# SUMITRA DEVI v. SHRI SHEO SHANKER PRASAD YADAV & ORS

- **Citation:** [1973] 2 S.C.R. 920
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-11-09
- **Case number:** Election Law Reports, 288. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1015 of 1972
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sumitra-devi-v-shri-sheo-shanker-prasad-yadav-ors-5921
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

920
SUMITRA DEVI
v.
SHRI SHEO SHANKER PRASAD YADAV & ORS.
November 9, 1972
[A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K.
MU!CHERJEA,
JJ.J
Election Petition-Appeal-This Court will not interfere with finding
o; fact by High Court unless there Is grave or pulpable error-Principles
for allowing inspection of ballot papers.
The appellant challenges! the election of
Respondent No. 1 to the
Parliament at the 1971 General Election oo the ground that there
were irregularities in the counting of votes.
She asked
for inspection
of the ballot papers.
The High Court disallowed the appltcation for
inspection and dismissed the election petition.
Jn appeal under s. 116-A
oi the Representation of the People Act 1951, the appellant submitted
(i) that the evidence of the witnesses examined by her proved the several
illegalities committed in the counting of the ballot papers and (ii) that,
in any event, the appellant's application for inspection should have been
allowed.
HELD : (i) The High Court had taken into consideration all
the
material circumstances and had appreciated the evidenc,e from the correct
perspective.
It has been the consistent practice of this Court not to
mteriere with findings on questions of fact unless there is some grave or
palpable error in the appreciation of the evidence on the basis of which
the findings were arrived at. [922 E]
Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and Others, A.LR. 1966 S.C.
773. referred to.
(ii) The High Court was justified in rejecting the application for
inspection.
The allegations in the election petition w"re vague and the
petition did not contain an adequate statement of the matrial facts.
The
evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the nllegations was found
unreliable.
No definite particulars were also given
in
the application
for inspection as to the illegalities
alleged to have been committed in
the counting of the ballot papers.
A recount will not be granted as a
matter of right but only on the basis of evidence of good grounds for
believing that there has been a mistake· in the counting. It has to be
decided in each case whether a prima facie ground has been made out for
ordering an inspection. [923 HJ
Ram Sewak Yadav v. Bussrun Kami/ Kidwai and Others, [1964) 6 S.C.R.
238, 244, Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giant Kartar Sing~ and Others, A.LR. [19661
S.C. 773, 783 and Jllendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Bebari and Othtrs ..
[1970] 1 S.C.R. 8S2, applied.
Bhim Stn v. Gosa/I, [1960) 22 Election Law Reports, 288.

## Text

920
SUMITRA DEVI
v.
SHRI SHEO SHANKER PRASAD YADAV & ORS.
November 9, 1972
[A. N. GROVER, K. K. MATHEW AND A. K.
MU!CHERJEA,
JJ.J
Election Petition-Appeal-This Court will not interfere with finding
o; fact by High Court unless there Is grave or pulpable error-Principles
for allowing inspection of ballot papers.
The appellant challenges! the election of
Respondent No. 1 to the
Parliament at the 1971 General Election oo the ground that there
were irregularities in the counting of votes.
She asked
for inspection
of the ballot papers.
The High Court disallowed the appltcation for
inspection and dismissed the election petition.
Jn appeal under s. 116-A
oi the Representation of the People Act 1951, the appellant submitted
(i) that the evidence of the witnesses examined by her proved the several
illegalities committed in the counting of the ballot papers and (ii) that,
in any event, the appellant's application for inspection should have been
allowed.
HELD : (i) The High Court had taken into consideration all
the
material circumstances and had appreciated the evidenc,e from the correct
perspective.
It has been the consistent practice of this Court not to
mteriere with findings on questions of fact unless there is some grave or
palpable error in the appreciation of the evidence on the basis of which
the findings were arrived at. [922 E]
Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and Others, A.LR. 1966 S.C.
773. referred to.
(ii) The High Court was justified in rejecting the application for
inspection.
The allegations in the election petition w"re vague and the
petition did not contain an adequate statement of the matrial facts.
The
evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the nllegations was found
unreliable.
No definite particulars were also given
in
the application
for inspection as to the illegalities
alleged to have been committed in
the counting of the ballot papers.
A recount will not be granted as a
matter of right but only on the basis of evidence of good grounds for
believing that there has been a mistake· in the counting. It has to be
decided in each case whether a prima facie ground has been made out for
ordering an inspection. [923 HJ
Ram Sewak Yadav v. Bussrun Kami/ Kidwai and Others, [1964) 6 S.C.R.
