Observer
forwarded the same to the Election
Commission of India and the said acts were
recorded in video. I have obtained the said
video recording copies in the form of DVD,
but the said DVD has become unviewable. It
is true that I have not filed the copy of the
complaint against the Returning Officer for
not counting the VVPATS or the video
KL,J
recording furnished in the DVD format in the
Election Petition."
vi) CW.1 - Returning Officer, in his cross-examination,
categorically admitted as follows:
"Witness on confrontation with Ex.A7
and copy of another letter dated 11.12.2018
addressed by the Election Petitioner to the
Election Commission of India, copy marked
to Returning Officer gone through the
contents and stated that he received request
for counting of VVpats not through Ex.A7
but through the letter dated 11.12.2018
addressed to the Chief Election Commission
of India, and the Photostat copy of the said
letter addressed to the Chief Election
Commission of India marked as Ex.B5. It is
true that when the Election Petitioner was
asked to elect counting of four VVpats, then
in the subject portion of Ex.B5 the word
"All" was corrected as "4". The said letter
has been attested by Naib Tahsildar,
Dharmapuri. This document was obtained
under Right to Information Act issued by the
Assistant Returning Officer.
After counting of VVpats of four polling
stations no variations are found and I issued
proceedings under Ex.B1 marked in the
KL,J
cross-examination of PW.1. It is true that for
each polling station, 3 paper seals will be
supplied."
vii) It is also relevant to note that during cross-examination, the
Returning Officer (CW.1) categorically admitted that he took Ex.A7 -
representation dated 11.12.2018 and shown to the Election Observer,
who informed him not to receive the same as 13th round of counting was
completed by that time.
viii) The afore-stated facts would reveal that the election
petitioner himself requested for counting of VVPATs and selected the
aforesaid four polling booths and the same were counted at the end of the
counting. The election petitioner and his agents were agreed for process
of counting of VVPATs.
ix) There is no request made by either the election petitioner or
his election agent to count VVPAT slips of all the polling stations of the
subject constituency. Even then, he has not stated the aforesaid facts in
his election petition. Thus, he has suppressed the material facts in the
present election petition. Therefore, the contention of the election
petitioner that despite request, Returning Officer did not conduct
KL,J
counting of VVPAT slips of all polling booths cannot be accepted, and it
is contrary to record.
x) As stated above, recounting of VVPAT slips is permissible in
terms of Rule - 56D of the Rules, 1961. But at the same time, the
election petitioner has to make out the said grounds for recounting of
VVPAT slips. No application in terms of Rule - 56D of the Rules, 1961
was filed.
xi) In the present case, the election petitioner or his agents did not
request the Returning Officer to recount VVPAT slips of all the polling
stations. In fact, he has suppressed about the recounting of VVPAT slips
in respect of four (04) polling booths/EVMS. Therefore, this issue is
answered against the election petitioner.
16. Issue Nos.(ii) & (iv): Whether the difference of 136 votes
between Report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018 and the Report furnished
on 20.12.2018 would materially affect the result of the election of
respondent No.1?, and Whether the difference of votes between Report
No.22 and Final Result Sheet in Form - 20 and even it is a human error,
can be sufficient to order recount of printed paper slips/VVPAT slips in
the EVMs pertaining to Dharmapuri Assembly Constituency?
KL,J
i) It is the specific contention of the election petitioner that there
is difference of 136 votes between report No.22 furnished on 08.12.2018
and report furnished on 20.12.2018 and the same will materially affect
the election of respondent No.1. In fact, the difference of votes is 132,
but not 136. It is a human error, it can be sufficient to order recount of
printer paper slips/VVPAT slips in the EVMs pertaining to the subject
constituency.
ii) In the counter filed by respondent No.1, it is specifically
contended that the allegation made by the election petitioner with regard
to difference of votes etc., is false and baseless. The election petitioner
is pointing out the difference in report No.22 dated 08.12.2018 and
20.12.2018 and the final result in Form - 20. But he suppressed the
difference among them as the difference will not affect the result of
respondent No.1. The difference of votes between report No.22
furnished on 08.12.2018 and 20.12.2018 is only 132. The said fact
would reveal from the tabular form of paragraph No.14 of the election
petition, which was extracted in paragraph No.4 (xiii) above.
iii) Referring to the above said table, the election petitioner would
contend that the EVMs were tampered and hacked by using corrupt
practices at the instance of respondent No.1 to see that he will be
KL,J
declared as elected candidate. He relied upon Ex.A4 - copy of report
No.22 and Ex.A5 - copy of Form - 20, final result sheet, furnished by
CW.1 - Returning Officer.
iv) However, during cross-examination, the election petitioner
(PW.1) categorically admitted that the signature of the Returning Officer
is there only at the last page of Ex.A4. Report No.22 is prepared and
furnished by the Returning Officer based on the information furnished
by the Polling Officers of each Polling Station. Report No.22 furnished
by the Returning Officer which is final report shows the total number of
votes as 1,65,209. He does not know there will be preliminary - 22
report and final - 22 report. The Returning Officer will be collecting
information on phone from the polling officers about the number of
votes polled and percentage of votes polled every hour. The Returning
Officer after compiling the information received from the polling
officers will display the same in the website. He has not stated in his
election petition that the difference of 132 votes between the final result
sheet and report No.22 is not explained.
v) He has further admitted that he has not stated in his election
petition that he and his election agents have objected for the aforesaid
information (both) not tallying, but Returning Officer under the
KL,J
influence of the District Election Officer, have ignored and orally
rejected their contentions. Though he has stated that he has made
complaints to the Election Observer in writing, he has not filed the same.
vi) He has further admitted that Ex.A4 was furnished to him on
08.12.2018. In page No.52 of Ex.A4, the percentage of total voters
turned out was mentioned as 79.96. The report No.22 at page No.94 of
the material papers was furnished by the Returning Officer on
08.01.2019 along with his reply to his application under RTI Act which
was marked as Ex.A8. In the said report No.22 at page No.100, the
percentage of total voters polled is shown as 80.02. The report dated
11.12.2018 of the Returning Officer regarding counting of VVPATs in
four counting stations is correct.
vii) It is also relevant to note that the Returning Officer (CW.1)
during his cross-examination categorically admitted that in the entire
election manual there is no mention of report No.22. The said report
No.22 is only mentioned at page No.19 in Ex.B3 (Memo of the Chief
Electoral Officer, Telangana). Therefore, it is not a statutory report.
Ex.A4 (Report No.22) was signed by him on 07.12.2018. On the same
day, he sent the said report to the Chief Election Officer through e-mail.
KL,J
Next day i.e., on 08.12.2018, he prepared report No.22 based on the
information contained in Form - 17C Part-I and sent it to the Chief
Election Officer.
viii) In the light of the aforesaid admissions and perusal of
Exs.A4 and A5 would reveal that the election petitioner failed to prove
the said difference.
ix) During cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that he does not
know that there will be preliminary - 22 report and final - 22 report. He
has not stated in his election petition that the difference of 132 votes
between the final result sheet and report No.22 is not explained. He has
not stated in his election petition that he and his election agents have
objected for the said information (both) not tallying and that Returning
Officer under the influence of the District Election Officer have ignored
and orally rejected their contentions. They have not complained in
writing to the Election Observer on the same.
x) Report No.22 is not statutory as held by the High Court of
Karnataka in Raja Madan Gopala Nayak v. Venkatesh Naik 2 and the
. 2005 SCC OnLine Kar.890
KL,J
High Court of Jharkhand in Ramji Lal Sarda v. Gopal Sharan Nath
Sahdeo 3.
xi) It is relevant to note that respondent No.1 was declared as
elected candidate with a majority of 441 votes. If the said difference of
132 votes between report No.22 (Ex.A4) and final result sheet in form
No.20 (Ex.A5) is deducted from the majority of 441 votes, still
respondent No.1 - Returned Candidate got majority of 309 votes.
