Holding

Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act imposes a mandatory bar on any amendment to the electoral roll after the nomination deadline, but the election is not void merely because the final roll was published later; the petitioner must strictly prove a material effect on the result, which he failed to do, so the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

In the 2001 Kozhikode Assembly election, the appellant, election agent of the defeated candidate, alleged that after the 3 p.m. deadline for filing nominations, 19,045 names were deleted and 6,828 added to the electoral roll, rendering the election void. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove the number of post‑deadline changes or that they materially affected the result. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is mandatory and whether non‑publication of the final roll after the deadline invalidates an election. The Court held that Section 23(3) indeed imposes a mandatory prohibition on amendment of the roll after the nomination deadline, but the mere delay in publishing the final roll is not fatal; the petitioner must strictly plead and prove that such post‑deadline changes materially affected the election under Section 100(1)(d) of the 1951 Act. Since the appellant offered no evidence of the exact numbers altered or of their impact on the vote margin, the Court dismissed the appeal. The election stands as valid.

Issues considered

Whether amendment, addition or deletion of names in the electoral roll after the last date for filing nominations (3 p.m.) invalidates the election.
Whether Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 is a mandatory provision.
Whether non‑publication of the final electoral roll after the prescribed time renders the election void.
Whether the petitioner must prove that the post‑deadline changes materially affected the result under Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the election petition for lack of evidence.

Legislation cited

Registration of Electors Rules, 1960s. Rule 10, s. Rule 11, s. Rule 12, s. Rule 13, s. Rule 14, s. Rule 21, s. Rule 21A, s. Rule 22, s. Rule 26, s. Rule 5
Representation of the People Act, 1950s. 21, s. 22, s. 23(3), s. 2(b)
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 100(1)(d), s. 2(d), s. 2(e), s. 33, s. 62

Subjects

electoral rollRepresentation of the People ActSection 23(3) mandatorymaterial effect on election resultelection petitionvoid electionRegistration of Electors Rulesmandatory vs directory provisionelectoral roll revisionvoter franchise

Judgment

A P.T. ·RAJAN .
•.. v. ';' <.,I•

"
T.P.M.· SAHIR AND ·ORS .
.I .,.J,. r~ 1 • 11 • • r .·~. t f

' f ' 1~
. SEPTEMBER 26, 2003 . ,. , ,, j 1 ':.' .

~t rt• . -••tJ ,ll .i· 'Jf-.1 · 1• ~ I
B 1

[V.N:.~HARE, q., ~.~UJES,1-LJ~YM,1.R.A~D.~.f3. SU'{HA, J!.J,
' r •

,;
4
' 'l • _, . • I • .. " . ' l -i~. '. • "" I i :J

•
Representation of the'1 People
• . '(
Act, 1950;
j • -• •. ~
• I
Ss. 2(b), 21, 22 and 23(3)1 .
1" L • 1I 1 ' l ' • • -

Representation of the People Act,1951; Ss. 2(d) and (e}, 62, 98 and JOO/
'" ~·I - ···~ "'",(It__ :< tf~ 1 '·••1· I I " -• •

Electors Rules, 1960; Rules::>, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22 and 26: l' ,
c,
· . ~l~ct!ot~.Petitio,~-;-F;(~f,tO,~al r<?,{1.-;R.,ev/siqn~Additioi:i and d~lefjqn of
name ofelectors after the prescribed time limit-Effect of-Held: Electoral
roll enables the persons e~lis'ted therein to exercise th~ir right offranchis~'
and its absence in the list.disabled them to exercise such rights-Section·
23(3) of the 1950 Act prohibits the authorities to revtse the roll by way
D of amendment after expiry ~f the time li;nit pr~scribed therefor~However,. .
~(
.j' I t ,._ . ' • ~ • F •

election petitioner has ne{tfier1 adduc;cf any evidence to show that ho.w; 1
many voters were deleted/rpm the electoral roll afte_r, the prescribec{,time;,
limit nor did he prove tha,t these voters would have voted in his favour in.1
case their names were not deleted therefi"om and vice versa-He has also ,
E failed to set out material f~cts 'Jecpsary to make out a prim a facie cas~ ' .
for inspection of Ballot Papers to ascertain the number of void votes-, ,
• • E • ~ ' • I

Hence, petition is dismissf!d,on merit-,C<{nstitut!on of Jndif!, 1950; Article,~
326-Registration of Electors Rules, 1982 . • , • •· • I

