# SASHI BHUSHAN v. PROF. BALRAJ MADHOK & ORS

- **Citation:** [1972] 2 S.C.R. 177
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971-10-22
- **Case number:** Civil Appeals Nos. 1343 o and 1473 of 1971
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sashi-bhushan-v-prof-balraj-madhok-ors-5626
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Electiolf-Serious alle11ations a11ainst Election Commi.<sion that it enabled temoerin!l with ballot 11aoers-No direct evidence of allegationsScrutiny of ballot 11aoers-ll should be ordered.
In the last general election to the Lok Sabha the appellants were de·
clared elected and the respondents, who were the unsuCCCl!sful candidates
challenged the validity of the election on the ground that the ruling party
had rigged the election. According to the respondents many ballot papers
were chemically treated so that the mechanically stamped marks in favour
of the successful candidates by using invisible ink emerged and the mark
actually put at the time of polling disappeared after a few days. It was
alleged that this was done as a result of conspiracy between the ruling
party and the Election Commission, and that the Election Commission
took certain unusual steps for facilitatin~ the substitution of chemically
treated ballot papers. There was no direct evidence of the allegations and
the respondents sought to probabilise their version by alleging that the
colour of a large number of ballot papers was different from the colour
·of the original ballot papers, ·and that at the time of counting, it was noticed
that the marking was uniform and at an identical spot in each of the ballot
papers in favour of the appellants.
·
The trial Judge permitted inspection ol' all the ballot papers polled. In
appeal to this Court it was contended that : (I) that the allegations of the
respondent were propaganda stunts wholly devoid of truth; "(2) that the
attention of the Returning Officer was not invited to the alleged strange
features at the time of counting, '1nd ( 3) that the scrutiny of ballot papers
could not be allowed as it violates the secrecy of the ballot.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : (I) Assuming that the allegation made was mere propaganda
it was in the public inter_est that the allegations are required into the
propaganda exposed.
Merely because allegations made are difficult to
accept they cannot be dismissed summarily.
In all such matters the
court's aim should be to render complete justice between. parties. If the
allegations made raise issues of public importance greater care and circum·
spection is necessary. The allegation that the electoral process has been
fouled is a very serious allegation and is a challenge to the integrity and
impartiality of the Election Commission and a challenge to the survival of
democratic institutions.
(180 G-H; 181 A-B; 182 B-C]
(2) Assuming that the persons concerned .did not inform the Return·
ing Officers of what they obse.rved at the time of counting, it does not
estop th~ respondents from takmg the pleas in the election petitions. It is
only a circumstance to be considered on the question of value to be attache.d to the allegation. Even assuming that the respondents made the allegattons as a result of not merely observing certain facts at the time of counting hut on the basis of various rumours, that by itself is not sufficient to
brush aside the allegations.
[181 G-HJ
.
(3). No rigid rules have been laid nor can be laid down for allowing
m.spect1on of ballot papers. The overriding test is the interests of justice,
tiependmg on the facts of each case. A judge while deciding the question
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
of inspection of ballot papers must bear in mind the importance of the
secrecy of ballot. Secrecy of ballot is important but doing justice is more
important and it would be more so if what is at stake is the interests of
society. The allegations in support of the prayer for ibspection must not
be vague or indefinite. They must be supported by material facts and the
prayer made must be a bonn fide one. Further, the allegations regarding
the chemical treatment of ballot papers in the present case, cannot be
proved in any other manner than by inspection.
[182 C-D; 184 E-G]
But the High Court erred in permitting a general inspection of the
ballot papers. It would be sufficien

## Text

A
B
c
i>
E
F
H
177
SASHI BHUSHAN
v.
PROF. BALRAJ MADHOK & ORS.
October 22, 1971
[K. S. HEGDE AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.]
Electiolf-Serious alle11ations a11ainst Election Commi.<sion that it enabled temoerin!l with ballot 11aoers-No direct evidence of allegationsScrutiny of ballot 11aoers-ll should be ordered.
