1990 (7) TMI 365 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision on Electoral Roll Update Deadline

DB. RAJU Versus HJ. KANTHARAJ AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, ruling that the electoral roll was not updated with the inclusion of nominated members before the ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the inclusion of the names of 242 nominated members in the electoral roll.2. Timing of the inclusion of the names in the electoral roll.3. Compliance with the legal requirements for the publication of the electoral roll.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the inclusion of the names of 242 nominated members in the electoral roll:The main question in the case is whether the names of the 242 nominated members were included in the electoral roll within the time permitted by law. According to the appellant, a resolution was passed by the Zilla Parishad on 28.5.1988 nominating the 242 members, and the list was sent to the Deputy Commissioner on 30.5.1988. The Deputy Commissioner was required to publish the names to complete the nomination process and include them in the electoral roll. However, the election petitioner and some respondents contested this, arguing that the inclusion took place after the nomination period was over, making it legally invalid.2. Timing of the inclusion of the names in the electoral roll:The Deputy Commissioner, who had multiple roles including Electoral Registration Officer and Returning Officer, received the list of nominated members on 30.5.1988. The Deputy Commissioner published the list on the notice board of his office on 1.6.1988. However, the process of nomination was not complete until the names were affixed on the notice boards of the offices of the Tahsildars, Mandal Panchayats, and Chavadis. The High Court found that the names were not included in the electoral roll by 3.00 p.m. on 3.6.1988.3. Compliance with the legal requirements for the publication of the electoral roll:The appellant argued that the publication of the names of more than 2/3rd of the nominated persons was sufficient for the Deputy Commissioner to proceed with revising the electoral roll. However, the Deputy Commissioner received reports from only 5 Taluk Offices on 1.6.1988 and from 2 Taluks on 2.6.1988. There was no evidence of publication in the Mandal Panchayat offices and Chavadis. The Deputy Commissioner believed he had until the end of 3.6.1988 to revise the electoral roll, but the High Court found that the roll was only updated at 8.55 p.m. on 3.6.1988, well past the deadline.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the electoral roll was not modified by the inclusion of the nominated members before 8.55 p.m. on 3.6.1988. The appeal was dismissed with costs, emphasizing that the electoral roll must be made public and available to interested parties before the expiry of the nomination period.