Statute-Nature of-Ma~datory 'or directo~Di;cu~sed.
F j' ',. 1

Appellant was the election agent of the second respondent for I 1• I

Kozhikode Constituency General Assembly Election, 2001. Respondent
No. 1, returned candidate secured 48,858 votes as against 48,099 votes
secured by respondent No. 2, the defeated candidate. An Election
G Petition was filed by the election agent of respondent no. 2 challenging1
the election of Respondent No. 1 on the ground that electoral roll was
revised by making amendment in the -roll by adding 6,828 votes and
deieting 19,045 votes, after the prescribed time limit and after acceptance
of nominations for the election. Election Tribunal/High Court dismissed
H the petition. Hence the present appeal.
. 84
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR 85
'
, • It was contended for the appellant that as the provisions contained A
in sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act are mandatory in
nature, the violation thereof rendered· the election void; that the
election held pursuant to or in furtherance of the electoral roll
prepared and published after the prescribed time limit must be hefd
to be wholly illegal rendering the election void ab initio; that the High
B
Court failed to take into consideration that the electoral roll could not
have been published after the prescribed time limit therefor; and that
,/ in view of the evidence of the witnesses, the entire election proceeding
was illegal and, thus the election in its entirety should have been set
aside. c\
Respondent No. I submitted that it was incumbent upon the
appellant to plead and prove that after the prescribed time limit, names
of how many persons were added or names of how many persons were
deleted from the electoral roll; that it has not and could not have been
the case of tlie' ~ppellant that names of 7,003 voters were added and D
names of 18,839 voters were deleted after the prescribed time limit;
that in law it is not necessary to make publication of the electoral roll
in terms of sub-section 23 of the 1950 Act by 3 p.m. of the date fixed
for filing nomination inasmuch as the said provision contemplates
mere issuance of directions by the specified authorities; that while
issuing such directions, the statutory authorities are required to assign
E
reasons, as the said order would be appealable one; and that having
regard to the provision of Section I 00(1 )(d) of the I 951 Act even if
irregular electoral roll was prepared, it was necessary to plead and
prove that by reason thereof, the result of the election had been
I ~ materially affected. F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD 1.1. The purport and object of preparation of an electoral
roll cannot be under-estimated in view of the fact that thereby the
persons included therein make the persons to decide as to whether they G
can contest election }Vherefor an enlistment of a voter is necessary.
Electoral roll is also helpful for the candidates to assess their chance
of success. For reference to the final electoral roll, it is also required
~
by the candidates to enable them to canvass amongst the voters.
> Availability ofa final electoral roll with the candidate is, thus, a matter H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A of great importance for him. There cannot further be any doubt
whatsoever that the right to vote having regard to section 62 of the
1951 Act vis-a-vis Article 326 of the Constitution of India is a valuable
right. A petson in terms of Section 62 of.the 1951 Act is entitled to
exercise his right of franchise or is disabled therefrom if his name does
B or does not find place in the electoral roll. 1104-B-C-D)

1.2. In terms of the Registration Of electors Rules, 1982, a claim
or an objection can be entertained by at least seven days prior to the
date of filing of nominations. Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950
Act in no uncertain terms provides for statutory injunction upon the
C authorities to make any revisions in the electoral roll after the last date
fixed which indisputably having regard to the law laid down by this
Court in a number of decisions would mean 3 p.m. of the date of filing
the nominations. It, ex facie, is imperative in character. It has been
couched in a negative language. The word 'shall' has also been used.
D What is thereby, however, prohibited is that after 3 p.m. of the date
specified for filing of the nomination on correction by way of amendment,
transposition or deletion of the entry can be made. Publication of
Electoral Roll, however, is not mandatory. (104-G-H 105-A-B]

E 2.1. The mother roll in the instant case has been published in the
year 1999. Final revision had also taken place in the years 2000 and
2001. Revision in 2001 had taken place in two periods, namely, from
15.3.2001 to 18.3.2001 and from 21.4.2001 to 23.4.2001. The revision
carried out in the year 2000 as also during 2001 would be valid in law.
F Having regard to the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section i •
23 of the 1950 Act, there cannot be any doubt that any order passed
immediately before 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, the prescribed cut-off date
would be valid. The very fact that the said sub-section prohibits any
amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry after the last date
for making nominations for an election in that constituency is a pointer
G to the fact that till 3 p.m. of the date specified for· filing nominations,
directions for any amendment can be issued. (105-H, 106-A-B-C]

2.2. It may be true that a person whose name appeared in the ;-
electoral roll at the time of filing of the nomination cannot be deleted
H thereafter and similarly no new names can be added. But the purport
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR 87
and object of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act is to enable A
a person to exercise his right of affording his candidature cannot be
taken away. If the name of such person was not included in the mother
roll, his remedy was only to file an application for inclusion of his name
in terms of Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules. An order on such application,
therefore, was required to be passed in terms of Section 22 of the 1950 B
Act read with relevant provisions of the 1960 Rules immediately pri~r
to 3 p.m. of the specified date for filing nominations. Once such
directions are issued, evidently, publication of the list in terms of Form
No. 16 would be only upon incorporation of directions f~r making
amendment, transposition or deletion of names. (105-E-F)

2.3. A statute must be read in the text and context thereof.
c
Whether a statute is directory or mandatory would not be dependent
on the user of the words "shall" or "may". Such a question must be
posed and answered having regard to the purpose and object it seeks
to achieve. Jn the present case, what is mandatory is the requirement
of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act and not the ministertal D
action of actual publication of Form 16. (107-D]

2.4. The construction of statute will depend on the purport and
object for which the same had been used. It is well-settled principle of
law that where a statutory functionary is asked "to perform a statutory E
duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory
and not mandatory. A provision in a statute which is procedural in
nature although employs the word "shall" may not be held to be
mandatory if thereby no prejudice is caused. The Court cannot, it. is
trite, supply casus omissus. Rule 22(b) of the 1960 Rules cannbt,
therefore, be interpreted to mean that publication of the electoral roll F
•'
must take place before the time of filing nomination and not thereafter.
[107-G, 108-A, 108-C-D, 109-D]

Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Board, Rampur, [1965) 1
SCR 970; State Bank of Patio/a v. S.K. Sharma, [1996] 3 SCC 364;
Venkataswamappa v. Special Dy. Commr. (Revenue), [1997) 9 sec 128; G
Rai Vimal Krishna & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2003) 6 SCC 401;
Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Mr. Justice B. Lentin & Ors., AIR (1988)
I
SC 2267; Kanta Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India & Anr., [2003] 4 SCC 753
... and Shrimati Tarulata Shyam & Ors. v. Commissioner ofIncome-tax, West
Bengal, (1997) 3 sec 305, relied on. H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha v. The District Magistrate of Monghyr &
Anr., AIR (1966) Patna 144; Nomita Chowdhwy v. The State of West
Bengal & 01:s., (1999) 2 CLJ 21 and Garbari Union Co-operative
Agricultural Credit Society Limited & Anr. v. Swapan Kumar Jana & Ors.,
(1~97) 1 CHN 189, referred to.
.' '
B 3.1. The law, it stands, would require a strict pleading and proof
of the factors enumerated in Section 100 of the 1951 Act for obtaining
a declaration that the elecJion was a void.one. Such a declaration can .
only be made upon con~ideration of the materials, b~ought on reco;as:· ..
The eJ~dion tri~uilaLwill have jurisdiction to issµe such a dite~tion ...
c only in tJ,e.eve'ntone or the ofher factors enumerated· in the sub~clauses ~ ,; ··:
in
con.tait)ed ~lib-section (I) of Section 100 of the t 951 Aet are fulfilte<I
. ·~nd· ,not'othen_vise~ {114-E-EJ ··•
'·
The ·Chief Commissioner ;f Ajmer & Anr. v. Radhey Shyam i50111; ·.
AIR (1957) SC 304 and A.C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai & Ors,, (1984]2 SCC
.D
656, distinguished.