Therefore, the same will not materially affect the result of election of
respondent No.1 and election petitioner cannot seek recount of VVPAT
slips in respect of all the polling stations of the subject constituency.
Therefore, the said issue Nos.2 and 4 are answered against the election
petitioner.
17. Issue No.(vi): Whether the election of the returned candidate
respondent No.1 can be declared as null and void without challenging
the declaration of the result of election in Form - 21C under Rule 64 of
Rules, 1961 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951?
i) To deal with this issue effectively, it is apt to refer to Rule - 64
of the Rules, 1961 and Section - 66 of the Act, 1951 and Form - 21C and
the same are reproduced hereunder:
. 2012 SCC OnLine Jhar.244
KL,J
64. Declaration of result of election and return of
election.--The returning officer shall, subject to the
provisions of section 65 if and so far as they apply to
any particular case, then--
(a) declare in Form 21C or Form 21D, as may be
appropriate, the candidate to whom the largest
number of valid votes have been given, to be
elected under section 66 and send signed copies
thereof to the appropriate authority, the Election
Commission and the chief electoral officer; and
(b) Complete and certify the return of election in
Form 21E, and send signed copies thereof to the
Election Commission and the chief electoral
officer.
66. Declaration of results.- When the counting of
the votes has been completed, the returning officer
shall, in the absence of any direction by the Election
Commission to the contrary, forthwith declare the
result of the election in the manner provided by this
Act or the rules made thereunder."
FORM 21C
(See rule 64)
(For use in General Election when seat is contested)
DECLARATION OF THE RESULT OF ELECTION UNDER SECTION 66
OF THE REPRESENTATIONOF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951
*Election to the House of the People from the................ Parliamentary
constituency in............................. (State/Union territory).
___________________________________________________________________
*Election to the Legislative Assembly of................(State/Union territory)
from..............Assembly constituency. _
*Election to the Metropolitan Council of Delhi from......................
Metropolitan Council constituency.
KL,J
In pursuance of the provisions contained in section 66 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, read with rule 64 of the Conduct of
Elections Rules, 1961, I declare that--
........................................(Name)...................... (Address) sponsored by
............................(name of the recognised/registered political party) has been
duly elected to fill the seat in that House from the above constituency.
Place............... Signature ...............
Date................. Returning Officer.
*Score out, if inappropriate.
ii) It is the specific contention of respondent No.1 that the
election petitioner did not seek to declare the result of the election in
Form - 21C under Rule - 64 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951. The
election petitioner has not even filed Form - 21C.
iii) Though there is no specific relief sought by the election
petitioner to declare the result of the election in Form - 21C under Rule -
64 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951, however, he has sought to
declare the election of respondent No.1 as returned candidate from 022-
Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative Assembly
General Elections held on 07.12.2018 as null and void and to declare
him as elected Member. Therefore, the said relief of seeking declaration
to declare the result of Election in Form - 21C under Rule - 64 of the
Rules, 1961 read with Section - 66 of the Act, 1951 as null and void is
only a consequential relief. Section - 100 of the Act, 1951 deals with
grounds for declaring the election to be void. Therefore, the election
KL,J
petitioner has to establish the said grounds. Thus, the said relief is only a
consequential relief and therefore non-seeking of the said relief to
declare the result of election in Form - 21C by the election petitioner will
not disentitle him to seek the result of respondent No.1 as returned
candidate as null and void. Therefore, this issue is answered against
respondent No.1.
18. Issue Nos.(i), (iii), (v) & (vii): Whether the result of the
election, concerning the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 has
been materially affected?; Whether any corrupt practice has been
committed by the Returned Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 or his
Election Agent or by any other person with the consent of respondent
No.1 or his election agent?; Whether the election of the Returned
Candidate i.e., respondent No.1 can be declared to be void? If so,
whether the petitioner can be declared to have been duly elected from
022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the Legislative
Assembly General Elections held on 07.12.2018?; and Whether the
election of the 1st respondent can be declared as null and void, when the
contents of the election petition and relief sought do not attract the
provisions of Section 100(1) (d) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951?
KL,J
i) Before dealing with the said issues, it is apt to refer to Section -
100 of the Act, 1951 and the same is extracted hereunder:
"100. Grounds for declaring election to be void.--
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
High Court] is of opinion--
(a) that on the date of his election a returned
candidate was not qualified, or was disqualified, to be
chosen to fill the seat under the Constitution or this
Act or the Government of Union Territories Act,
1963 (20 of 1963); or
(b) that any corrupt practice has been committed by a
returned candidate or his election agent or by any
other person with the consent of a returned candidate
or his election agent; or
(c) that any nomination has been improperly rejected;
or
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it
concerns a returned candidate, has been materially
affected--
(i) by the improper acceptance or any nomination, or
(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the interests
of the returned candidate by an agent other than his
election agent, or
(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of
any vote or the reception of any vote which is void,
or
KL,J
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the
Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders
made under this Act, the High Court shall declare the
election of the returned candidate to be void.
xxxxx
xxxxx"
ii) To answer the aforesaid issues, it is relevant to refer Section -
123 of the Act, 1951, which deals with corrupt practices and the same is
extracted below:
"123. Corrupt practices.--The following shall be deemed to be
corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:--
(1) "Bribery", that is to say--
(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of
any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly
or indirectly of inducing--
(a) a person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to
withdraw from being a candidate at an election, or
(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a
reward to--
(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having
withdrawn or not having withdrawn] his candidature; or
(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;
(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratification, whether
as a motive or a reward--
(a) by a person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing
or not withdrawing] from being, a candidate; or
(b) by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for
voting or refraining from voting, or inducing or attempting to
induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any
candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause the term
"gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or
gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of
entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not
include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the
KL,J
purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election
expenses referred to in section 78.
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference
or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of
any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election
agent, with the free exercise of any electoral right:
Provided that--
(a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause
any such person as is referred to therein who--
(i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a
candidate or an elector interested, with injury of any kind
including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion
from any caste or community; or
(ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe
that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or
will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual
censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the
electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of
this clause;
(b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of publicaction, or the
mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an
electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference within the
meaning of this clause.
(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with
the consent of a candidates or his election agent to vote or refrain
from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste,
community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols
or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag
or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the
election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of
any candidate:
Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate
shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the
purposes of this clause.
(3A) The promotion of, or attempt to promote, feelings of
enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on
grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language, by a
candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of a
candidate or his election agent for the furtherance of the prospects of
the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election
of any candidate.
KL,J
(3B) The propagation of the practice or the commission of sati
or its glorification by a candidate or his agent or any other person with
the consent of the candidate or his election agent for the furtherance
of the prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially
affecting the election of any candidate.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this clause, "sati" and
"glorification" in relation to sati shall have the meanings respectively
assigned to them in the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3
of 1988).
(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person
with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement
of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does
not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct
of any candidate or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of
any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice
the prospects of that candidate's election.