In the last general election to the Lok Sabha the appellants were de·
clared elected and the respondents, who were the unsuCCCl!sful candidates
challenged the validity of the election on the ground that the ruling party
had rigged the election. According to the respondents many ballot papers
were chemically treated so that the mechanically stamped marks in favour
of the successful candidates by using invisible ink emerged and the mark
actually put at the time of polling disappeared after a few days. It was
alleged that this was done as a result of conspiracy between the ruling
party and the Election Commission, and that the Election Commission
took certain unusual steps for facilitatin~ the substitution of chemically
treated ballot papers. There was no direct evidence of the allegations and
the respondents sought to probabilise their version by alleging that the
colour of a large number of ballot papers was different from the colour
·of the original ballot papers, ·and that at the time of counting, it was noticed
that the marking was uniform and at an identical spot in each of the ballot
papers in favour of the appellants.
·
The trial Judge permitted inspection ol' all the ballot papers polled. In
appeal to this Court it was contended that : (I) that the allegations of the
respondent were propaganda stunts wholly devoid of truth; "(2) that the
attention of the Returning Officer was not invited to the alleged strange
features at the time of counting, '1nd ( 3) that the scrutiny of ballot papers
could not be allowed as it violates the secrecy of the ballot.
Dismissing the appeals,
HELD : (I) Assuming that the allegation made was mere propaganda
it was in the public inter_est that the allegations are required into the
propaganda exposed.
Merely because allegations made are difficult to
accept they cannot be dismissed summarily.
In all such matters the
court's aim should be to render complete justice between. parties. If the
allegations made raise issues of public importance greater care and circum·
spection is necessary. The allegation that the electoral process has been
fouled is a very serious allegation and is a challenge to the integrity and
impartiality of the Election Commission and a challenge to the survival of
democratic institutions.
(180 G-H; 181 A-B; 182 B-C]
(2) Assuming that the persons concerned .did not inform the Return·
ing Officers of what they obse.rved at the time of counting, it does not
estop th~ respondents from takmg the pleas in the election petitions. It is
only a circumstance to be considered on the question of value to be attache.d to the allegation. Even assuming that the respondents made the allegattons as a result of not merely observing certain facts at the time of counting hut on the basis of various rumours, that by itself is not sufficient to
brush aside the allegations.
[181 G-HJ
.
(3). No rigid rules have been laid nor can be laid down for allowing
m.spect1on of ballot papers. The overriding test is the interests of justice,
tiependmg on the facts of each case. A judge while deciding the question
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
of inspection of ballot papers must bear in mind the importance of the
secrecy of ballot. Secrecy of ballot is important but doing justice is more
important and it would be more so if what is at stake is the interests of
society. The allegations in support of the prayer for ibspection must not
be vague or indefinite. They must be supported by material facts and the
prayer made must be a bonn fide one. Further, the allegations regarding
the chemical treatment of ballot papers in the present case, cannot be
proved in any other manner than by inspection.
[182 C-D; 184 E-G]
But the High Court erred in permitting a general inspection of the
ballot papers. It would be sufficient if some substantial number of ballot
papers polled by each of returned candidates are selected from different
bundles and compared with the ballot papers cast in favour of the respondents. If the trial Judge thereafter com°" to the conclusion that the matter
1hould be further probed into he may take evidence on the points in issue
including the evidence of expert witnesses, and thereafter, decide if it was
nec;,ssary direct a general inspection of the ballot papers.
[185 F-H]
Ram Sewak Y<ldav v. Hussain Kami/ Kidwai & ors., [1964] 6 S.C.R.
238, Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh. A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 773 and
litendra Bahadur Sin11h v. Krishna Behari & Ors., [1970] 1 S.C.R. 852,
referred to.
B
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 1343 o
and 1473 of 1971.
Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated
September 3, 1971 and August 6, 1971 of the Delhi High Court
in I.A. No. 1170 of 1971 in Election Petition No. 1 of 1971 and
Election Petition No. 2 of 1971.
C. K. Daphtary, M. C. Bhandare and C. M. Oberoi, for the
appellant (in C.A. No. 1343 of 1971).
D. D. Chaw/a, B. P. Nanda and J. B. Dadachan;,ji, for the
appellant (in C.A. No. 1473 of 1971).
E
S. V. Gupte, V. M. Trivedi, S. N. Marwah, R. P. JJansa/,
F
B. R. Sabarwal, N. M. Ghatate and K. C. Dua, for respondent
No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1343/71).
