Holding

The Supreme Court held that without specific pleadings and material particulars, the High Court cannot order production of ballot papers and related documents; consequently, the order to summon items (a)‑(c) and (e) was set aside.

Summary

Basanagouda was elected to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and was challenged by Dr. S. B. Amarkhed, the nearest unsuccessful candidate, who alleged booth‑capturing and rigging of votes. The High Court, relying on Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVI Rule 6 of the CPC, ordered the production of various election documents, including unused and used ballot papers, counter‑foils, the marked electoral roll and declarations. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the petition did not plead the corrupt‑practice allegations with the required material particulars, and therefore the High Court could not summon the ballot‑paper documents whose opening would breach the secrecy mandated by Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules. The Court set aside the High Court’s order to produce items (a)‑(c) and (e) of the application, while leaving the remaining items untouched. The appeal was partly allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court may order production of ballot papers and related documents when the election petition lacks specific pleadings with material particulars of alleged booth‑capturing.
Whether the discretion under Order XI Rule 14 CPC and Rule 93(1) of the Conduct of Election Rules permits opening of ballot papers in the absence of an iron‑clad case.
Whether allegations of booth‑capturing constitute a corrupt practice under Sec. 100(1)(b) and Sec. 135A of the Representation of the People Act and thus require precise pleading.
Whether the order of the High Court is interlocutory and appealable.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order XI Rule 14, s. Order XVI Rule 6
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961s. Rule 93(1)
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(b), s. 100(1)(d), s. 135A, s. 87

Subjects

election petitionbooth capturingcorrupt practicedocument productionsecrecy of ballot papersRepresentation of the People ActConduct of Election RulesCPC Order XI Rule 14electoral law

Judgment

BASANAGOUDA A
v.
DR. S. B. AMARKHED AND ORS.

MARCH 31, 1992

[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.1 B

. Election:

- 1961:
Representation of the People Act, 1951/Conduct of Election Rules,

Sections 87, JOO(J)(b) & (d), 135A/Rule 93:
c

Corrupt practice-Booth capturing-Allegations must be specifically
pleaded with material particulars-Production of documents sought-Coun's
discretion to examine expediency, justness and relevancy of documents in the D
light of clear pleadings-Need for maintaining secrecy of ballot~Suggestion
to Rule making auihority-To have fresh look into the mandatory language
of Rule 93(1) bringing it in conformity with section 135A.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
E
Order 11 Rule 14, Order 16 Rule 6:

Production of documents-Election matter~Reievant considerations

- for ordering production-What are.

The appellant was declared elected as a member of the State Assemb- F
ly. The Respondent, who was the nearest unsuccessful candidate filed an
Election Petition before the High Court, challenging the election of the
appellant. One of the grounds alleged was that the appellant had indulged
in booth capturing and rigging of booths in certain polling booths, with
the connivance of police officials and election agents of the appellant. It
was also alleged that the appellant and his supporters prevented the voters G
from exercising their franchise by threatening them; that the ballot papers
were seized from the officials and were marked in favour of the appellant;
and that the appellant's supporters forged the signatures/thumb impres-
sions on the counter foil of ballot papers. The High Court framed 4 issues,
the main among them being the alleged capturing and rigging of polling H
397
398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.
A
A booths.
The respondent also filed an application under Order XI Rule 14
read with Order XVI Rule 6 CPC seeking production of certain d<><:uments
by the District Election Officer. The High Court allowed the petition and
summoned the documents. Accordingly, the documents were produced by
B the Returning Officer.

The present appeal is against the said order of the High Court.

c
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the respondent
laid no factual foundation in the election petition with material particulars
of the alleged capturing of the booths and rigging; that there were no
pleadings at all and no case has been made out for opening the ballot boxes
~ -
and examining the used ballots; and that the High Court di~ not ap- ~--
predate the legal implication arising from its order.