(5) The hiring or procuring, whether on payment or otherwise, of any
vehicle or vessel by a candidate or his agent or by any other person
with the consent of a candidate or his election agent or the use of such
vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector (other than the
candidate himself the members of his family or his agent) to or from
any polling station provided under section 25 or a place fixed under
sub-section (1) of section 29 for the poll:
Provided that the hiring of a vehicle or vessel by an elector or
by several electors at their joint costs for the purpose of conveying
him or them to and from any such polling station or place fixed for the
poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt practice under this clause if
the vehicle or vessel so hired is a vehicle or vessel not propelled by
mechanical power:
Provided further that the use of any public transport vehicle or
vessel or any tramcar or railway carriage by any elector at his own
cost for the purpose of going to or coming from any such polling
station or place fixed for the poll shall not be deemed to be a corrupt
practice under this clause.
Explanation.--In this clause, the expression "vehicle" means
any vehicle used or capable of being used for the purpose of road
transport, whether propelled by mechanical power or otherwise and
whether used for drawing other vehicles or otherwise.
(6) The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in
contravention of section 77.
(7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to
obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person
KL,J
with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance
(other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of
that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the
Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely:--
a. gazetted officers;
b. stipendiary judges and magistrates;
c. members of the armed forces of the Union;
d. members of the police forces;
e. excise officers;
f. revenue officers other than village revenue officers known as
lambardars, malguzars, patels, deshmukhs or by any other
name, whose duty is to collect land revenue and who are
remunerated by a share of, or commission on, the amount of
land revenue collected by them but who do not discharge any
police functions; and]
g. such other class of persons in the service of the Government as
may be prescribed:
Provided that where any person, in the service of the
Government and belonging to any of the classes aforesaid, in
the discharge or purported discharge of his official duty,
makes any arrangements or provides any facilities or does
any other act or thing, for, to, or in relation to, any candidate
or his agent or any other person acting with the consent of
the candidate or his election agent (whether by reason of the
office held by the candidate or for any other reason), such
arrangements, facilities or act or thing shall not be deemed to
be assistance for the furtherance of the prospects of that
candidate's election.
h. class of persons in the service of a local authority, university,
government company or institution or concern or undertaking
appointed or deputed by the Election Commission in connection
with the conduct of elections.
(8) Booth capturing by a candidate or his agent or other person.
Explanation.--(1) In this section the expression "agent"
includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held
to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the
consent of the candidate.
(2) For the purposes of clause (7), a person shall be deemed to
assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election if he
acts as an election agent of that candidate.]
(3) For the purposes of clause (7), notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law, the publication in the Official Gazette of
the appointment, resignation, termination of service, dismissal or
KL,J
removal from service of a person in the service of the Central
Government (including a person serving in connection with the
administration of a Union territory) or of a State Government shall be
conclusive proof--
(i) of such appointment, resignation, termination of service,
dismissal or removal from service, as the case may be, and
(ii) where the date of taking effect of such appointment,
resignation, termination of service, dismissal or removal from
service, as the case may be, is stated in such publication, also
of the fact that such person was appointed with effect from the
said date, or in the case of resignation, termination of service,
dismissal or removal from service such person ceased to be in
such service with effect from the said date.
(4) For the purposes of clause (8), "booth capturing" shall
have the same meaning as in section 135A."
Therefore, the election petitioner has to make out the allegations of
corrupt practices committed by returned candidate, his election agent or
by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or his
election agent, to declare the election of returned candidate as void in
terms of Section - 100 of the Act, 1951. He has to plead and prove the
same by producing cogent evidence.
iii) In Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba 4, the Apex Court
held that trial of an election petition on the allegation of corrupt practice
is of a quasi-criminal in nature and burden lies on the person alleged the
same to prove including the ingredients of the charge strictly. The said
. (1991) 2 SCC 342
KL,J
principle was reiterated in Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh
Jassi 5 and Baldev Singh Mann v. Surjit Singh Dhiman 6.
iv) Interpretation of Section - 123 (3) of the Act, 1951 fell for
consideration on a reference before a seven-Judge Bench of the Apex
Court in Abhiram Singh v. C.D. Commachen (dead) by LRs 7. In the
dissenting opinion, the Hon'ble Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud observed
that election petitions alleging corrupt practice have a quasi-criminal
character. Where a statutory provision implicates penal consequences or
consequences of a quasi-criminal character, a strict construction of the
words used by the Legislature must be adopted. Therefore, the standard
of proof should be much higher than a preponderance of probabilities
which operates in civil trials. The standard of proof in an election trial
veers close to that which guides a criminal trial.
v) In the light of the aforesaid legal position, coming to the facts
of the case on hand, according to the election petitioner, the following
are the corrupt practices which affected the election materially:
a) EVMs were tampered;
. (1999) 9 SCC 386
. (2009) 1 SCC 633
. (2017) 2 SCC 629
KL,J
b) request of the election petitioner for recounting of VVPAT
slips in respect of all the polling stations was not
considered;
c) EVMs and other election material were not preserved in the
place notified;
d) on conclusion of polling on 07.12.2018, the election
petitioner and his election agents received numerous
complaints from their polling agents about non-furnishing
of Form-17C, especially with regard to polling station
Nos.77, 97, 120, 138, 164, 196, 218, 227 and 237;
e) Despite specific request, the said information was not
furnished to the election petitioner under RTI Act;
f) Data of Form-17A is not tallying with that of data in report
No.22, and if it does not tally, then it raises to different
situations, the net result will be to conduct fresh poll to
those concerned polling stations;
g) The Presiding Officers of the respective polling stations
need to tally this data for every two (02) hours and the data
does not tally, then ultimately there has to be fresh poll in
terms of Section - 58 of the Act, 1951;
KL,J
h) Report No.22 is not properly maintained which is
mandatory which led to irregularities in receiving and
recording of votes and the same is a ground of challenge
under Section - 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951, since it
covers even to the orders made under the said Act, 1951;
i) Returning Officer (CW.1) fabricated a false report No.22
annexed to Ex.A8;
j) Non-consideration of representation is a violation of Rules -
63 and 56D of the Rules, 1961 which raises second ground
of challenge i.e., Section - 100 (1) (d) (iv) of the Act, 1951;
k) Maintenance of Report No.22 with incorrect data raises
suspicion and during trial, the evidence which has been
placed on record raises to third ground in terms of Section -
100 (1) (d) (iii) of the Act, 1951 i.e., improper reception,
refusal or rejection of any vote. In support of the same, the
election petitioner relied on Table - III of his evidence
affidavit;
l) Copies of Form - 17C and 17A of all the polling stations
were not furnished to the election petitioner despite request
KL,J
and the same were furnished, he could have pointed out the
said manipulations at the time of counting itself;
m) Returning Officer has manipulated the records and changed
his report No.22 (Ex.A8) to see that the same is matching
the final result sheet as the votes polled is shown as
1,65,341 and voting percentage as 80.02;
n) In his counter, respondent No.1 contended that non-tallying
of information is a human error/mistake, thus, he has
introduced two theories i.e., (i) there are two (02) reports;
one preliminary report and final report; (ii) based on
periodical report through cell phone, an hourly report was
prepared and subsequently a revised report was sent.