Hafiz Mohammad Anwar Khan & Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
& Ors., AIR (1967) MP 257; held inapplicable..

E 3.2. The appellant has failed to furnish any material to show as to
names of how many persons were added or deleted after 3.00 p.m. after
the prescribed time limit and how they have exercised their right of
franchise. He has also failed to show by adducing any evidence that those
persons whose names had been omitted would have voted for the second
F respontilent. Even the electoral roll have not been produced before the
High Court for its comparison. The least the appellant could do was to
file an appropriate application before the Tribunal praying for inspection
of ballot papers to find out the void votes which had been accepted so as
}
G
to enable the High Court to arrive at a conclusion how casting ofsuch
void votes affected the outcome of such election. Further for inspection
of ballot papers, the election petition must make out a strongprimafacie
J.
case, only after setting out material facts in the Election Petition and
leading evidence to that effect. [l 19~F-G-H; 120-A)

G.K Sama! v. R.N. Rao, 44 ELR 25/1970 UJ (SC) 295 and Vashit
H Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra & Ors., 119851 l SCR 509, relied on.
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 89

Mahadeo v. Babu Udai Partap Singh & Ors., AIR (1966) SC 824, A
referred to.

Shiv Charan Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh & Ors., ( 1988) 2 SCC
12; Santosh Yadav v. Narender Singh, 12002) l SCC 160 and Chhedi Ram
v. Jhilmit Ram & Ors .. (198412 sec 281 and!. Vikheshe Sema v. Hokishe B
Sema, 119661 4 SCC 53, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3602 of
2002.

From the Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2002 of the Kerala High C
Court in E.P. No. 8 of 2001.
. . .
R~my Chacko and K.L.N.V. Ve~r~anjaneytilu for the Appellant.

K.K. Venugopal, E.M.S. Ariam, Ms. Stichitra Menon and Fazlin ,D
Anam for the Respondents. ·

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. : Whether non-publication of a final electoral roll ,
would render a general election invalid in law is the core question involved E
in ti)is appeal filed by the Appellant herein under Section l l 6A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1951
Act') which arises out of a judgment and order of the High Court ofKerala
dated 7.3.2002 passed in E.P. No._8 of2001 whereby and whereunder his
election petition was dismissed.
F
BACKGROUND FACT :

The election in question was held for Kozhikode JI Legislative
Assembly Constitutency on 10.05.2001. The first, second, third and fourth 1

respondents herein contested the said efection. The appellant herein was G
the election agent of the second respondent. The said election petition came.
to be filed in the following circumstances :

A preliminary electoral roll (mother roll) was published in 1999'
•. > which was revised on 1.1.2000 and 1.1.2001 purported ~o be in terms of H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A continuous and special revision scheme. One revision was carried out
between 15.3.2001 and 18.3.2001 and another between 21.4.2001 and
23.4.2001. The final elec~bral roll was published on 23.4.2001. Despite the
fact that the last date of acceptance of nomination was 3 p.m., allegedly,
the final elector~) rol.J was published at 8 p.m. on 23.4.2001. The electoral
B roll consisted of 1,52,225, voters out of which 1,05,437 voters exercised
their franchise. The resutt'ofthe election was declared on 13.5.2001. The
first respondent was declared elected having secured 48,886 votes whereas
the second respondent secured 48.099 votes. 1;'he third and fourth respondents
herein obtained 7,345 and l,107 votes respectively. The winning margin
C was, thus, only 787 votes.

In the election petition, the appellant herein alleged that after 3 p.m.
on 23.4.2001, names of 19,045 voters were deleted from the voters list:
whereas 6,828 new names were added therein. The fact which, however,
D stands admitted is that in the 2001 revision, names of 18,839 vo~ers were
deleted whereas names of 7,003 voters were added. ~ .

The appellant herein in the election petition further alleged that the
electoral roll as it stood at 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 which had been published
E prior thereto became final on the expiry of the time fixed for acceptanc~
of nominations for election and, thus, the deletion of names of 19,045
voters from the said roll withuot issuance of any notice was bad in law,
as thereby the genuine voters who turned up at the polling stations had
been turned away. Allegedly the majority of such persons .were known
supporters of the Left Democratic Front whose candidate was the second
F respondent. It w\<; also furthermore contended that the names of 6,828
persons were illegally added after the publication of the final electoral roll
on the said date; the majority of whom voted in support of the United
Democratic Front to which the first respondent herein belonged to.
According to the appellant, the .said electoral roll in view of the prohibition
G contained in Section 23(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950
(for short, 'th~·l 950 Act') was void ab initio, as a result whereof the
election of the' first respondent became vitiated by reason of improper
refusal of votes of 9,500 persons and improper reception of votes of 4,500
persons, which being void could not have been taken into consideration
H for the purrose of the result of the election.
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 91

ISSUES: A
Having regard the pleadings of the parties the learned Tribunal
framed the following issues :

"(I) Has the petitioner adequate cause of action to challenge the B
declaration of results made on 13.5.2001?

(2) Whether the E,P. is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of
necessary parties?

(3) Whether the E.P. is liaple to be rejected/dismissed for want C
of adequate pleadings?

(4) Whether the names of 19045 voters were deleted from the final
electoral roll after 23.4.200 I without notice to them and in
violation of law? D

(5) Whether the refusal of voting right to the 19045 voters has
materially affected the result of the election?

(6) Whether the additional list of 6828 voters were added to the E
final electoral roll after 30.4.2001?