C. B. Agarwala, S. N. Marwah, B. P. Bansal, A. K. Marwah
and K. C. Dua, for respondent No. 1 (in C.A. No. 1473 of 1971).
V. P. Joshi, for respondent No. 6 (in both the appeals).
Respondent No. 8 appeared in person (in both the appeals).
The J•dgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
These appeals by special leave arise from
the
decision of Andley J. (Delhi High Court) permitting inspection
of the ballot papers polled during the last general election to the
Lok Sabha held last March in the South Delhi Constituency and
the Delhi-Sadar Constituency.
G
H
I!
c
D
SASH! BHUSHAN v. BALRAJ MADHOK (Hegde, I.)
179
The appellants are the successful candidates. They con·
tested in die two constituencies mentioned earlier oil. behalf of the
ruling Congress party. Their symbol was cow and calf. Their
nearest rivals were the Jan Sangh nominees whose symbol was
Deepak. The appellants were declared elected. The unsuccess·
ful Jan Sangh candidates have challenged the validity of the
election of the appellants.
The main ground pleaded in support of the election petition
was that the ·ruling party had rigged the election. The process
adopted in rigging the election, according 10· the election peti·
tioners is a somewhat complicated one. That process was
explained to us thus : Millions of ballot papers were chemically
treated; the symbol of the congress candidates in those ballot
papers was mechanically stamPed by using invisible ink.
As a
result of the chemical treatment of thOSe ballot papers, the mark
put at the time of the polling disappeared after a few days and
the stamping mechanically placed earlier emerged. The sugges·
tion was that this was done as a result of a conspiracy between
the ruling party and the Election Commission. To carry out the
design in question, we were told that quite contrary to the earlier
practice, the Election Commission instructed the Returning
Officers to forward to Delhi a substantial number of ballot papers
of each c:Onstituency, ostensibly for the p~
of scrutiny but
really for the purpose of carrying out the design mentioned earlier.
According to them in place of the ballot papers received, the
E
Returning Officers were supplied with the ballot papers chemically
treated and mechanically stamped. Those ballot papers formed
a part of the ballot papers used at the election. It was further
said that in furtherance of the above design, the Eelection Com·
mission made two alterations in the practice followed earlier.
Firstly it provided a larger interval between the date of pollin&
and the date of counting and secondly by precipitate alt~ration of
a rule,. it provided for mixing up of the ballot papers of various
F
G
H
booths and rotating them in drums, We were further told that
these innovations were introduced so that the chemical treatment
of the ballot papers may have the desired effect.
The election petitioners do not claim to have any direct evi·
dence to support their version. They seek to prove their version
primarily on the basis of the examination of the ballot papers.
But to probabilise their version, they have put forward various
circumstances. They have filed affidavits of two persons who
clai'lll to have been present at the time of counting. They sup·
ported the allegations in the petitions seeking inspection regard·
ing the facts said to have been observed at the time of counting
In those petitions it was allege« that at the time of the counting,
it was noticed that the colour of a large number of ballot papers
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972) 2 S.C.R.
A
was different from the colour of the other ballot papers, stamping
of the symbols in those ballot papers was uniform, at an identical
spot in each of those ballot papers, the stamps were unifonn in
density and they looked bright and fresh.
Those features were
quite dissimilar to those found in the other papers including those
containing votes in favour of the defeated candidates.
The election petitioners in this connection referred to the rumours prevailB
ing about the rigging of the election, the Landslide victory of the
ruling party which according to them was wholly unexpected and
finding of huge quantity of unused ballot papers in a godown in
Chandigarh.
The material facts supporting the
allegation
of
rigging are those said to have been observed at the time of the
counting.
In addition they also pointed out the changes made c
by the Election Commission in the counting procedure and tried
to draw an adverse inference therefrom.
Whether the observations said to have been made are true or whether they were merely
the figment of imagination of some fertile brains has yet to be
examined.
The only effective way of checking the correctness
of those allegations is by inspecting the ballot papers.
We are free to admit that we are unable to comprehend the
theories propounded by the election petitioners.
But
we
are
conscious of our limitations.
The march of science in recent
years has shown that what was thought to be impossible just a
D
few years back has become an easy possibility now.
What we
would have thought as wild imaginations some years back are
E
now proved to be realities.