Reliance was placed on Ex.B6;
o) CCTV Footage was not furnished in spite of directions;
p) Records were not properly maintained as mandated under
the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961 which led to incorrect
preparation of report No.22 which materially affected the
result of the election. Reliance was placed on Ex.C1 - report
of the Election Commissioner of India;
KL,J
vi) As discussed above, during cross-examination, PW.1 admitted
about commissioning of EVMs, presence of his election agent, collection
of election material, sealing of EVMs, signing of the same by all the
election candidates and their election agents.
vii) He has further admitted, "it is only my allegation that EVMs
were tampered at the Junior College, Dharmapuri, but there is no
evidence as such. I have not given any written complaint against storing
of EVMs at the Junior College, Dharmapuri. Technically, I am not
aware how tampering will be done in the EVMs. It is my assumption
that EVMs were tampered and manipulated when they were kept in
Junior College, Dharmapuri."
viii) It is relevant to note that the High Court of Gujarat in
Khemchand Rajaram Kosthi v. Election Commission of India 8, a
public interest litigation filed by a practicing advocate of the High Court
of Gujarat, had an occasion to deal with the aspect of tampering of
EVMs. Referring to various provisions of the Act, 1951 and the Rules,
1961 extensively and several judgments in paragraph Nos.10 and 11,
held/observed as follows:
. R/W.P. (PIL) No.36 of 2019, decided on 19.03.2019
KL,J
"10. It has to be borne in mind that the foundation and the
basis of the allegation is a lurking fear repeatedly voiced
and demonstrated by the Election Commission Of India
that the EVMs are tamperproof. From what we will
reproduce hereinafter, the material which was available to
the petitioner, a practicing lawyer, as is evident from the
communication dated 10.01.2019 addressed to him, a
reference has been made to the Commission's 'Status
Paper on EVM/ VVPAT' which has comprehensively
addressed and cleared all doubts and queries regarding the
credibility of EVMs used by the Election Commission of
India. The letter unequivocally states that the Commission
has firm conviction about the integrity, non-
tamperability and credibility of the EVMs and is
confident of its robustness and reliability in view of its
technical security features, comprehensive
administrative protocols and robust procedural
safeguards that protect the EVMs and VVPATs against
any sort of manipulation at any stage, before, during or
after the polls including manufacture, transportation,
storage, polling and counting process. (emphasis
supplied).
10.1 Once an autonomous constitutional authority like the
Election Commission Of India, which has till date,
fulfilled the avowed object of conducting free and fair
elections in the largest democracy of the world makes
such a statement, in its letter addressed to the petitioner
assuring the robustness of C/WPPIL/36/2019 CAV
ORDER the procedural safeguards, this Court shall be
loath to sit in judgement over the assurance of a
KL,J
constitutional authority like the Election Commission Of
India and show the zealousness to overstep its jurisdiction
vested in it under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India,
on mere uncharted reservations and apprehensions voiced
by the petitioner.
11. It would also be fruitful to reproduce the information
about introduction, present status and the conclusion
about EVMs/VVPATs as per the aforesaid Commission's
'Status Paper on EVM/VVPAT' for ready reference and
which has been requested by the Election Commission of
India to be referred in the communication dated
10.01.2019 addressed to the petitioner. This will also help
us to trace the EVMs/VVPATs' journey into the election
process of this country through the Status Paper.
"Introduction:
India is the largest Participatory Democracy of the
world, with about 850 million registered voters. The
Constitutional mandate of superintendence, direction
and control of Elections to the Parliament and the
State Legislative Assemblies has been conferred on
the Election Commission of India.
The Election Commission of India is an independent
Constitutional entity, which has successfully
conducted regular elections to the Parliament and
various State Legislative Assemblies for the past 66
years in a free, fair, participative, informed and
credible manner. The Commission is widely
acknowledged as a ''Global Gold Standard'' in
Election Management across the World, setting ever-
higher standards of efficient and professional conduct
of Elections.
The Commission has been at the forefront of
embracing, adopting and implementing the latest
technological advancements in improving and fine-
tuning the election processes and systems. The
Commission has taken the pioneering initiative of
KL,J
introducing Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) for
recording, storing and counting of votes across the
length and breadth of the Country in a transparent,
credible and secure manner, backed by appropriate
legal support. The use of EVM demonstrates the
Commission's unflinching resolve to continually
improve, upgrade and strengthen the Electoral
Process in the country.
The Commission has successfully used EVMs in
conducting 113 General Elections to the State
Legislative Assemblies and 3 Lok Sabha Elections
over the last 23 years. The List of States, along with
the years in which 100% EVMs were used in the
Assembly Elections is placed at ANNEXURE - 1.
55.41 crore (554 million) voters exercised their
franchise in 2014 Lok Sabha elections using EVMs.
Since the very inception of the EVMs in 1982, as a
positive electoral reform on the electoral scene in
India, blames and aspersions have been cast on the
EVMs from various quarters including political.
Recently, after the announcement of the results of the
five State Assembly Elections in March 2017, again
certain allegations have been levelled against the
EVMs. A group of thirteen political parties met the
Commission on 10 April 2017 and expressed certain
reservations about the use of EVMs.
It needs to be emphasized that the wide range of
technical security, administrative protocols and
procedural safeguards mandated by the Commission
robustly ensures the integrity, non-tamperability and
credibility of the EVMs. The stringent procedures
and well-defined poll processes prescribed by the
Commission protect the EVMs against any sort of
manipulation.
It is also significant to highlight that the Commission
is committed to the 100% coverage of VVPATs in all
future elections to the Parliament and State Assembly
Elections. The requisite funds for the procurement of
adequate number of VVPATs and latest generation
(M3) EVMs have been sanctioned by the
Government and machines are expected to be
manufactured and delivered by BEL and ECIL to the
KL,J
ECI by November 2018 as committed by the
manufacturers.
At the present juncture, when EVMs are once again
encumbered with yet another debate on its efficacy
and robustness, it is imperative to hold consultations
with stakeholders.
VERIFIABLE PAPER AUDIT TRAIL (VVPAT)
In a meeting of all political parties held on 4th
October, 2010, the parties expressed satisfaction with
the EVM but some parties requested the Commission
to consider introducing Voter Verifiable Paper Audit
Trail for further transparency and verifiability in poll
process. In India, the demand of VVPAT to increase
transparency was floating in the air for some time
after such a tool was first demonstrated in New York
City in March 2001 and first used in Sacramento,
California in 2002. The demand was referred to the
Technical Expert Committee (TEC) by the ECI.
Introduction of VVPAT implied that a paper slip is
generated bearing name and symbol of the candidate
along with recording of vote in Control Unit, so that
in case of any dispute, paper slip could be counted to
verify the result being shown on the EVM. Under
VVPAT, a printer is attached to the balloting Unit
and kept in the voting compartment. The paper slip
remains visible on VVPAT for 07 seconds through a
transparent window. The Commission referred the
matter to its Technical Expert Committee (TEC) on
EVMs for examining and making a recommendation
in this regard. The Expert Committee had several
rounds of meetings with the manufacturers of EVM,
namely, BEL & ECIL, on this issue and then had met
the political parties and other civil society members
to explore the design requirement of the VVPAT
system with the EVM. On the direction of the Expert
Committee, the BEL and ECIL made a prototype and
demonstrated before the Committee and the
Commission in 2011. On the recommendation of the
Expert Committee on EVM & VVPAT system, the
Commission conducted simulated election for the
field trial of VVPAT system in Ladakh (Jammu &
Kashmir), Thiruvananthapuram (Kerala),
Cherrapunjee (Meghalaya), East Delhi District (NCT
KL,J
of Delhi) and Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) in July 2011. All
stake holders including senior leaders of political
parties and civil society members participated and
witnessed enthusiastically in the field trial. After 1st
field trial of the VVPAT system, Commission made a
detailed reassessment of the VVPAT system to
further fine tune the VVPAT system. Accordingly,
the manufacturers developed 2nd version of VVPAT
prototype. The same was again subjected to 2nd field
trial in the said five locations in July- August 2012. In
the meeting of the Technical Expert Committee held
on 19th February, 2013, the Committee approved the
design of VVPAT and also recommended the
Commission to take action on amendment of the rules
for using VVPAT. The model was demonstrated to
all the political parties in an all-party meeting on 10th
May, 2013. The Government of India notified the
amended Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 on 14th
August, 2013, enabling the Commission to use
VVPAT with EVMs. On 4th September, 2013, the
Commission used VVPAT with EVMs first time in
bye-election from 51-Noksen (ST) Assembly
Constituency of Nagaland.