(7) Whether may of the said 6828 ineligible voters have voted for
the 1st respondent affecting the declaration of results?"
'
(8) Relief and costs?"
F

FINDINGS OF THE HIGH·COURT :

The preliminary issues were decided in favour of the appellant by
an order-dated 24. I 0.200 I. The said order is not in question in this G
appeal.

The Tribunal dismissed the election petition holding : (I) Although
irregularities had been committed in preparation and publication of the
electoral roll, as the appellant herein had not been able to prove that the H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A legal requirement contained in Section I 00(1 )(d) of the 195 l Act
was fulfilled, the election· of the first respondent cannot be set aside;
"(2) P.W. l and P.W. 2 who were examined on behalf of the appellant herein
to show that their names were not included despite request.were not relied
upon on the ground that they had made the said request after 23.4.2001
B and as such their request had rightly been denied; (3) The appellan·t did
not produce an authenticated copy of the electoral roll. in foll form to find
out the alterations which accor..ding to the appellant; were made subsequent
to 3 p.m. nor produced any such altered roll; (4) Copies of the final
electoral roll (FER) being Ext.Pl and Ext P2 filed in the proceedings being
·not certified .ones, thi;: same were inadmissible· in evidence;: (5) -The
C appellant admitted that he h·ad 'no.knowledge about the precise date on
whichlhe fin;;tl electoral roll was pub IisheCl; .(6) A copy of the final electoral ·
· .roU:h~ving not been- filed, no finding .cati be)rrived at for determination
· ·as to 'whether there had been any subsequent add,itiori or deietion; (7) No
clinching evidence had.been adduced to sh~wthat there had actually.been ·
D an addition .of 787 votes or more·after 3 p.m. or deletion of that -number
of votes thereafter; (8) No voters had come fonvard with a case that his
right to vote was denied, although the same is a costitutional right under
Article 326 of the Constitution of India; (9) Although the Election Officer
who examined himself as P.W. I had not acted with responsibility, the
E same did no_t have any direct effect in the outcome of the result; (I 0)
Though irregularities had been committed in the matter of preparation of
electoral roll but the same were insufficient to upset the result of the
election.

It was observed :
F
" ... All these indicate that even after the last date, Jet alone the last
hour for filing nominations, P.W.J might have entertained some
applications for additions and effected deletions as well based on
reports of.Anganwadi teachers received at the 13th hour. In fact,
G the petitioner has created a strong suspicion whether there was,
in actual fact, any publication of the" final roll as claimed .by him
in his notice board at all. The files produced by him do not contain
the office copy of any notice published by him an.nouncin'g
pubiication of the final electoral roll. whether it was published at '
''
.f!~,

.H 8 p.in. on the 23rd or thereafter."
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 93

SUBMISSIONS : A
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, inter a!ia,
submitted that in the instant case, there has been a flagrant violation of
Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act. The learned counsel would further contend
that as the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 B
Act is mandatory in nature, the violation thereofrendered the election void.
He would urge that the election held pursuant to or in furtherance of the
electoral roll prepared and published after 23.4.2"001at8 p.m. must be held
to be wholly illegal rendering the election void ab initio. According to the
learned counsel, the High Court misdirected itself in passing the impugned
judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that the electoral C
roll could not have been published at 8 p.m. on 23.4.2001. The learned
counsel took us through the evidences of P.W.l, P.W.2, P.W.6,
P. W. 8 and some other witnesses for the purpose of showing that the entire
proceeding was wholly illegal and, thus, the election in its entirety should
be set aside. The learned counsel would contend that the High Court should D
have exercised its suo motto power of directing recounting of votes so as
to exclude the illegal ones, having regard to section 62 of the 1951 Act.

Reliance in support of the aforementioned contentions has been
placed by the learned counsel for the Appellant on Baidyanath Panjira v.
Sita Ram Mahto and Others, AIR (1970) SC 314, Baidyanath Panjira v. E
Sita Ram Mahto and Others, [1969] 2 SCC 47, Narendra Madiyalapa
Kheniv. ManikraoPatil and Others, [1977] 4 SCC 16, Ramji Prasad Singh
v. Ram Bilas Jha and Others, [1977} 1 SCC 260; Bashir Ahmad Magrey
v. Ghulam Quadir Mir and Others, [1977] 1 SCC 285, I. Vikheshe Sema
v. Hokishe Sema, [1996] 4 sec 53, D.B. Raju V. HJ Kantharaj and F
Others, [1990] 4 SCC 178, Lal Babu Hussein and Others Etc. v. Electoral
Registration Officer and Others Etc., [1995] 3 SCC 100, The Chief
Commissioner of Ajmer and Another v. Radhey Shyam Dani, AIR (1857)
SC 304 and Hafiz Mohammed Anwar Khan & Another v. State of Madhya
Pradesh and Others, AIR (1967) MP 257. G
Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of
the first respondent, on the other hand, would submit that admittedly
continuous and special revisions were carried out since 1999, the last one
during the period 21.4.2001 and 23.4.2001. According to the learned
. > counsel, a revision of electoral roll was also carried on between 15.3.2001 H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

. A and 18.3.2001 and in that situation it was incumbent upon the appellant
herein to plead and prove that in between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. on 23.4.2001,
names of how many persons were added or names Of how many persons
were deleted thereform.

The learned counsel would contend that it has not and could not have
B been the case of the appellant herein that names of7,003 voters were added
and names of 18,839 voters were deleted after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001, as
admittedly the mother roll could be revised upto ~ p.m. on 23.4.2001.

Mr. Venugopal would urge that in law it is not necessary to make
C publication of'the electoral roll in terms of sub-section (3) of Section 23
of the 1950 Act by 3 p.m. of the date fixed for filing nomination inasmuch
as the said provision contemplates mere issuance of directions by the
specified authorities. While issuing such directions, the statutory authorities
are required to assign reasons, as the said order would be appealable ones.
D The learned counsel would contend that having regard to the provision of
Section 100( 1)(d) of the 1951 Act despite preparation of irregular electoral
roll, it is necessary to plead and prove that by reason thereof, the result
of the election had been materially affected. Strong reliance in this regard
has been placed on G.K. Sama! v. R.N. Rao and Others, ( 1972) 44 Eelction
E Law Reports 25.