238, 244, Dr. Jagjit Singh v. Giant Kartar Sing~ and Others, A.LR. [19661
S.C. 773, 783 and Jllendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Bebari and Othtrs ..
[1970] 1 S.C.R. 8S2, applied.
Bhim Stn v. Gosa/I, [1960) 22 Election Law Reports, 288.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 1015 of 1972.
Appeal under s. 116-A of the R.P. Act 1951, from the judgtnent and order dated March 8, 1972 of the Patna High Court in
Election Petition No. 2 of 1971.
D. V. Patel and U. P. Singh for the appellant,
J. P. ·Goyal, S)!Qma Prasad Mukherjee and R. A. Gupta, for
respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MATHEW, J. This is an appeal under s. 116-A. of the Represen-·
fation of the People Act, 1951, from a judgment of the High
G
R
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUMITRA DEVI v. s. s. PRASAD (Mathew, J.)
921
Court of Patna, by which the High Court dismissed the petition
oi the appellant for setting aside the election of Respondent No. 1
as a Member of Parliament from
31-Khagaria Parliamentary
Constituency, in the election held in March, 1971, and to declare
the appellant as the duly elected member from
the
aforesaid
constituency.
According to the elec~ion programme, the nominations were to
be filed from January 27, 1971 to February 3, 1971; they were
to be scrutinized on February 4, 1971 ; poll; if necessary was to
be taken on March 5, 1971; the ballot papers were to be counted
on March 10, 1971 and the result of the election was to be dec·
lared on March 11, 1971. It was in pursuance to this programme
that the appella11t ·and Respondent No. I., along ·with 10 other
candidates, filed their nomination papers. Two of the candidates
subsequently withdrew and the contest was among the remaining
candidates. The poll was held on March 5, 1971. The counting
of the ballot papers took place on March
I 0,
1971. The respcndent No. 1 obtained 73,594 votes and the appellant, 73,046.
So, Respondent No. I was declared elected by the Returning
Officer.
The appellant challenged the election of respondent No. 1 in
her petition on the following allegations : There was no proper
lighting arrangement in the segments where the votes were counted
and there were frequent failures of electricity. Taking advantage
of this, the counting staff showed partiality to respondent No. 1
by counting the votes cast in favour of th~ other candidates for
respondent No. I. Several undesirable persons who had been
working for respondent No. 1 managed to enter the counting
compartments and created confusion. They also manoeuvred the
counting staff and thereby illegally managed to increase the number of votes in favour of' respondent No. I. Several ballot papers
which had clear seal on the symbol of the appellant were illegally
rejected. The counting staff took out several ballot papers of the
appellant and mixed them with doubtful ballot papers and, with·
out paying any heed to the objections raised. by the counting
ag.ent~ of the appell~nt. rejected them mechanically by putting the
re1~ct10n seal on their back: A large number of ballot papers
which should have been rejected were counted in favour of respondent No. I. Ballot papers having seal on more than one
symbol or seal on the shaded area or seal on the back or having
n? ;eal or h~ving no official seal on the symbol of respondent
No. I were illegally counted in favour of respondent No. I. A
~urge number of ballot papers bearing no signature of the Presiding Officer or identifying mark on the back were counted in
~avour of responde~t No. I merely because they had been placed
m the ballot boxes 11legally by those controlling the po'ling booths.
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] 2 S.C.R.
Sz•1era1 bundles having less than 50 ballot papers were counted
in favour of rc>pondent No. l as having 50 ballot papers. As a
result of the:ie irregularities in the counting of the ballot papers,
about 3,000 ballot papers which should have been rejected were
countd in favour of responJent No. 1 and 1,000 ballot papers
which should have been counted in favour of the appellant were
illegally rejected and this materially affected the result of the election.
To substantiate these allegations, the appellant examined as
many as 23 witnesses including herself.
After the evidence was
closed, the appellant had put in a petition for inspection of the
ballot papers. The High Court rejected the petition for the reason
that the appell:mt had not pleaded the material facts in the petition to set aside the election.
The High Court, after a careful consideration of the evidence
of the witnesses found, that the allegations in the election petitions were vague and that evidence addu~d to prove them was
unreliable, and so, dismissed the petition.
The appellant submitted before us that the evidence of the
witnesses examined by her would prove the several illegalities
alleged to have been committed in the counting of the ballot
paper.s and that. in any event, the appellant's application for inspection should have been allowed.