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that it would be
D impossible for a candidate to plead allegations with precision particularly
when his election agents and the officials including the Police connived
with the other candidate; that unless the election material is summoned
and perused it would be difficult to substantiate such plea; and that the
order challenged being an interlocutory one it could be assailed in the
E regular appeal, after the Election retition was decided.
~
Partly allowing the appeal, this Court,

F
HELD: 1. The High Court was wrong in holding that though no
factual foundatio~ has been laid in the election petition, but since there
were allegations of booth-capturing and rigging in various paragraphs of
-
the petition it was necessary to summon and examine the documents asked
for by the respondent. The examination of marked ballot papers and other
used ballot papers can in no way substantiate the allegations of booth-cap· 1
turing. Neither the names of persons nor any other details were given in
G the election petition. Only bare allegations were made that votes of dead
persons and those who had left the constituency had been cast. In the
circumstances the High Court grossly erred in permitting the summoning
of items (a) to (c) and (e) of para I of the applkation. As regards the other
items, there is no need to interfere with the High Court's order. [407B-D] -1
H 2. The power to order production of documents is coupled with discre-
BASANAGOUDA~DR.AMARKHED 399

tion to examine the expediency,justness and the relevancy of the documents A
to the matter in question. These are relevant considerations which the
Court shall have to advert to and weigh before deciding to summon the
documents in possession ~f the party to the election petition. At the same
time the election petition proceedings being of quasi-criminal nature the
allegations in the petition must be pleaded clearly and with full particulars;
..( especially the grounds of cormpt practices cannot be permitted to be tried
B
on the basis of deficient pleadings or by filing applications for production of
record to fish out grounds as material which is not part of the pleadings. In
any case secrecy of the ballot boxes cannot be tinkered unless an iron-cast
case is made out in the election petition. [403F-H]
c
3. Booth-capturing wholly negates the elections process and subverts
--,.. the democratic set up which is the basic feature of our Constitution.
Booth-capturing has now been made an offence under section 135A of the
Representation of the People Act. The allegation of booth-capturing and
rigging, if proved, is a corrupt practice under section lOO(l)(b) and
materially affects the result of the election under clause (1) (d) and also D
is a disqualification. Ther-efore, the allegation must be specifically pleade~
giving material particulars. [4058-D]

4.1. The Court while exercising its power under Order XI Rule 14
and Order X\1 Rule 6 CPC would aiso have to keep in view the rigour of E
sub-rule (1.) of Rule 93 of the Conduct of the Election Rules, 1961, 1·elating
to production and inspection of election papers. [405D-El

- 4.2. In order to maintain the 'secrecy of ballot papers, unless ade-
quate material facts are on record which alone would afford adequate basis
to exercise the discretion by the court, the packets or the used ballot papet·s F
with counter foils attached thereto or the packets of used. ballot papers
whether valid, tendered or rejected cannot be opened. Equally the packets
or declarations by electors and the authorisation of their signatures shall
not be opened unless ordered by the court in that behalf. The court shall
not permit a roving enquiry to enable the defeated candidates/election G
petitioner to have access thereto to fish out the grounds. The High Court,
would therefore, be circumspected to order summoning the records
... covered under Rule 93(1). [406F-H]

Hori Ram v. Hira Singh & Ors., [1984] 1 SCR 932 and Ram Sewak
Yadav v. Hussain Kapil Kidwal & Ors., [1964] 6 SCR ~38, relied on. H
400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A 5. To effectuate the objects of section 13SA of the Representation of
the People Act it may be open to the rule making authority to have fresh
!ook into the mandatory language of Rule 93(1), so as to bring it in
conformity with section BSA of the Act. [407A]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1210 of
B 1992..

From the Judgment and Or~er dated 25.11.1991 of Karnataka High
Court in E.P. No. 11 of 1990.

Ms. Parmila M. Nesargi and R.C. Misra for the Appellant.
c
K. Madhava Reddy, B.Rajeshwar Rao, D. Prakash Reddy, Vimal
Dave and M. Veerappa for the Respondents. --(

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

D K. RAMASWAMY, J. Special Leave granted.

The appellant was declared on November 27, 1989 to have been
elected as a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 23
Manavi Assembly Constituency from Raichur Dist. The respondent is the
nearest unsuccessful candidate who called it in question in Election Peti-
E tion No. 11 of 1990 in the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore. He
sought to declare that the election of the appellant as void under section
lOO(l)(a)(b) and (d) of the Representation of the People Act 43 of 1951
for short 'the Act'. One of the grounds alleged is corrupt practices stated
in paragraphs IV(6) to (12) that the appellant had( indulged in booth
F capturing and rigging of booths in Polling Booth Nos. 5, 6, 7, 68, 73, 74, 88,
-
91 to 96, 100, 102 & 103, most of which arc said to be situated in Bagalwad
Manda! Panchayat to which the appellant was the erstwhile Pradhan .
.According to the pleading, the Modus operandi adopted was that the
appellant and his supporters "threatened the officials with full connivance
G of the police officials and that of the election agents of the petitioner,
captured the booth ... ; Respondent No. 1 (appellant) and his supporters
have prevented the voters from exercising the franchise and sent lhcm away
threatening them, thereafter seized the ballot papers from the officials and
thus put the X-mark seal against the symbol of bicycle (election symbol of
the appellant). They put them in th~ ballot boxes by using so respondent
H No. 1 (appellant) an_cJ his supporters put either thumb impression or forged
BASANAGOUDA v. DR. AMARK.HED [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 401

