Wrong inclusion in electoral rolls is not, by itself, a ground to void an election under the election law.

Inclusion of names in the electoral roll of persons allegedly not qualified for enrolment does not, by itself, furnish a ground to void an election under the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The statutory scheme distinguishes between electoral roll correction under the 1950 Act and the right to vote under Section 62 of the 1951 Act; a person on the roll may vote unless disqualified under Section 62(2) to (5). Once finalised for the election, the roll cannot be collaterally challenged in an election petition merely because some entries were allegedly wrong. Such grievances must be pursued through the electoral roll machinery, and the election petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether inclusion in the electoral roll of persons said to be not qualified for enrolment, by itself, can furnish a ground to void the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: The constitutional scheme under Articles 326 and 327 permits legislation governing voter qualifications, disqualifications, and electoral rolls. Under the statutory framework, the Representation of the People Act, 1950 regulates preparation and correction of electoral rolls, while Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 governs the right to vote. The distinction drawn by the Court is between a person who is disqualified from voting, and a person who may have been wrongly enrolled though not qualified for enrolment. A person whose name remains on the electoral roll is entitled to vote unless disqualified under Section 62(2) to (5) of the 1951 Act. The electoral roll, once finalised for the election process, cannot be collaterally impeached in an election petition merely because some names ought not to have been included. The Court relied on earlier decisions holding that wrong inclusion of ineligible persons in the roll does not amount to a ground for avoiding the election, and that such grievances must be pursued through the statutory machinery for electoral rolls, not through an election petition challenging the returned candidate's election.

Conclusion: Inclusion of persons in the electoral roll though they were not qualified to be enrolled is not a ground for setting aside the election under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) or Section 100(1)(d)(iv) of the 1951 Act; the election petition was rightly dismissed.

---