We are satistied that the High Court has taken into consideration all the material circumstances and has appreciated the evidence from the corract perspective.
It has been
the consistent
pr"ctice of this Court not to interfere with findings on questions of
fact unleis there is some grave or palpable error in the appreciation
of the evidence on the basis of which the findings
were arrived
at [see Dr. Japjit Singh v. Giani Kart01· Singh and Others(')].
We ,.!so think that there is no substance in the contention of
the appellant that the High Court was in error in rejecting her
application for inspection of the ballot papers. As already stated,
the High Court rejected the application for the
reason that the
allegations in the election petition were vague and that the petition
did not contain an adequate statement of the inaterial facts.
In
Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kami/ Kidwai and others('). ·this
Coui t said that ar order for inspection would not be granted as a
ri1~tter of course : that having rPgard to the insistence upon the
secrecy of the ballot papers, the Court would h~ justified in granting ~n order for inspection only where tl.e petition for setting
aside an election contains an adequate statement of the material
facts on which the petitioner relies in support of his case and it is
(1) A.l.R. 1966 S.C. 773.
(2)
[1964] 6 S.C.R. 238, 244.
A
B
c
D
E
F
I
G
H
•
.•
t •
'-:if'
,f
{'
~~-
.A
D
F
SUMITRA DEVI v. s. s. PRASAD (Mathew, J.)
92 3
necessary to decide the dispute and to do complete justice between
the parties. The Court also said that an order· for inspection of
ballot papers would not be granted to support vague pleas made
in the, petition not supported by material facts or t~ fish out evidence to support such plea>. The Court emphasized that mere
allegations that the petitioner suspects or believes that there has
been an improper reception, refusal or rejection of votes will not
be sufficient to support an order for inspection.
In Dr. Jagjit
Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh and Others(') this Court again said
that an election petition should contain a concise statement of the
material facts on which the petitioner relies, that vague or general
allegations that valid votes were improperly rejected or invalid
votes were improperly accepted, would not serve the purpose and
that 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. The Court further said that in dealing with this
question, the importance of the secrecy of the ballot papers cannot be ignored and that, it has 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
vote> and for their proper counting. The Court emphasized that
in some· cases, the ends of justiee would make it necessary for the
tribunal or Court to allow a party to inspect the ballot boxes and
consider his objection about the improper acceptance or improper
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 into the ballot boxes so as to justify their claim
that the returned candidate's election is void .
. In Jitendra Bahadur Singh v. Krishna Behari and Others('),
this Court observed that in view of the importance of maintaining
the secrecy of the ballot papers, scrutiny can only be ordered if
the election-petition contains an adequate statement of the materi.al facts on which the petitioner relies~ that is, the material facts
disclosed. mus~ afford an adequate basis for the allegations; and,
the election tnbunal must be prima facie satisfied that in order to
~ecide .the dispute and to do complete justice between the parties,
mspec!ion of the ballot papers is necessary.
In the case at ban~'. the ~llegations in the election petition
were vague and the petition did not contain an adequate statement
of the material f~cts. The evidence adduced by the appellant to
prove the allegatI~ns "".as found unreliable. No definite parti-
~ulars. ~ere also given m the application for inspectior as to the
1lleg? httes alleged to have been committed in the counting of the
fl) A.I.R. [1966] S.C. 773, 783.
(2) [1970] l S.C.R. 852.
924
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 2 S.C.R.
ballot papers. A recount will not be granted as a matter of right
but only on the basis of evidence of good grounds for believing
that there has been a mistake in the counting. It has to be decided
·in each case whether a prima facie ground has been made out for
ordering an inspection.
Counsel for the appellant relied on Bhim Sen v. Gomali(')
and contended that an inspection of the ballot papers should be
granted even if no prima facie case has been made out by the allegations in the election petition. That case was considered by this
Court in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kamil Kidwai and ors.( 2 )
and the Court was of the view that unless an election petition contains an adequate statement of the material facts, an election tribunal would not be justified in ordering an inspection of the ballot
papers. As the appellant did not make out a case for inspection,
the High Court was justified in dismissing the application. In
these circumstances, we do not think that there is any substance in
the prayer of the appellant for a recount of the votes.
We dismiss the appeal with costs.
G.C.
(I) [19601 22 Election Law Reports, 288.
(2) [1964] 6 S.C.R. 238, 244.
Appeal dismissed.
A
Bt
'"'~ "' "
·~
c:
,...:·:
]) "