On 8th October, 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
ordered introduction of VVPAT in phases in its
judgment on a PIL and asked Government to sanction
funds for procurement. As directed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India, the ECI introduced the
VVPAT system in a phased manner so that full
implementation could be achieved by 2019. In 2013,
the ECI procured 20000 VVPATs. On 25th
November, 2013, VVPATs were used in 10 ACs in
Mizoram; on 4th December 2013, it was used in one
AC in Delhi; and thereafter in subsequent elections.
The following table gives us the journey of VVPAT in
India at a glance:
Date Chronology Events
4th Oct 2010 An all-party meeting held. Agreement on
incorporation of VVPATs along with
EVMs
07/01/11 Field trial conducted after the prototype
KL,J
was manufactured, in Thiruvananthapuram
(Kerala), Delhi, Cherapunjee (Meghalaya),
Jaisalmer (Rajasthan) and Leh (Jammu &
Kashimir).
July-Aug 2012 A second field trial was conducted
19th Feb 2013 Final model was approved by TEC
10th May 2013 The Model was demonstrated to all
political parties
14th Aug 2013 The conduct ofElection Rules 1961 was
amended and notified
Date Chronology Events
8th Oct 2013 Hon'ble Supeme Court directed ECI to
introduce the VVPAt system in a phased
manner. Full implementation to be
achieved by 2019
25th Nov 2013 VVPATS were used in 10 ACs of
Mizoram 4th Dec 2013 VVPAT was used
in one AC in Delhi and thereafter in
subsequent elections
Feb-Mar 2017 52000 VVPATs were used in 33 ACs in
Punjab, 6 ACs in Manipur, 3 ACs in
Uttarakhand, 30 ACs in Uttar Pradesh and
40 ACs in Goa
04/01/17 Approval of Government received for
purchase of 16,15,000 VVPATs at a total
estimated cost of Rs.3173.47 Crores**
**Cost of 16,15,000 VVPATs reduced
toRs.2616.30 Cr. After fixation of price
by the Price Negotiation Committee.
12th May 2017 All Political Parties Meeting held. The
Commission decided to use 100%
VvPATs at every polling station in all
future elections to Parliamentary and
Assembly constituencies.
19th Sept., 2017 The Commission directed to use 100%
VVPATs at every polling station was
formally communicated to all Chief
Electoral Officers to ensure compliance.
11th Oct, 2017 The Commission decoded to conduct
mandatory verification of VVPAT slips of
randomly selected 01 Polling Station per
AC. Subsequently, mandatory
verification of VVPAT slips has been
KL,J
further extended to 01 randomly selected
Polling Station of each Assembly segment
of Parliamentary Constituency also.
So, far, VVPATs have been used in 933 Assembly
Constituencies and 18 Parliamentary Constituencies.
Till date, VVPAT slip verification has been
undertaken for 792 polling stations and in all the cases,
the results tallied with the electronic result in the CU.
Present Status:
Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 8 Oct 2013 has
observed that EVMs with VVPAT system ensures the
accuracy of the voting system. With an intent to have
fullest transparency in the system and to restore the
confidence of the voters, it is necessary to set up EVMs
with VVPAT systems because vote is nothing but an act
of expression which has immense importance in
democratic system. The apex court appreciated the efforts
and good gesture made by the ECI in introducing
VVPATs and permitted the ECI to introduce the same in a
gradual stages or geographical wise in the ensuing general
elections. The Court also directed the Government of
India to provide required financial assistance for the
procurement of units of VVPATs for the implementation
of VVPAT system in a phased manner.
Amidst the ongoing debate on the EVM, the ECI not only
reaffirmed its faith on the transparency, credibility, non-
tamperability and robustness of the machines, but also
stressed on the immediate deployment of VVPATs for
safeguarding the integrity of the voting system as well as
KL,J
strengthening confidence of the voters. In order to ensure
the compliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court order The
Chief Election Commissioner of India vigorously pursued
the allocation of funds to the manufacturers for the timely
manufacture and supply of required quantity of VVPATs
to the ECI for ensuring 100% VVPAT coverage at all
polling stations. The Election Commission also
vigorously reviewed the production capacity of the
manufacturers impressing upon them the need to strictly
adhere to the schedule by enhancing their manufacturing
capacity.
Based on Commission's continuous follow up the funds
have since been allocated on 19April2017 amounting to
Rs.2616.30 crore for purchase of 16,15,000VVPATs and
orders have been issued to the manufacturers. It is
pertinent to mention that Rs 1939.95 crore has been
sanctioned and released by the Government for the
manufacture of M3 EVMs. The manufacturers have
committed to manufacture the EVMs and VVPATs and
supply to ECI by Sep 2018.
The Commission is committed to using VVPAT machines
along with EVMs in all future elections to be conducted
under its superintendence and direction for the Parliament
and State Legislative Assemblies.
In the All Political Parties Meeting held on 12th May,
2017, the Commission decided to use 100% VVPATs in
all future elections. The above decision of the
Commission was formally communicated to Chief
KL,J
Electoral Officers of all States and Union Territories
on 19th September, 2017.
The Commission mandated verificationofVVPATpaper
slips of randomly selected 01 polling station in addition to
the provisions of Rule 56D of the Conduct of Elections
Rules, 1961, as under:
(a) In case of General and Bye-elections to State
Legislative Assemblies, verification of VVPAT paper
slips of randomly selected 01 polling station per
Assembly Constituency.
(b) In case of General and Bye-elections to the House of
the People, verification of VVPAT paper slips of
randomly selected 01 polling station of each Assembly
Segment of the Parliamentary Constituency concerned.
Mandatory verification of VVPAT paper slips has
been conducted so far in 792 polling stations and no
discrepancy was found in electronic result and paper
count.
Conclusion:
As is evident, the EVM used in Indian elections have
gone through a long journey of evolution amidst
challenges and has emerged as an effective machine of
electoral reform over the years since its introduction. It
has enhanced public confidence as well as legitimacy of
Indian elections in the eyes of the world.
The Indian EVM stands as one of the most credible, non-
tamperable and transparent machine amongst all such
KL,J
machines used in other parts of the world. Indian EVMs
have attracted the attention of many Afro-Asian countries
also. Till date, no one could actually demonstrate that
EVMs in possession of ECI and used by it, can be
tampered with or manipulated. What has been
demonstrated or claimed to have been demonstrated is on
a privately assembled "look-alike of ECI-EVMs" and not
the actual ECI-EVM used by ECI. Recently, on an
allegation of EVMs yielding votes for only one political
party in Bhind (Madhya Pradesh) and Dholpur
(Rajasthan), the ECI promptly conducted an enquiry
which found out that such allegations were found to be
baseless.
