Election law limits on ballot validity and writ review: mandatory rejection rules and supervisory jurisdiction under challenge.

Article 226/227 supervisory jurisdiction remains available to test an election tribunal's final decision even after the tribunal has become functus officio, because certiorari operates on the record and decision rather than on the tribunal's continuing existence. Ballot papers bearing an incorrect distinguishing mark fall within the mandatory rejection rule and cannot be validated by post-poll approval or by general reliance on voter intention. For challenge under Section 100(2)(c), the result must be assessed on valid votes and the statutory requirement of material effect; votes liable to rejection cannot be counted to sustain the election.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 against an election tribunal decision notwithstanding Article 329(b) and the tribunal becoming functus officio; (ii) whether ballot papers bearing an incorrect distinguishing mark were liable to rejection under Rule 47(1)(c) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1951; and (iii) whether the election could be sustained under Section 100(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the basis of voter intention or alleged material absence of prejudice.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could entertain a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 against an election tribunal decision notwithstanding Article 329(b) and the tribunal becoming functus officio.

Analysis: Article 329(b) bars original proceedings that call in question an election, but it does not exclude the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over a tribunal's adjudication after an election petition has been presented and decided in the statutory manner. A writ of certiorari to quash operates on the decision and record, not on the continuing existence of the tribunal, and the High Court may direct the record to be produced by the officer having custody of it. Election tribunals are also subject to superintendence under Article 227.

Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable, and the High Court had jurisdiction to interfere.

Issue (ii): Whether ballot papers bearing an incorrect distinguishing mark were liable to rejection under Rule 47(1)(c) of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1951.

Analysis: Rule 47(1) uses mandatory language for classes of ballot papers that must be rejected, and the structure of the rule shows that a ballot paper falling within clause (c) cannot be treated as valid on a discretionary basis. The Election Commission's post-poll approval could not alter the prescribed distinguishing mark for the election as a whole or validate ballot papers that had not been issued in conformity with Rule 28. The defect was not cured by subsequent approval.

Conclusion: The 301 ballot papers bearing the wrong mark were bound to be rejected and could not be counted as valid votes.

Issue (iii): Whether the election could be sustained under Section 100(2)(c) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on the basis of voter intention or alleged material absence of prejudice.

Analysis: Section 100(2)(c) requires proof both of an improper reception or refusal of votes and that the result was materially affected; the condition is tested on the basis of valid votes, not by counting votes that the statute requires to be rejected. Where the returned candidate invokes recrimination, the opposing party may show that the petitioner could not be declared elected because his own election would have been liable to be set aside on the pleaded breach. The tribunal erred in treating votes liable to rejection as available to support the returned candidate's election.

Conclusion: The election could not be upheld under Section 100(2)(c), and the appellant was entitled to relief.

Final Conclusion: The impugned decisions were set aside, the election was annulled, and a fresh election was directed to follow in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of certiorari may issue to quash an election tribunal's final decision even after the tribunal has become functus officio, and votes cast in breach of a mandatory election rule cannot be validated or counted by resort to general notions of voter intention.

---