Hence we are unable to reject the
allegations of the election petitioners without scrutiny.
We shall
accept nothing and reject nothing except on satisfactory proof.
We are approaching the allegations made in the election petition
in that spfrit.
The learned trial judge did not hold that the allegations made
F
by the election petitioners were not bona fide allegations.
We.
see no reason to come to a contrary conclusion.
He took the
view that those allegations were of serious character and the
material facts stated in suport of those allegations were such as
to call for investigation into the truth of those allegations.
We
are of the same opinion.
The allegation that our. electoral proG
cess has been fouled is a very serious allegation
That allegation
is a challenge to the integrity and impartiality of the Election
Commission.
Those allegations if believed are sure to undermine the confidence of our people in our democratic institutions.
Herein we are not merely concerned about the validity of elections
in two constituencies.
They are no doubt important but in the
H
context of things their importance pales into insignificance. What
is more important is the survival of the very democratic institutions on which our way of life depends.
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SASH! BHUSHAN v. BALRAJ MADHOK (Hegde, I.)
181
It was said, on 'behalf of the appellants that those allegations
were notbJng but propaganda stunts and they were wholly devoid
of truth. If that is so, it is in public interest that the falsity of
that propaganda should be exposed.
The confidence in our electoral machinery should not be allowed to be corroded by false
propoganda. It is of utmost importance that our electorate
should have full confidence in the impartiality of the Election
Commission.
Even the very best institutions can be maligned.
In all countries, at all times, there are gullible persons.
The
effectiveness of an institution like the Election Commission
depends on public confidence.
For building up public
confidence, public must be given the opportunity to know the truth.
Any attempt to obstruct an enquiry into the allegations made may
give an impression that there might be some truth in the allegations made.
From the records we gathe; that the allegations with which
we are concerned are being made in several places in this country with some persistency.
It is not unlikely that a section of
our people, rightly or wrongly, have persuaded themselves
to
believe in those allegations.
Such a situation should not be
allowed to remain.
The strength of a democratic society depends
on the knowledge of its ordinary citizens about the affairs of the
institutions created to safeguard their rights.
It is dangerous to
allow them to feed themselves with rumours.
It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the scrutiny of
ballot papers is a very serious thing; the secrecy of the ballot is
of utmost importance; except on very good grounds, inspection
of ballot papers should not be allowed and the petitioners have
failed to make out a case for inspection. It was further urged
that at the time of counting, the attention of the Returning Officer
was not invited to the strange features mentioned earlier nor was
the acceptance of any of those ballot papers objected to on the
ground that they were spurious ballot papers.
According to the election petitioners, they did
invite the
attention of the Assistant Returning Officer to the various features mentioned by them.
It is not necessary for us to go into
that controversy at this stage.
Assuming that the persons concerned did not inform the Assistant Returning Officer of what
they had observed, it does not estop the Election petitioners from
taking the pleas in question in the election petitions though undoubtedly it is a circumstance to be considered on the question
of the value to be attached to the allegations made regarding the
observations said to have been made at the time of the counting.
Assuming that the conclusion reached by the election petitioners
was the result· of not merely observing certain facts at the time of
the counting but on the basis of various circumstances, some of
182
SUPREMR COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
which came to their notiee before the election, some at the time
of the counting and some after the counting, that by itself is not
sufficient. to brush aside the allegations.
It is true that merely because someone makes bold and comes
out with a desperate allegation, that by itself should not be a
ground to attach value to the allegation made.
But at the same
time serious allegations cannot be dismissed summarily merely
because they do not look probable. Prudence requires a ·cautious approach in these matters. In all these matters, the court's
aini should ·be to render complete justice between the parties.
Further, if the allegations made raise issues of public importance.
greater care and circumspection is necessary.
These cases have peculiar features of their own.
No such
case had come up for decision earlier.
Hence decided cases can
give little assistance to us.
In a matter like allowing inspection
of ballot papers, no rigid rules have been laid down, nor can be
laid down.
Much depends on the facts of each case. The primary aim of the courts is to render complete justice between the
parties. Subject to that overriding consideration, courts
have
laid down the circumstances that should weigh in granting or
refusing inspection.
Having said that much let us now examine
the cases read to us on behalf of the appellants.