Today, the ECI once again completely reaffirms its faith
in the non-tamperability of the EVMs of ECI in view of
the technical security features and the stringent
administrative protocols and procedural safeguards which
are mandatorily to be followed during and after the polls.
In conclusion, it will be pertinent to refer to the verdict of
the Karnataka High Court in this respect, which observed
that EVM in India is a "national pride" and the fact that
Indian elections are widely internationally acknowledged
as the "Global Gold Standard".
The Commission and electoral system stakeholders have
taken a conscious decision that EVM is the right answer
to the formidable task of election management and the
huge logistical challenges it throws. The ECI hopes that
once the VVPATs cover all the polling booths in the
KL,J
country, the confidence and transparency will be further
enhanced.
The Commission firmly believes that the introduction of
VVPAT machines with the EVMs in all future elections
will bring utmost transparency and credibility in the
EVM-based voting system in our country and
conclusively put to rest all misinformed doubts and
misgivings regarding these machines.
The Commission will launch a comprehensive, concerted
and nation- wide voter education and awareness
programme under its flagship SVEEP initiative, to
educate, orient and inform the voters about the
functioning, usage and advantages of the VVPAT
machines and their immense utility in reinforcing the
transparency, credibility and authenticity if the voting
process. The Commission earnestly solicits the
cooperation and collaboration of all the vital stakeholders,
particularly the political parties, to join hands in spreading
awareness about the advantages of VVPAT machines.
The Commission is confident that the collaborative efforts
of all the stakeholders in the electoral process will lead to
continuous improvements in the electoral management
and make our system more transparent, participative,
informed and credible.
The Commission firmly believes in an open, constructive
and comprehensive dialogue with all crucial stakeholders
in the electoral process and the political parties are a
critical stakeholder of the democratic edifice in the
country. Considering the recent issues regarding use of
KL,J
EVMs, the Commission convened an All Party Meeting
on 12th May 2017. The objective behind the said meeting
was to facilitate threadbare discussions and detailed
deliberations amongst the important players in the
electoral arena on this vital issue, so that all views and
counter-views were placed on the table and thrashed out
transparently and cogently.
In All Political Parties Meeting the Commission assured
100% coverage of VVPATs in all future election to the
Parliament and State Assembly Elections. In the
said meeting the representatives of political parties were
informed that the Commission would hold a challenge and
offered opportunity to political parties to demonstrate that
EVMs used in the recently concluded Assemblies
elections were tampered OR that EVMs could be
tampered even under the laid down Technical and
Administrative Safeguards.
Subsequently, 20th May 2017, the Commission
announced the EVM Challenge and sent invitation to all
National and State Recognized Political Parties to
participate in the Challenge from 3rd June 2017 onwards.
Only two Political Parties, namely NCP and CPI(M)
submitted their interest in participating the EVM
Challenge. However, they did not participate in the
Challenge but only expressed their interest in
understanding the EVM process. They interacted
extensively with TEC of the Commission to clear their
doubts. The EVM Challenge concluded on 3rd July 2017.
KL,J
Since 12th May 2017, every election to the Parliament
and State Assembly Elections has been conducted using
VVPAT with EVM and the Commission is committed to
100% deployment of VVPATs in all future elections to
Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. The
Commission requests all citizens and stakeholders to
remain aware, vigilant and alert about our electoral
processes and facilitate the Commission in discharging its
Constitutional mandate of conducting free and fair
elections in the country. [Emphasis Supplied]"
ix) The Apex Court also reiterated that tampering of EVMs is not
possible. The election petitioner (PW.1) during his cross-examination
admitted that he does not know that it is proved in the Supreme Court
that EVMs cannot be tampered.
x) In the light of the aforesaid admission, the principle laid down
by the Gujarat High Court and observations made by the Apex Court, the
allegation of the election petitioner that EVMs were tampered cannot be
believed. He cannot make allegations of tampering of EVMs on
assumptions and presumptions and file the present election petition on
the said ground.
xi) As discussed above, both PW.1 and CW.1 categorically
admitted that Government Junior College, Dharmapuri is distribution
and reception centre and the Engineering Centre is counting centre. The
KL,J
entire process of verification, loading, transportation and unloading took
place till 8.30 A.M. on 08.12.2018. The EVMs and election material
were stored in the Strong Room at Engineering College. The strong
room is locked and sealed in the presence of contesting candidates and
their agents. Their signatures were obtained on the seals. Throughout
the said process, CW.1 and Election Observer, an IAS Officer, were
present and contesting candidates and their chief election agents were
also present during the entire process. The strong room is under the
surveillance of Central Police Force day and night.
xii) The election petitioner, his election agent, executing agents
were present at the counting centre. The RO of subject constituency and
an Election Observer and also the District Election Authority allowed
them inside the counting hall after verification their I.D. Cards.
Thereafter, the RO and an Election Observer allowed all the contesting
candidates including the election petitioner and also their agents to the
strong room, where EVMs and VVPATs were stored, where they have
observed the seal labels on the strong room door and also its lock and
after their satisfaction only, the strong room was opened in their
presence which was fully video-graphed by the Election Authority.
After concluding all rounds of counting including the postal ballots,
KL,J
respondent No.1 secured 441 more votes than the election petitioner.
Then the election petitioner also requested the RO to count VVPAT slips
of four polling stations of his choice. Accordingly, RO counted VVPAT
slips of four polling stations No.17, 47, 92 and 174 before the election
petitioner and his agents under the observation of an Election Observer,
wherein the VVPAT slips were tallied with the votes polled in EVMs.
The election petitioner was also fully satisfied after the recounting of the
said VVPAT slips which were tallied with the polled votes in EVM and,
as such, the election agent of the petitioner, Mr. NVS Lalith Babu, put
his signatures on the proceedings of Returning Officer by accepting
counting of VVPATs. Thereafter, the RO declared the election result
wherein respondent No.1 was declared as elected candidate.
xiii) It is also relevant to note that PW.1 himself admitted that
recounting of VVPAT slips in four polling booths were undertaken by
CW.1. In fact, the said fact was suppressed by him in the election
petition.
xiv) It is relevant to note that during cross-examination, Returning
Officer (CW.1) admitted that report No.22 is prepared by him after
receiving Form - 17A from all the polling stations. During counting of
KL,J
votes, if in a particular EVM, the total number of votes do not tally,
Form - 17A, then he has to verify, find out the discrepancy, report to the
Election Commission of India and take action as per the guidelines. The
election petitioner asked to count VVPATs in all the 269 polling stations
after 13th round of counting. On considering the same, Election
Observer instructed him to select any four polling stations in which he
got doubt and then such four polling stations VVPAT slips can be
counted. On that, the election petitioner selected four (04) polling
stations and VVPAT slips in those four polling stations were counted
and found no difference with the number of votes polled.
xv) In the light of the above, the election petitioner now cannot
claim that EVMs were tampered, number of polled etc., were not tallied
and there is manipulation of record etc. The said allegations are
baseless.
xvi) The election petitioner also tried to prove the said difference
of votes by cross-examining CW.1 at length on Exs.X1 to X8. However,
CW.1 categorically admitted that he has followed the entire procedure
with regard to commissioning of EVMs, distribution of election material
including EVMs to all 269 polling stations, collection of
information/data from time to time from the polling officers, preparation
KL,J
of reports, collection of election material at the receiving centre, sealing
of the same, transmitting the same to the counting centre, keeping the
same in the strong room, sealing the same in accordance with law. The
election petitioner failed to elicit anything contra to prove that the
Returning Officer and the District Election Officer manipulated the
record, tampered the EVMs in order to help respondent No.1 - returned
candidate, to declare him as returned candidate. The said allegations of
the election petitioner are false and baseless.