The learned counsel in support of his aforementioned contentions also
relied on Vashit Narain Sharma v. Dev Chandra and Others, [1955] 1 SCR
509. Paokai Haokip v. Rishang & Others, [1969] 1SCR,637, Shiv Charan
Singh v. Chandra Bhan Singh and Others, [1988) 2 SCC 12, J. Chandra
f Sekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao and Others, [1993) Supp. 2 SCC 229,
Uma Ballav Ratfz (Smt.) v. Maheshwar Mohanty (Smt.) and Others, [1999]
3 SCC 357, Tak Chandv. Dile Ram, [2001] 3 SCC 290 and Santosh Yadav.
v. Narender Singh, [2002] 1 SCC 160.

Mr. Venugopal in his usual fairness has drawn our attention to a
G decision of three-Judge Bench of this Court in Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram
and Others, [ 1984) 2 SCC 281 wherein this Court had set aside the election,
having regard to margin of 373 votes vis-a-vis wasted votes being 6, 110
(the difference being 20 times). However, it was pointed out that the said
decision was held to have been rendered in the peculiar fact situation of
H the case.
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 95

QUESTIONS: A
(I) Whether addition or deletion of names after the last date
fixed for filing of nominations would invalidate the entire
election?

(2) Whether an election petitioner must plead and prove as to B
how far and to what extent such illegal addition or deletion
of the names of voters had materially affected. the election?

STATUTORY PROVISIONS :

Before embarking upon the questions referred to hereinbefore, we C

,
I
may look to some statutory provisions.

The 1950 Act was enacted to provide allocation of seats in and the
delimitation of constituencies for the purpose of election to, the House of
the People and the Legislatures of States, the qualifications of voters at such
D
·, elections, the preparation of electoral rolls, the manner of filling seats in
the Council of States to be filled by representatives of Union territo"ries and
matters connected therewith.

• Section 2(b) provides as under :
E
"Assembly constituency" means a constituency provided by
law for the purpose of elections to the Legislative Assembly of
a State;

Section 21 reads as under :
F
"2 I. Preparation and revision ofelectoral rolls. (1) The electoral
roll for each constituency shall be prepared in the prescribed
manner by reference to the qualifying date and shall come into
force immediately upon its final publication in accordance with
the rules made under this Act.
G
(2) The said electoral roll -

(a) shall, unless otherwise directed by the Election Commission
for reasons to be recorded in. writing, be revised in the
,,
• prescribed manner by reference to the qualifying date - H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (i) ·.before each general election to the H~use of People or
to the Legislat!ve Assembly of a State; and

(ii) before each bye-election to fill a c~sual vacancy in the
seat allotted to the constituency; and .

B (b) shall be revised in any year in the presctibed manner by
reference to the qualifying date if such revision has been
. Jl ' . '
directed by Election Commission : ·

Provided that if the electoral roil is 'not revised as aforesaid,
c the validity or continued operation of the s~id. electoral roll. shall
not thereby be affected. .·:. ·

(3) Notwithstanding anythfng contained in sub-section (2),
the Election_ Commission may at any time, for reasons to be
r
recorded, .direct a special revision of the electoral roll for any
D constituency or part of a constituency in such manner as it may
think fit :

.Provided that subject to the other provisions of this Act, the
electoral roll for the constituency, as in force at the time of the
E issue of any such direction, shall continue to be in force until the
~ompletion of th~ special revision so directed."

.~ection 22. provides as under :

"22. Correction of entries in electoral rolls.-If the electoral
F ' registration officer for a constituency, on application made to him
or 'on his own motion, is satisfied after such inquiry as he thinks
fit, that any entry in the electoral roll of the constituency -

(a) is erroneous of defective in any particular,

G (b) should be transposed to another place in the roll on the ..;
·ground that the person concerned has changed his place of
ordinary residetice within the constituency, or

(c) should be detected on the ground that the person concerned
H is dead or has ceased to be ordi~arily resident in the
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 97

constituency or is otherwise not entitled to be registered in A
that roll,

the electoral registration officer shall, subject to such general
or special direction, if any, as may be given by the
Election Commission in this behalf, amend, transpose or delete B
the entry :

Provided that before taking any action on any ground und.er
clause (a) or clause (b) or any action under clause (c) on t~e
ground that the person concerned has ceased to be ordinarily
resident in the constituency or that he is otherwise not entitled to C
be registered in the electoral roll of that constituency, the electoral
registration officer shall give the person concerned a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in respect of the action proposed to
be taken in relation to him."

Section 23 provides as under : D
"23. Inclusion ofnames in electoral rolls. -(1) Any person whose
name is not included in the electoral roll of a constituency may
apply to the electoral registration officer for the inclusion of hi$
name in that roll.
E
(2) The electoral registration officer shall, if satisfied that the
t applicant is entitled to be registered in the electoral roll, direct his
name to be included therein :

Provided that ifthe applicant is registered in the electoral roll F
of any other constituency, the electoral registration officer shall.
inform the electoral registration officer of that other constituency
and that officer shall, on receipt of the information, strike off the
applicant's name from that roll.

(3) No amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry G
shall be made under section 22 and no direction for the inclusion
of a name in the electoral roll of a constituency shall be given
under this section, after the last date for making nominations for
an election in that constituency or in the parliamentary constituency
within which that constituency is comprised and before the H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS {2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A copmletion of that election."

The 1951 Act was enacted to provide for the conduct of elections to
the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature
of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of
B those Hous.es, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection
with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of
or in connection with such elections.

