TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>SC Rules HC Misinterpreted Election Laws; Appellant Rightfully Elected as Adhyaksha with Most First Preference Votes.</h1> <h3>Lalit Mohan Pandey Versus Pooran Singh & Ors.</h3> Lalit Mohan Pandey Versus Pooran Singh & Ors. - 2004 AIR 2303, 2004 (1) Suppl. SCR 737, 2004 (6) SCC 626, 2004 (1) Suppl. JT 228, 2004 (5) SCALE 267 Issues Involved:1. Application of the 'Hare System' in Municipal Election.2. Electoral Procedure and Provisions.3. Constitutional and Legislative Scheme.4. Hare and Clark Principle.5. Interpretation of the Rules.6. Maintainability of the Election Petition.Summary:1. Application of the 'Hare System' in Municipal Election:The primary issue in this appeal was the application of the 'Hare System' in the election for the post of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat Champawat, Uttaranchal, where the Returning Officer declared the office vacant due to equal votes received by both contesting candidates.2. Electoral Procedure and Provisions:The election was governed by Section 237 of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961, and the Uttar Pradesh Zila Panchayats (Election of Adhyaksha and Up-Adhyaksha and Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994. Rule 33 allowed for an election petition to be presented within 30 days, and Rule 34 required the petition to specify the grounds. Rule 35 enabled the petitioner to claim that the election of the returned candidate is void and that another candidate has been duly elected.3. Constitutional and Legislative Scheme:The 73rd Amendment Act, 1992, aimed to provide democracy at the grass-root level. Article 243C of the Constitution allows the Legislature of a State to provide for the representation of Chairpersons of Panchayats at various levels. The provisions must be interpreted to establish democracy at the grass-root level, aligning with the constitutional scheme.4. Hare and Clark Principle:The Hare system, developed in Denmark and Britain, ensures proportional representation. It involves ranking candidates by preference, with a quota established as the minimum number of votes required for election. Surplus votes are transferred to other candidates based on subsequent preferences. This system, though complex, ensures maximum use of votes and representation of every shade of the electorate's opinion.5. Interpretation of the Rules:The Court emphasized purposive construction to give effect to the legislative intent. The rules should be interpreted to ensure the election of one of the candidates, avoiding manifest absurdity. The principle of literal interpretation should not be applied strictly, especially when it leads to unreasonable results or deadlocks. The Court noted that the Hare system should be applied flexibly, considering the context and the objective of the election.6. Maintainability of the Election Petition:Despite initial doubts, the election petition was deemed maintainable. The provisions of Rules 33 and 34 were interpreted to ensure that a candidate could question the Returning Officer's decision if not declared elected. The principle of 'ubi jus ibi remedium' was applied, affirming the right to seek a declaration of election results through the election tribunal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the statutory provisions. The appellant, having received the highest number of first preference votes, should have been declared elected. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was declared elected.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