xvii) During cross-examination, PW.1 himself admitted that the
report dated 11.12.2018 of the Returning Officer regarding counting of
VVPATs in four counting stations is correct and that Ex.A4 was
furnished to him on 08.12.2018.
xviii) The election petitioner (PW.1) during cross-examination
categorically admitted as follows:
"It is true that in the Election Petition, I have not
stated that the Returning Officer and Mr. Sarath have
taken undue advantage of their official position to
cause benefit to respondent No.1 and thereby
materially affect the election as now stated in para 11
of my chief examination affidavit. The EVMs were
tampered and hacked by the Assistant Returning
Officer, Mr. Venkat Reddy with the help of
KL,J
technicians. I have definite information about the
said tampering. I have made a complaint to the
Election Authority about the Assistant Returning
Officer with regard to the tampering of EVMs. I have
not filed copy of the said complaint in this Election
Petition. In para 15 of my Election Petition, I have
not mentioned about the involvement of Assistant
Returning Officer and about the complaint given
against him to the Election Authority/District
Collector. It is my assumption that EVMs were
tampered and manipulated when they were kept in
Govt. Junior College, Dharmapuri since it is not a
notified place. I or my election agent have not seen
the said tampering and manipulations since we were
not allowed to stay at Govt. Junior College,
Dharmapuri."
xix) In the light of the aforesaid admissions, the election
petitioner herein cannot allege tampering of EVMs, manipulation of
record and non-tallying of votes polled etc.
xx) As contended by respondent No.1, the rights created under
the Act, 1951 are neither common law rights nor civil rights. It is a
statutory right and it should be decided within the four corners of the
said statutory rights. Therefore, the election petitioner who alleges
tampering of EVMs, manipulation of record etc., has to plead and prove
KL,J
the same by producing cogent evidence. In the present case, except
examining himself, he has not examined any other witness including any
of his polling agents from whom he received numerous complaints with
regard to non-tallying of votes etc. He failed to elicit anything useful to
him. Thus, the election petitioner herein utterly failed in pleading and
proving the aforesaid allegations and the corrupt practice which said to
have been materially affected the election. He has to establish the
grounds mentioned in Sections - 100 and 101 of the Act, 1951 to declare
the election to be void and to declare him to have been elected.
xxi) In Harsh Kumar v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat 9, the Apex
Court held that the success of a winning candidate at an election should
not be lightly interfered with. The scheme of Section - 100 of the Act,
especially Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) thereof clearly prescribes that in
spite of the availability of grounds contemplated by Sub-clauses (i) to
(iv) of Clause (d), the election of a returned candidate shall not be voided
unless and until it is proved that the result of the election, insofar as it
concerns a returned candidate was materially affected. It was further
held that the burden of proof of corrupt practice is very heavy on the
person who alleges the same. The will of the people cannot be lightly set
. (2003) 7 SCC 709
KL,J
aside, though, of course, it is necessary to protect the purity of the
election. In order to succeed on the ground of corrupt practice, the
election petitioner had to lead cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence.
The standard of proof required is not of preponderance of probability,
but proof beyond doubt.
xxii) In Chanda Singh v. Choudhary Shiv Ram Verma 10, the
Apex Court held that recount of votes is not automatic, and it cannot be
ordered in a routine and grounds must be definite and clearly stated.
Hesitant and bald averments revealing vague fears and blurred anxieties
do not make the statutory requirements.
xxiii) In the present case, the election petitioner himself admitted
that it was his assumption that there was tampering of EVMs and
manipulation of record.
xxiv) In Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 11, the Apex Court
considered expression material facts and particulars in terms of Section -
83 (1) of the Act, 1951.
xxv) In C.P.John v. Babu M. Palissery 12 and Markio Tado v.
Takam Sorang 13, the Apex Court held that the election petitioner has to
. (1975) 4 SCC 393
. 1986 (Supp) SCC 315
KL,J
plead the material facts precisely and prove the same by producing
cogent evidence. In the present case, the election petitioner failed to
prove the said allegations/corrupt practices by producing cogent
evidence.
xxvi) In R. Narayanan v. S. Semmalal 14, J. Raghava Rao v. B.
Ch. Garataiah 15 and Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla
Koteswara Rao 16, the Apex Court held that recounting of votes cannot
be ordered in a routine manner unless and until the election petitioner
makes out the grounds contemplated under the Rules, 1961 for
recounting. As discussed supra, the election petitioner herein failed to
make out any case for recount of votes.
xxvii) It is relevant to note that the election petitioner herein has
filed I.A. No.2 of 2022 seeking to order for recount of ballot papers in the
election held to the Telangana State Legislative Assembly on 07.12.2018
from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Legislative Assembly Constituency of Jagityal
District in Telangana State. As discussed supra, the election petitioner
failed to make out any ground for recount of VVPAT slips in respect of
. (2014) 10 SCC 547
. (2012) 3 SCC 236
. (1980) 2 SCC 537
. LAWS (APH)-2002-4-16
. (2010) 1 SCC 466
KL,J
all the polling booths of the subject constituency in terms of Rules, 1961.
Therefore, the said IA is liable to be dismissed.
xxviii) In M. Chinnasamy v. K.C. Palanisamy 17 and Arikala
Narasa Reddy v. Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari 18, the Apex Court
held that the evidence shall confine to the pleadings.
xxix) In Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari 19, the
Apex Court held that non-compliance with Act, 1951 or Rules, 1961
would not vitiate the election unless it is shown that the result is
materially affected under Section - 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Act, 1951, and
the same was followed by the High Court of Gujarat in Ashwinbhai
Kamsubhai Rathod v. Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav,
Bhupendrasinh Manubhai Chudasama 20.
xxx) In Krishna Ballabh Prasad Singh v. Sub-Divisional
Officer Hilsa-cum-Returning Officer 21, the Apex Court held that a
candidate is regarded as duly elected only after declaration in Form -21C
or Form - 21D is made under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961, until such
declaration is made, mere announcement of the Returning Officer that
. (2004) 6 SCC 341
. (2014) 5 SCC 313
. (2012) 3 SCC 314
. R/EP/3/2018, decided on 12.05.2020
. (1985) 4 SCC 194
KL,J
the candidate has been elected or grant of certificate in Form - 22 under
Rule - 66 of the Rules, 1961, would not confer on him status of elected
candidate. Election process comes to an end only after declaration in
Form - 21C as the case may be made under Rule - 64 of the Rules, 1961.
Whereas, in the present case, the said process was completed and
respondent No.1 was declared as returned candidate.
xxxi) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the election
petitioner herein failed to prove the aforesaid allegations of tampering of
EVMs, manipulation of record and non-tallying of votes polled etc., and
corrupt practices in terms of Section - 123 of the Act, 1951. These
issues are accordingly answered against the election petitioner herein.
19. Issue Nos.(x) and (xi): Whether the petitioner is entitled for
costs?, and to What relief?
i) In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the election petitioner is
not entitled for costs and for any other relief. Therefore, both the issues
are held against the election petitioner herein.