Section 2(d) defines 'election' in the following terms :

c "2(d) "election" means an election to fill a seat or seats in either
House of Parliament or in the House or either House of the
Legislature of a State other than the State of Jammu and Kashmir."

Section 2(e) reads as under :

D "2(e) "elector" in relation to a constituency means a person whose
name is entered in the electoral roll of that constituency for the
time being in force and who . is not subject to -any of the
disqualifications mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of
the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950);"
E
Sub-section (I) of Sectjon 33 povides as under :
t
"33. Presentation of nomination paper and requirements for a
valid nomination. (I) On or before the date appointed under clause
(a) of Section 30 each candidate shall, either in person or by his
F proposer, between the hours of eleven O' clook in the forenoon
and three O' clock in the afternoon deliver to the returning officer
at the place specified in this behalf in the notice issued under
section 31 a nomination paper completed in the prescribed fonn
and signed by the candidate and by an elector of the constituency
. ·•n; .,,as .proposer"

'_}i ._.• _ iJJ::~-r~~' 11 ~ ,:Af'.1: t t 1J:·:L t~~1i ~riJ 1'.-.f~n .i''>i.t:;:k >ill!
:wmJ·'.~'.'.~2,. ~ig~f:Jf!.iY.<?ff'..,,Ti (J))~9.:P.er.~l>n0~hH.1i,~, ne~L~i:ld,,f:XCept as
HJ . p· ., ". ,~~P~~.~§lY: pfp,vAd.~.d. by th~;t\~~ 1 ·~':'.~i:Y P.~r,0~9.,~~.o i~,,;f\>r, the time
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 99
being entered in the electoral roll of any constituency shall be A
entitled to vote in that constituency.

(2) No person shall vote at an election in any constituency
if he is subject to any of the disqualifications referred to in section
16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950). B

(3) No person shall vote at a general election in more than
one constituency of the same class, and if a person votes in more
than one such constituency, his votes in all such constituencies
shall be void.

(4) No person shall at any election vote in the same C
constituency more than once, not withstanding that his name may
have been registered in the electoral roll for the constituency more
than once, and if he does so vote, all his votes in that constituency
shall be void. ·
D
(5) No person shall. vote at any election if he is confined in
a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or
transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the
police :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to a B
person subjected to preventive detention under any law for the
time being in force."

Part VI of the 1951 Act provides for resolution of disputes regarding
elections. Chapter I contains interpretation clauses; Chapter II deals with F
presentation of election petitions to the High Court; Chapter III provides
for trial of election petitions. Section 87 provides for procedure before the
High Court Section 94 prohibits infringement of secrecy of voting. Section
98 read as under :

"98. Decision of the High Court.-At the conclusion of the trial G
of an election petition (the High Court) shall make an order -

(a) dismissing the election petition; or

(b) declaring the election of (all or any of the· returned
candidates) to be void: or H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200~] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (c) declaring the election of(all or any of the returned candidates)
to be void and the petitioner or any other candidate to have
been duly elected."

Section 100(1 )(d) reads as follows :

B "100. Grounds for declaring election to be void. - (1) subject
to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the High Court is of
opinion -

Xxx xxx xxx
c
(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it concerns a
returned candidate, has been materially affected -

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote
or the reception of any vote which is void, or
D
(iv) by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitutibn
or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act,

the High Court shall declare the election of the returned
E candidates to be void."

In terms of the 1950 Act, the Central Government made Registration
of Electors Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1960 Rules'). In
terms of the 1960 Rules any person whose name has been deleted from
F the published draft roll will have to file an application for inclusion of his
name.

Part-II thereof concerns "Electoral Rolls for Assembly Constituencies".
Rule 5 provides that the roll shall be divided into convenient parts. Rule
10 and 11 contemplate the publication of .draft rolls in the first place and
G inviting of objections, if any thereto.

Rule 12 reads as under :

"12. Period/or lodging claims and objections.- Every claim for
H the inclusion of a name in the roll and every objection to an entry
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 101

therein shall be lodged within a period ofthirty days from the da'te A
of publication of the roll in draft under rule 10, or such shorter
period of not less than fifteen days as may be fixed by the Eelction
Commission in this behalf :

Provided that the Eelction Commission may, by notification in the B
Official Gazette, extend the period in respect of the constituency
as a whole or in respect of any part thereof."

Rule 13 provides that every claim shall be made in Form No. 6 and
signed by the person desiring his name to be included in the roll. Sub-rule
(2) of Rule 13 povides that every objection to the inclusion of a name in C
the roll shall be in Form No. 7 and preferred only by a person whose name
is already included in that roll. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 13 provides that every
objection to a particular or particulars in an entry in the roll shall be made
in Form No. 8 and preferred only by the person to whom that entry relates.

Rule 14 to 20 provides for the mode and manner in which claims and D
objections and inquiry in relation thereto shall be made.

Rule 21 provides for inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. Rule
21A provides for deletion of names. The said rules are as under :

"21. Inclusion of names inadvertently omitted. -(I) Ifit appears
E
to the registration officer that owing to inadvertence of error
during preparation, the names of any electors have been left out
of the roll and that remedial action should be taken under this rule;
the registration officer shall -
F
(a) prepare a list of the names and other details of such electors;

(b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a copy of the list
together with a notice as to the time ~hd place at which the
inclusion of these names in the roll w:illbe considered, and
· also publish the list and the notice in such other manner as G
he may think fit; and

(c) after considering any verbal or written objections that may
be preferred, decide whether all or any of the names should
be included in the roll. H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (2) If any statements under rule 7 are received after the • (

publication of the roll in draft ·under rule IO, the registration
officer shall direct the inclusion of the names of the electors
covered by the statements in the appropriate parts of the roll."