In Ram Sewak Y adav v. Hussain K.amil Kidwai and ors. (1),
one of the defeated candidates challenged the election of the
appellant, the returned candidate, inter alia, on the ground that
there had been improper reception of invalid votes and rejection
of valid notes at the time of counting and that on a true count he
would have received a majority of valid votes.
Hence he claimed that he was entitled to be declared duly elected.
He claimed
that by inspection of the ballot papers, he will be able to establish his case.
He averred that on the aforesaid allegations, the
Tribunal was bound to grant an order for inspection, because he
had tendered the sealed boxes of ballot papers in evidence, and
on that account all the ballot papers were part of the record.
The Tribunal in its order stated that nothing was brought to its
notice which would justify granting an order for inspection. It
further observed "if in future from the facts that may be brought
to the notice of the Tribunal, it appears that in tho interests of
justice inspection should be allowed, necessary orders allowing
an inspection could always. be passed".
Thereupon another
application was submitted by the election petitioner asking for
inspection but no additional materials were placed before the
Tribunal and no oral evidence was led at the trial.
The Tribunal
rejected the application for inspection. On appeal the High Court
(I) (1964] 6 S.C. R. 238.
A
B
c
D
E
G
H
SASHI BHUSHAN v. BALRAJ MADHOK (Hegde, I.)
183
A held that ballot papers had actually been called for from the
Returning Officer and were before the Tribunal and there was
nothing in the Code of Civil Procedure which prevented the
Tribunal from allowing inspection of the ballot papers in the
custody of the Court. In the opinion of the High Court the
Tribunal rejected the application for inspection without any adeB quate reasons.
On a further appeal, the question for determination before this Court was whether the election Tribunal erred
in declining to grant an order for inspection of the ballot papers
which had been, pursuant to an order in that behalf, lodged
before the Tribunal in sealed boxes by the Returning Officer.
This Court ruled that by the mere production of the sealed boxes,
c the ballot papers did not become part of the record and they were
not liable to be inspected unless the Tribunal was satisfied that
such inspection was in the circumstances of the case necessary in
the interests of justice.
The ratio of that decision is that the
inspection of ballot papers should be allowed only when the court
thinks that it is necessary in the interests of justice to do so.
In
0
that case this Court did not lay down any hard and fast rule as
to when an inspection of the ballot papers can be allowed.
E
F
G
H
The noxt case relied on is the decision of this Court in Dr.
/agjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh( 1). Thereiin the question of
inspection of ballot papers was dealt with in paragraph 31 of the
judgment.
This is what the Court observed :
"The true legal position in this matter is no longer
in doubt.
Section 92 · of the Act which defines the
powers of the Tribunal, in terms, confers on it,
b,Y
cl. (a), the powers which are vested in a Court under
the Code of Civil Procedure when trying a suit, inter
alia, in respect of discovery and inspection.
Therefore, in a· proper case, the Tribunal can order the inspection of the ballot boxes and may proceed to examine
the objections raised by the parties in relation to the
improper acceptance or rejection of the voting papers.
But in exercising this power the Tribunal has to bear
in mind certain important. considerations.
Section
88(1)(a) of the Act requires that an election petition
shall contain a concise statement of the material facts
on which the petitioner relies, and in very case, where
a prayer is made by a petitioner for the inspection of
the ballot boxes, the Tribunal must enquire whether
the application made by the petitioner in that behalf
contains a concise statement of the material facts on
which he relies.
Vague or general allegations that valid
votes were improperly rejected, or invalid votes were
(I) A.l.R. 1966 S.C. 775.
184
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1972] 2 S.C.R.
improperly accepted would not serve the purpose which
s. 88(l)(a) has in mind.
An application made for the
inspection of ballot boxes must give material facts
which would enable the Tribunal to consider whether in
the interests of justice, the ballot boxes should be
inspected or not.
In dealing with this question,
the
importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot
be ignored, and it is always to be borne in mind that the
statutory rules framed under the Act are intended to
provide adequate safeguard for the examination of the
validity or invalidity of votes and for thdr proper
counting.