_j_ signatures on the counter foils of the Ballots, and in some counter-foils no A
signature was put. Thus it was alleged that the appellant secured 80 to 90
per cent of the votes polled. It was also stated that the Returning Officer
lodged F.1.Rs., which were registered as case No. 371 of 1989 and 370 of
1989 in the Court of J.M.F.C., Manvi against the appellant. It was admitted
in the written statement that repolling in Booth Nos. 6 & 7 was ordered
B
.... which was accordingly held on November 26, 1989. The other material
allegations were denied in the written statement of the appellant. As many
as 4 issues have been framed. Issue No. 2 relates to the alleged capturing
and rigging of the polling booths referred to hereinbefore. The respondent
filed I.A. No. 5/1991 under Order XI Rule 14 read v.-ith Order XVI Rule
~ 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for short 'the Code' read with s. 87 c
of the. Act.

"" In the I.A., the respondent sought production of the following docu-
rnentc; by the 7th respondent, Dist. Election Officer, Deputy Commissioner,
Raichur:
D
\

L In respect of the following polling booths of 23-Manvi Assembly
Constitutency-Raichur-Booth Nos. 5, 68, 73, 74, 88, 91 to 96, 100, 102, 1,03
and 105, the following document.

(a) The packets of unused ballot papers with counter foils attached
thereto.
E

(b) the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered or
rejected.

( c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot.
F
( d) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll; and

~ ( e) the packets of the declaration by electors and the attestation of
their signatures.
G
(f) report. on the Election by the Returning Officer.

(g:) Presiding Officers/Polling Oificers diary maintained.

ll. Complaint given presiding Officer/Polling Officers of polling
booths Nos. 6 and 7 (only}, to the CPI Manvi about corrupt practices by H
402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A Respondent No. 1 and his protagonists and also to Respondent No. 7. _..l
III. Vehicle movement Register (diary) maintained by SSB wireless
(mobile Unit II to SSB Raichur) on 23.11.89 and 24.11.89, from CPI Manvi.

IV. Calling for original letter of resignation dated 6.12.89 given to
B Deputy Commissioner Raichur by Respondent No. 1.
It would appear that the appellants's counsel in the High Court did
not choose to file a counter but pressed for decision on the petition on
merits. The High Court by its impugned order dated November 25, 1991
allowed the petition and summoned the above documents. As per the
c counter affidavit filed by the respondent (election petitioner) in this court,
the documents were produced in the court on December 10, 1991 by the
Returning Officer (7th respondent).

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the
D respondent laid no factual foundation in the election petition with material
particulars of the alleged capturing of the booths and ·rigging. Only bold
,.
allegations bereft of particulars was made. There are no pleadings at all
and no case is made out for opening the ballot boxes and examining the
used ballots. To fill in the gaps and to make roving enquiry to fish out .
grounds to set aside the election, the petition was filed to summon the
E documents. The High Court did not appreciate the legal implication arising
from the order. This Court in catena of decisions depricated such an
attempt. In support thereof strong reliance was placed on Hari Ram v. Hira
Singh & Ors., [1984) 1 SCR 932, Sri K. Madhava Reddy, the learned Senior

F
counsel for the respondent contended that apart from all other allegations
the plea of capturing.the booth and rigging at the poll is a serious offences
punishable under section 135A of the Act, impinging upon the efficacy of
-
democratic process of fair election and so it should be depricated with
heavy hands. It would be impossible for a candidate to plead allegations
with precision in this behalf, in particular, when the election agents of the
candidate (election petitioner) connived with the winning candidate and
G the officials or the police. Unless the election material is summoned and
perused it would be difficult for the election petitioner t6 substantiate the
plea. The previous decisions of this court are to be \-iewed in the light of
the object of s.135A. Therefore, the High Court is justified in exercising its
power under Order XI Rule 14 C.P.C. to produce the record. The order
H of the High Court thereof is not vitiated by an error of law. It is also
BAsANAGOUDA v. DR. AMARKHED [K. RAMASWAMY, J.J 403

contended that the impugned order is an interlocutory one and it would A
be open to the respondent, if ultimately unscccessful, to assail its validity
in the appeal.