21 A. Deletion of names - if it appears to the registration officer
B at any time before the final publication of the roll that owing to
inadvertence or error or otherwise, the names of dead persons or
of persons who have ceased to be, or are not, ordinarily residents
in the constituency or of persons who are otherwise not entitled
to be registered in that roll, have been included in the roll and that
c remedial action should be taken under this rule, the registration
officer, shall -

(a) prepare a list of the names and other details of such electors;

(b) exhibit on the notice board of his office a copy of.the list
D together with a notice as to the time and place at which the .•
11
question of deletion of these names from the roll will be
considered and also publish the list and the notice in such
other manner as he may think fit; and

E (c) after considering any verbal or written objections that may
be preferred, decide whether all or any of the names should
be deleted from the roll :

Provided that before taking 'any action under this rule in
respect of any person on the ground that he has ceased to be, or
F
is not,.ordinarily resident in the constituency, or is otherwise not
entitled to be registered in that roll, the registration officer shall
make every endeavour to give him a reasonable opportunity to
show cause why the action proposed should not be taken in
relation to him."
G
Rule 22 provides for final publication of roll. Clause (b) of sub-rule
(I) mandates the registration officer to publish the roll, together with the
list of amendment, by making a complete copy thereof available for
inspection and displaying a notice in Form No. 16 at his office. Sub-rule
H (2) of Rule 22 provides that on such publication, the. roll together with the

.:-.
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 103

list of amendments shall be the electoral roll of the constituency. Rule 25 A
provides for revision of rolls. Rule 26 provides for correction of entries
and inclusion of names in electoral rolls. In terms of the said rule, a claim
or objection must be filed in duplicate, one copy of which shall be posted
in some conspicuous place in the office of the registration officer together
with a notice inviting objections thereto within a period of seven days from B
the date of such posting. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 26 provides as under :

"(4) The registration officer shall, as soon as may be after the
expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (3), consider the
application and objections thereto, if any, received by him and
shall, if satisfied, direct the inclusion, deletion, correction or G
transposition of entries in the roll, as my be necessary. Provided
that when an application is rejected by the registration officer,
he shall record in writing a brief statement of his reasons for such
rejections."
. :Ii)
Form No. 16 referred to in clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of R,ul~. 22 is
as under :

"FORM 16
(See rule 22 ( l)
Notice of final publication of electoral roll E
It is hereby notified for public information that the. list of
amendments to the draft electoral roll for:the · .... :.::: ..·... .''. .. .
constituency has been prepared with reference ~.'-~.:to . : . . :...'. . ...... .
~
1
as the qualifying date and in accordance with the Registr~ti'on of .F
Electors Rules, 1960. A copy of the said roll togetlierwitK th'e said
list of amendments has been published and will be available for
inspection at my office. '··'

i) .·" .,
. .. . . :e
••..•••'.••••••••••.•••• •'• •.••• ·~ ••••• ~·~ ·f •••

Electoral Registration Qfficer
p '!, I I ' ,I• ' ~ '

Place ............................. . (Address) ......................... ,.... ..
• - ·.'' l , ' :'-· j, 4< ' ..

Date ............................ .. ..................... .................. , ....... . iH
• ,, I. ~
_.
•• ~ ,. i ·; • . •
104 SUPREME-:COURT·REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A FINDINGS : . i ~., L• ~ t ; .,, '. -" f ..

Re : Question No«;l . ~·
" r i

·'' ELECTORAL ROH : ;,;rt. , L j I 't I { N( • • ~- ( 1:'"' j •

t• t. ~, f 11: I') 'L.., ' '... ~ ; i • .r')') l ' • ·...., j' 'Qit"ffi ·... ;~; .~. t l if IL..,,, • .,,,·tti'
B! The purport and object ofi preparation ;of an electoral ·roll .cann~t be .
under-estimated in view of the fact that thereby the persons included
therein make the per'son-s'tci decide as totwhether tliey can contest election'
wherefor an enlistment of a voter is necessary. Electoral roll is also helpful
for tt~e ·~arlaic't~td~; to ~sseJ~rlti'ei"r ~11ar\'ce ·ar'suc~e~s~rFor'rfferendtio the
1

CJ fih~l'd1b'C:1'o~ai'rbu,: \!Uis ~lso rifquired c~'ndidates'to en~b'ie the11FtJ' by'tlie
c'clri~kss' ~ln'6~ggi 1 iH~ 0~ote~1.tA. v'~ilabilrty finai ~Jettoral ~rb'fI·~itli 1 \'h~' :o·nr
candidate is, thus, a matter o·r great impo'rfa,nce for him. There cannot
further be any doubt what;oeve'r that the right to 1vote havirig regard to'
Section 62 of the 1951 Act vis-a-vis Article 326 of the Constitution oflndia
D is a valuable right. A pers~n 1 i~ t~rm~ o~ Se.~tion 62 of the 1951 Act is
entitled to exercise his right .of franchise or is disabled ,I ' ' •
therefrom if his
·~ . ) - •' - -. . ; I ' ~ ~ t
name does or does not find place in the electoral roll. 1 "'· .ti . j 1· ,_ . '

'U... J t ':(' Ir f f~'•[
Whether Section 23(3) of l.the I• •
1950 Act as well as requirement of j ~ .J I~ 1 ' ' , I • ,

E publication of electoral roll i,s man~~~ory?, •..: 1 • .• , 1
,, l ' , ..

Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of' the
i;, . . J - ,.
1'950
• •
Act in no uncertain terms 1 ·- ...

provides for statutory injunction upon the authorities to make any revision
in the electoral roll after th~ last d~t~ fi~ed which indisputably havlng'
regard to the law laid down by.this Court i~ a~ni.unbe; of decisions would
F mean 3 p.m. of the date of •••
fili~g
- J.
the• •n'o~in~tions.' ' · · l '

The rules referred to hereinbefore clearly lay down the procedure for
filing the claims and objections.and the .mode and manner in which they
'are to be dealt with. In terms of the 1960 Rules, a claim or an objection
G can be entertained only at least seven days·priOF.to the date of filing of.
nominations inasmuch as such claim in Form No. 6 is to be posted on the
notice board inviting objections before seven days as is required in terms
of Rule 26. Claims or objections could have, therefore, been entertained
at least upto 16.4.2001. P.W. l, however, states that no objection which was
H filed after the said date was entertained.
P.T..RAJAN;v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 105
Sub-section (3) of Section 23 of 1950 Act is mandatory : A
sub-section (3) of Section 23 ex facie is imperative in character. It
has been couched in a negative language. The word 'shall' has been used.
What is thereby, however, prohibited is that after 3 p.m. of the date
specified for filing of the nomination no correction by way of amendment, B
transposition or deletion of the entry can. be made.