It may be that in some cases, thl ends of
justice would make it necessary for the Tribunal to
allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and consider
his objections about the improper acceptance or im·
proper rejection of votes tendered by voters at any given
election but in considering the requirements of justice,
care must be taken to see that election petitioners do
not get a chance to make a roving or fishing enquiry in
the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim that the
returned candidate's. election is void.
We do not propose to lay down any hard and fast rule in this matter :
indeed, to attempt to lay down such a rule would be
inexpedient and unreasonable."
A.
B
c
D
The above observations succintly bring out the circumstances
E
under which an inspection can be Oi'dered.
The overriding test
laid down there is the interests of justice.
Facts naturalJy differ
from case to case.
Therefore it is dangerous to lay down any
rigid test in the matter of ordering an inspection. It is no doubt
true that a judge while deciding the question of inspection of the
ballot papers must bear in mind the impvrtance of the secrecy of
F
the ballot papers.
The allegations in support of a prayer for
inspection must not be vague or indefinite; they must be support·
ed by material facts and prayer made must be a bona fide one.
If these conditions are satisfied, the court will be justified in per·
mitting inspection of ballot papers.
Secrecy of ballot is important, but doing justice is undoubtedly more important and it
G
would be more so, if what is in stake is tne interests of the society.
The last decision relied on by the appellant is Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari and ors. ( 1). To this decision one
of us was a party.
There an elector (1st respondent in that
appeal) challenged the election of the appellant to the Lok Sabha.
He alleged, inter alia, in the election petition that there were
improper rejection and improper reception of votes.
In the
(1) [1970] I. S.C.R. 852.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SASH! BHUSHAN \'. BALRAJ MADHOK (Hegde, J.)
185
Schedule to the petition, he gave some figures of votes improperly
reJ<X!ed as well as accepted.
In the verification to the election
petition, he stated that the concerned allegations were made on
the bsis of information received from his workers and counting
agrnts.
It wa~, however, not stated who those persons were and
what was the basis of their information.
No written objection
w;io filed during the counting either to the acceptance or to the
rejection of any vote.
Nor was any application made for recvunting.
Before the trial of the election petition, the election
petitioners filed an application to inspect the ballot papers. In
the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the election petitioner
claimed to have been present on one of the days when counting
went on and thus came to know-about the improper acceptance
anti rejection of ballot papers.
This was not a claim put forward
in the election petition.
The High Court allowed the inspection
and permitted the scrutiny solely on the basis of the allegations
in the election petition and the affidavit filed by the petitioner.
Tb;s Court reversing the decision held that on the facts established,
the High Court was not justified in allowing the inspection of the
ballet papers.
This Court came to the conclusion that relevant
allegations were vague and indefinite; they were not supported by
material facts and there was no basis for coming to the conclusien that inspection of the ballot papers was necessary for doing
ju' I ice between the parties.
At the hearing of the appeals we enquired with the Counsel
fo1 the appellants whether the allegation regarding the chemical
treatment of the ballot papers can be proved in any other manner
than by inspecting the ballot papers.
We got no
satisfactory
reply to our querry.
In the very nature of things the allegations
in question can be proved or disproved only by inspecting the
ballet papers.
The next question is whether it is necessary to inspect all the
ballot papers as has ~een ordered by the trial judge.
We think
tha.t .a general mspect10n should not be permitted, until there is
sat "l actory proof ~n support. of those allegations.
For finding
out \~beth.er there 1s any basts for those allegations, it would be
sufficient if some ballot paper~, say about 600 out' of those polled
by each of the returned candidates are selected from different
bundles, or tins in such a way as to get a true picture.
He may
abc select about 200 ballot papers cast in favour of the election
petit;oners for compar~son. All the selected ballot papers at the
fast mstance be examined by the learned judge with the
assistance of .the Counsel for the parties as well as the parties. If the
learned iudge comes to the conclusion that the matter should be
further prob~d into, he may take evidence on the points ,in issue
mcludmg evidence of expert witnesses.
Thereafter it is open to
I l- -L 256 S•Jp Cl/72
186
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1~72] 2 S.C.R.
him to direct or not to direct a general inspection of the ballot
papers.
But in doing so he will take care to maintain the secrecy
ot the ballot.
Subject to the directions given above, these appeals are dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make. no order as
to costs in these appeals.
V.P.S.
Appeals dismi.«ed.
A
B