The diverse contentions give rise to the question whether the order
of the High Court is legal. Under s. 87 of the Act the High Court, subject B
to the provision of the Act and the Rules, if any, made thereunder, shall
try the election petition as if it is the trial of the suit adopting as nearly as
may be the procedure applicable to the suit under the Code. Order XI
Rule 14 C.P.C. empowers discovery and inspection of the records and Rule
14 is as under :
c
"Production of Documents - It shall be lawful for the court, at
any time during the pendency of any suit, to order the produc-
tion by any party thereto, upon oath, of such of the documents
in his possession or power, relating to any matter in question
in such suit, as the court shall think right; and the court may D
deal with such documents, when produced, in such manner as
shall appear just''.

The court, therefore, is clearly empowered and it shall be lawful for
it to order the production, by any party to the suit, such documents in his
possession or power relate to any matter in question in the suit provided E
the court shall think right that the production of the documents are
necessary to decide the matter in question. The court also has been given
power to deal with the documents when produced in such manner as shall
appear just. Therefore, the power to order production of documents is
coupled with discretion to examine the expediency, justness and the F
relevancy of the documents to the matter in question. These are relevant
considerations which the court shall have to advert to and weigh before
deciding to summoning the documents in possession of the party to the
election petition. At the same time the election petition - proceedings being
of quasi-criminal nature the allegations in the petition must be pleaded
clearly and with full particulars, especially the grounds of corrupt practices G
cannot be permitted to be tried on the basis of deficient pleadings or by
filing applications for production of record to fish out grounds as material
which is not part of the pleadings. In any case secrecy of the ballot boxes
cannot be tinkered unless an iron-cast case is made out in the election
petition. Section 135A which was brought on statute with effect from H
404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 2 S.C.R.

A March 15, 1989 under Amendment Act 1 of 1989 prescribes booth captur-
ing to be an offence and the person committing it shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months and which
may be extended to a maximum of two years and fine. Where such offence
was committed by a person in the senice of the Govt., he shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one
B year but which may extend to three years and fme. Booth capturing has
been explained in its explanation thus:

"For the purpose of this section "booth capturing" includes,
among other things, all or any or the following activities,
c namely:-

(a) Seizure of a polling station or a place fixed for the poll
by any person or persons, making polling authorities surrender -..(
the ballot papers or voting machines and doing of any other
act which affects the orderly conduct of election;
D
(b) taking possession of a polling station or a place fixed
for the poll by any person or persons and allowing only his or
their own supporters to exercise their right to vote and prevent
others from voting;

E (c) threatening any elector and preventing him from going
to the polling station or a place fixed for the poll to cast his
vote;

( d) seizure of a place for counting of votes by any person
or persons making the counting authorities surrender the ballot
F papers or voting machines and the doing of anything which
t affects the orderiy counting of votes;

( e) doing by any person in the service of Government, of
all or any of the aforesaid activities of aiding or conniving at,
any such activity in the furtherance of the prospects of the
G
election of a candidate."

This is an inclusive explanation and seizure of polling station, taking
posse.ssion thereof and making polling authorities to surrender the ballot
papers or voting machines and doing of any other act which affects the
H orderly conducting of elections etc. have been enumerated. They are only
BASANAGOUDA v. DR. AMARKHED [K. RAMASWAMY, J.] 405

explanatory and inclusive but not exhaustive. The Parliament used words A
of width with generality to lug in or encompass diverse acts or omissions
innovated with ingenuinity to escape from clutches of law. It is common
knowledge that in the recent past there have been various complaints
regarding booth-capturing. The tendency to over-awe the weaker section
of the society and co physically take over the polling booths meant for them
is on the increase. Booth-capturing wholly negates the election process and
B
subverts the democratic set up which is the basic features of our constitu-
tion. During the post independent era ten parliamentary elections have
entrenched democratic polity in this country which cannot be permitted to
be eroded by showing laxity in the matter of booth-capturing which has
now been made an offence under s.135A of the Act. The allegation of C
booth capturing and rigging, if proved, is a corrupt practice under

