Fraudulent consent orders and final voters' lists in elections cannot be displaced by later illegal recalculation.

A consent order in writ proceedings secured by collusion and fraud, and used to defeat the statutory election scheme, was treated as a nullity and liable to correction by the Court rather than as a valid basis for conducting the election. The Court also held that a voters' list validly finalised and published before postponement of the election continued to govern that election; a fresh provisional list based on a later date could not be insisted upon where the earlier list had already been prepared in accordance with the applicable rule and remained unchallenged. The later list was therefore illegal, and the election process conducted on that basis was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a consent order obtained in writ proceedings by collusion and fraud, and contrary to the statutory election rules, could be treated as valid for conducting the election. (ii) Whether the voters' list finalised and published before postponement of the election remained the valid list for the election, or whether a fresh provisional list as on a later date could be insisted upon.

Issue (i): Whether a consent order obtained in writ proceedings by collusion and fraud, and contrary to the statutory election rules, could be treated as valid for conducting the election.

Analysis: The governing principle is that an order obtained by abuse of process or by fraud is a nullity in substance and cannot be allowed to stand. A judicial order made on a collusive and unreal basis, though passed in proceedings under Article 226, does not acquire legitimacy merely because it was made by consent. Where the facts show that the order was secured to defeat the statutory election scheme and to exclude affected persons from contesting it, the proper course is for the Court to correct the order rather than permit it to operate as a foundation for further illegality.

Conclusion: The collusive consent order could not be treated as valid, and it was liable to be corrected.

Issue (ii): Whether the voters' list finalised and published before postponement of the election remained the valid list for the election, or whether a fresh provisional list as on a later date could be insisted upon.

Analysis: Under Rule 4(1), the provisional voters' list has to be prepared with reference to the year in which the general election is due, and only members eligible as on 30 June of the immediately preceding year are to be included. Once the final list had been prepared and published before the postponement order, and no challenge had been raised to that list, the later postponement of the election did not authorise a fresh recalculation of membership for the purpose of the same election. The proviso to Rule 4(1) did not apply because the list had already been finalised in accordance with law before the postponement.

Conclusion: The final voters' list published on 17 December 1991 remained the valid list, and the later list as on 30 June 1992 was illegal.

Final Conclusion: The election process and the election held on the later voters' list were set aside, the High Court's order was modified accordingly, and the matter was directed to proceed afresh in accordance with the valid final voters' list and the election rules.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ order obtained by collusion or fraud, and used to defeat a statutory election scheme, can be corrected by the Court itself, and a final voters' list validly published before postponement of an election continues to govern that election unless lawfully displaced under the applicable rule.

---