Election petition evidence access limited where Form 17A sought without pleaded facts or prima facie case

An interlocutory direction to produce Form 17A registers from 38 polling stations was held unsustainable because the election petition pleaded booth capturing only, not double voting or impersonation, and no prima facie case or framed issue supported the request. The Court noted that allegations of improper reception of votes require material facts, including particulars of who impersonated whom and how the result was affected. Rule 93(1)(dd) permits inspection of Form 17A only sparingly, under a competent court's order, when clear necessity is shown. A second request after evidence had begun, apparently to gather evidence and improve the case, was rejected to protect electoral secrecy.

---

---

Issues: Whether the interlocutory order directing production of Form 17A registers from 38 polling stations could be sustained in an election petition where the pleadings did not specifically allege double voting or impersonation and the material on record did not establish a prima facie case.

Analysis: The pleadings in the election petition were confined to booth capturing, which is a distinct corrupt practice under Section 123(8) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and a ground under Section 100(1)(d) of that Act. Allegations of double voting or impersonation, which fall within improper reception of votes under Section 100(1)(d)(iii), were not pleaded with material facts and no issue had been framed on that basis. The earlier request for the same records had already been refused, and the second request was made after evidence had begun, without particulars identifying who had impersonated whom or how the alleged double voting materially affected the result. Rule 93(1)(dd) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 permits inspection of Form 17A only under the order of a competent court and only sparingly, when a clear case and necessity are shown. The material on record disclosed, at best, a speculative attempt to gather evidence for improving the case, which would compromise the secrecy of the electoral process.

Conclusion: The order directing production of the Form 17A records was unsustainable, and the appellant succeeded.

---