-- s.lOO(l)(b) and materially affects the result of the election under cl.(l)(d)
and also is a disquaiification. Therefore, the allegation must be specifically
pleaded giving material particulars. The nature and various acts of captur-
ing booths were enumerated in the explanation to s.135A. As stated they D
arc only illustrative but not exhaustive. Diverse ways would be innovated
to capture booths and rigging. The court while exercising its power under
Order XI Rule 14 and Order XVI Rule 6 C.P.C. would also have to keep
in view the rigour of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 93 of the Conduct of the Election
Rules 1961 for short 'the Rules' which provides production and inspection
of election papers thus: E

)-- "93(1). Production and Inspection of Election Papers while in
the custody of the district election officer or, as the case may

-- be, the returning officer -

(a) the packets of the unused ballot papers with counterfoil
attached thereto;
F

\ (b) the packets of used ballot papers whether valid, tendered
on rejected;
G
(c) the packets of the counterfoils of used ballot papers;

(d) the packets of the marked copy of the electoral roll or, as

- } the case may be, the list maintained under sub-section (1) or
sub-section (2) of s.152; and H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 2 S.C.R.

A (e) the packets of the declarations by electors and the attesta-
tion of their signatures; shall not be opened and their contents
shall not be inspected by, or produced before, any person or
authority except under the order of a competent court.

(2) Subject to such conditions and to the payment of such fee
B as the Election Commission may direct, -

(a) all other papers relating to the election shall be open to
public inspection; and

(b) copies thereof shall on application be furnished ..
c
(3) copies of the returns by the returning officer forwarded
under rule 64, or as the case may be under clause (b) or
sub-rule (1) of rule 84 shall be furnished by the returning
officer, district election officer, chief electoral officer or the
D Election Commission on payment, of a fee of two rupees for
each copy." ·

This Court while considering the effect of Rule 93 held in Hari Singh
v. Hira Singh & Ors. (supra), that perusal of this Rule clearly shows that
the Legislature intended to make dear distinction between one set of
E documents and another. So far as counterfoils and the marked copy of the
elec~oral rolls were concerned, there was a strict prohibition for opening
these documents unless the court was fully satisfied that a cast iron case
was made out for the same; whereas documents mentioned in clauses (a)
and (d) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 93 could be liberally allowed to be
F inspected. This was also the view in Ram Sewak Yadav v. Hussain Kami/
Kidwa/ & Ors, [1964] 6 SCR 238. Thus to maintain the secrecy of ballot
papers unless adequate material facts are on record which alone would
afford adequate basis to exercise the discretion by the court; the packets
. .
or the used ballot papers with counterfoils attached thereto or the packets
of usecl ballot papers whether valid, tendered or rejected cannot be
G opened. Equally the packets of declarations by electors and the authorisa-
tion of their signatures shall not be opened unless ordered by the court in
that behalf. The court shall not permit a roving enquiry to enable the
defeated candidate/election petitioner to have access thereto to fish out the
grounds. The High Court, would therefore, be circumspect to order
H summoning that records covered under rule 93(1). To effectuate the ob-
BASANAGOUDA v. DR. AMARKHED [K RAMASWAMY,J.] 407

jects of s.135A of the Act it may be open to the rule making authority to A
have fresh look into the mandatory language of Rule 93(1), so as to bring
it in confirmity with s.135A of the Act.

The High Court in the impugned order has held that though no
factual foundation has been laid in the election petition, but since there are
allegations of booth-capturing and rigging in various paragraphs of the B
petition it is necessary to summon and examine the documents asked for
by the respondent. We do not agree with the High Court. The examination

-
of marked ballot papers and other used ballot papers c.1n in no way
substantiate the allegations of booth-capturing. Mr Madhava Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondent, contended that the marked ballot C
papers are required to prove that votes of dead persons and those who had
left the constituency were polled. Neither the names of persons nor any
other details are given in the election petition. Only bare allegations are
made that votes of dead persons and those who had left the constituency
had been cast. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court grossly
erred in permitting the summoning of items (a) to (c) and (e) of para I of D
the application. We set aside the High Court order to that extent. As
regards items (d), (f) and (g) of para I and paras II an.d III of the
application are concerned, we are not inclined to interfere with the order
to the High Court. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with no
order as to costs.

G.N. Appeal partly allowed.