20. As discussed above, respondent No.1 declared as returned
candidate from 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency to the
Legislative Assembly General Elections held on 17.12.2018 with 441
KL,J
votes majority. If the difference of 132 votes is deducted, still
respondent No.1 would have 309 votes majority. Thus, the election
petitioner herein failed to prove that the election of respondent No.1 is
materially affected and that there was corrupt practice in terms of
Section - 123 of the Act, 1951.
21. It is trite to note that the Act, 1951 and the Rules, 1961
contemplates procedure for conduct of elections in a fair and transparent
manner, filing of election petitions etc. The Election Commission of
India is obligated to conduct elections in a fair and transparent manner in
terms of Article - 324 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it has been
taking much care by providing machinery, issuing guidelines from time
to time. It is also appointing Civil Servants as Election Observers.
22. Gaining confidence of the people by a contesting candidate
and succeeding in an election is not easy job. Therefore, success of a
winning candidate at an election should not be lightly interfered with.
The will of the people cannot be lightly set aside. At the same time, it is
necessary to protect the purity of the election. Therefore, the election
petitioner has to lead cogent, reliable and satisfactory evidence to prove
KL,J
such allegations. In the present case, the election petitioner herein failed
to plead and prove the same.
23. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present Election
Petition fails and the same is liable to be dismissed.
24. The present Election Petition is accordingly dismissed and so
also I.A. No.2 of 2022. However, in the circumstances of the case, there
shall be no order as to costs.
25. With regard to irregularities committed by the Officials
concerned in maintaining, safe keeping of election material including
EVMs, double sealing, post election, post counting of votes in strong
room and non-counting of two missing votes, this Court has already
directed the Election Commission of India to conduct an inquiry and
submit report. Accordingly, inquiry was conducted and report was
submitted. It is marked as Ex.C1. Therefore, the Election Commission
of India shall take necessary action in accordance with law pursuant to
Ex.C1-report.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the
Election Petition, stands closed.
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
1st December, 2023
KL,J
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Petitioner:
PW.1: Mr. Adluri Laxman Kumar
PW.2: -- (Eschewed and examined as CW.1)
For Respondents:
RW.1: Mr. Koppula Eshwar
Court Witness:
CW.1: Sri M. Bhikshapathi
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE
Petitioner
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.A1 12.11.2018 Copy of Notification of the Election Commission of
India containing 3 sheets
Ex.A2 19.11.2018 Copy of the Memo issued by the Office of the Chief
Electoral Officer, State of Telangana given by CEO,
State of Telangana containing 2 sheets
Ex.A3 20.01.2019 Copy of the reply furnished by the Returning Officer,
022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly Constituency issued
under RTI Act, 2005 containing 2 sheets
Ex.A4 08.12.2018 Copy of the report No.22 furnished by the Returning
Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) Assembly
Constituency containing 4 sheets
Ex.A5 11.12.2018 Copy of the Form No.20, final result sheet furnished
by the Returning Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC)
Assembly Constituency
Ex.A6 12.12.2018 Copy of the Gazette Notification issued by the Chief
Electoral Officer, Telangana, containing 3 sheets
Ex.A7 11.12.2018 Copy of the letter addressed to the Returning Officer
by the petitioner
Ex.A8 08.01.2019 Copy of the reply of the Returning Officer issued
under RTI along with Report No.22/Voter Turnout
Report dated 08.11.2018 from the Returning Officer
to the Principal Secretary, Election Commission of
India containing 28 sheets
KL,J
Respondents
Exhibit Date Description of document
Copy of Report/Proceedings of the Returning Officer
Ex.B1 11.12.2018 regarding counting of VVPATS in four counting
stations
Ex.B2 11.12.2018 Copy of Authorization to the Returning Officer, 022-
Dharmapuri LAC for the declaration of the result.
Ex.B3 08.11.2018 Copy of Instructions issued by the Office of the CEO
of Telangana regarding reports and returns vide
Memo No.3684/Elections.D/2018-1 containing
report No.10 at page No.10
Ex.B4 30.11.2008 Copy of Report No.10 prepared by the Returning
Officer sent to the CEO and Principal Secretary to
Government, TS.
Ex.B5 11.12.2018 Copy of letter addressed by the Petitioner to the ECI
requesting for physical verification of counting of
VVPAT Machines in 022-Dharmapuri LAC
Ex.B6 07.09.2022 Attested True Copy of information furnished by the
PIO-cum-Deputy Tahsildar, Dharmapuri Mandal to
the Election Agent of TRS under RTI Act, 2005
with regard to Report-22 (Voters Turn Out Report)
Ex.B7 03.05.2022 Attested True Copy of Letter No.E/598/2023
addressed by PIO-cum-Dy.Tahsildar to the applicant,
Mr. A. Srikanth Reddy, DCMS Chairman furnishing
the information under RTI Act, 2005 with regard to
availability of more than one Report NO.22 (Voter
Turnout Report) in respect of 022-Dharmapuri LAC
Ex.B8 08.11.2018 Attested True Copy of Report-22 of the Returning
Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) LAC sent to the ECI,
New Delhi, CEO, Telangana and the District
Election Officer and Collector, Jagtial District
Ex.B9 08.12.2018 Attested True Copy of Report No.22 of the Returning
Officer, 022-Dharmapur (SC), LAC sent to the CEO,
Telangana State and the District Election Officer &
Collector, Jagtial District
Ex.B10 11.12.2018 Attested True Copy of Report No.28 of the Returning
Officer, 022-Dharmapuri (SC) LAC
Ex.B11 08.01.2018 Attested True Copy Letter No.E/255/2018 addressed
by the office of the Returning Officer, 022-
Dharmapuri (SC) LAC to the petitioner furnishing
the information sought under RTI Act, 2005.
KL,J
X-Series
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.X1 -- Sealed cover opened before the Commissioner on
26.04.2023 containing attested copies of Form 17A
of Polling Stations 1 to 50
Ex.X2 -- Cover containing attested copies of Form 17A of
Polling Stations 51 to 100
Ex.X3 -- Cover containing attested co32pies of Form 17A of
Polling Stations 101 to 150
Ex.X4 -- Cover containing attested copies of Form 17A of
Polling Stations 151 to 200
Ex.X5 -- Cover containing attested copies of Form 17A of
Polling Stations 201 to 269
Ex.X6 -- Cover containing attested copies of account of votes
recorded in Part 1 of Form 17C maintained under
Rule 49S
Ex.X7 -- Cover containing attested copies of account of votes
recorded in Part 2 of Form 17C maintained under
Rule 56C of Conduct of Election Rules. (Polling
Station Nos.1 to 269 and postal ballot account.)
Ex.X8 -- Cover containing attested copies of Election
Commission Notification Notifying the place for
preserving the EVMs of 022-Dharmapuri (SC)
Legislative Assembly Constituency as Dr.VRK
College of Engineering and Technology, Nookapally
Village, Jagtial District containing 5 sets of
proceedings of the Chief Electoral Officer,
Telangana State vide Memo No.6029 Elec.D/2018-6,
dated 06.12.2018 with regard to subject of approval
of setting up of counting centers and approval.
Ex.X9 17.04.2023 Statement of the Returning Officer marked as
Annexure 9A in the Report dated 18.04.2023
submitted by Inquiry Committee of ECI
Ex.X10 -- Signatures of the Returning Officer at page Nos.10
and 11 in the photographs annexed to the report of
ECI dated 18.04.2023
KL,J
C-Series
Exhibit Date Description of document
Ex.C1 -- Entire report of the Election Commission of India
_________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
1st December, 2023
Mgr