Publication of Eelctoral Roll, however, is not mandatory.
4 t • . • ... .

The question which has been posed is whether the publication of the
1
e~ecto~al ~,9.11 w~s. P~f!P}ssi,b,~e ~ff~rj p;m,. o_n 2 3.'4.20~1. The s.~bmission C.
of the learned counsel appea,ring on behalf of the appella~t to the effect
that having regard to the porvisions contained in Section 21 of the 1950 •.
Act, and Rule 22 of the 1960 Rules publication of an electoral roll is
imperative in character, cannot be accepted.

Section 21 of the 1950 Act speaks of preparation and revision of D
electoral rolls. Sub-section ( 1) mandates that it shall come into force
immediately upon its final publication' in accordance with the rules made '
thereunder. When such finality would be attained, however, is a question
of importance. The publication of an electoral roll, having regard to sub-
section (2) of Section 21 can be revised in the prescribed manner by E
reference to the qualifying date. The said electoral roll is also required to
be revised in any year in the prescribed manner by reference to the
qualifying date. The proviso appended to sub-section (2) of Section 21
states that if the electoral roll is not revised, the validity or continued
operation of the said electoral roll shall not thereby be affected. Sub-section F
(3) of Section 21 empowers the Election Commission to direct a special
revision.

What is, therefore, contemplated under sub section ( l) of Section 21
is a publication of final roll upon the revision thereof to be made in the
prescribed manner. The manner in which such a revision would take place G
is enumerated in the 1960 Rules. The rules, however, do not prescribe as
to when such formal publication shall be made. Form No. 16, as referred
to hereinbefore clearly states that upon consideration of the claims and
objections filed by the affected persons the Registration Officer shall
publish the amendment carried out in the mother roll. The mother roll in H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A this case has been published in the year 1999. Final revision had also taken
place in the years 2000 and 200 I. As noticed herein before, revision in 200 I
had taken place in two periods, namely, from 15.3.2001 to 18.3.2001 and
from 21.4.2001to23.4.2001. Indisputably, the revision carried out in the
year 2000 as also during 2001 would be valid in law. Having regard to
B the provision contained in sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950 Act,
there cannot be any doubt that any order passed immediately before 3 p.m.
on 23.4.2001 would be valid. The very fact that sub-section (3) of Section
23 prohibits any amendment, transposition or deletion of any entry after
the last for making nominations for an election in that constitutency is a
C pointer to the fact that till 3. p.m. of the date specified for filing
nominations, .directions for any amendment can be issued. Any order
passed on the claims or objections filed in terms of Section 22 of the Act
read with relevant provisions of the 1960 Rules would relate back from
the date of publication of the electoral roll. Any amendment, transposition
or deletion made in the electoral roll pursuant to or in furtherance of the
D directions made by the competent authority in the electoral roll upto 3. p.m.
of the specified date for filing nominations would, therefore, be valid. It
would not, therefore, be correct to contend that any publication of final roll
which is made after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 would render the entire electoral
roll invalid in law. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the 1950
E Act what would be invalid is the addition or deletion of names which have
been made by the statutory authorities after 3 p.m. on the same date. It may
be true that a person whose name appeared in the electoral roll at the time
of filing of the nomination cannot be deleted thereafter and similarly no
new names can be added. But the purport and object of sub-section (3).
F as noticed hereinbefore, is to enable a person to exercise his right of
affording his candidature cannot be taken away. If the name of such person
was not included in the mother roll, his remedy was only to file an
application for inclusion ofhis name in terms of Rule 26 of the 1960 Rules.
It would, thus, bear repetition to state that the same has to be filed at least
seven days prior to the date specified for filing nomination and not
G thereafter.
An order on such application, therefore, was required to be passed
in terms of Section 22 of the 195 Act read with relevant provisions of the
1960 Rules immediately prior to 3 p.m. of the specified date for filing
H nominations. Once such directions are issued, evidently, publication of the
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 107

list in terms offonn No. 16 would be only upon incorporation of directions A
for making amendment, transposition or deletion of names. Whenever
publication of electoral roll is madt> in Form I 6, necessary corrections have
to be carried out in the mother roll. There are ministerial acts. However,
in the event any amendment, transposition or deletion is made after 3 p.m.
the same would be invalid in law. By reason of any direction which is made B
after 3 p.m. neither any person whose name has been added becomes
entitled to vote nor a person whose name has been deleted becomes
disentitled therefrom. The right of such a person to vote or not to vote must
be determined in terms of the position of the electoral roll as it stood at
3 p.m. on the date of filing of the nominations.
c
PRINCIPLES AS TO WHETHER A STATUTE IS MANDATORY OR
DIRECTORY:

A statute as is well-known must be read in the text and context
thereof. Whether a statute is directory or mandatory would not be D
dependent on the user of the words "shall" or "may". Such a question must
be posed and answered having regard to the purpose and object it seeks
to achieve. .. .
What is mandatory is the requirement of sub-section (3) of Section
23 of the 1950 Act and not the ministerial action of actual publication of E
Form 16.

The construction of statute will depend on the purport and object for
which the same had been used. In the instant case the 1960 Rules do not
fix any time for publication of the electoral rolls. On the other hand Sectiqn F
23(3) of the 1950 Act categorically mandates that direction can be issued
for revision in the electoral role by way of amendment in inclusion and
deletion from the elelctoral roll till the date specified for filing nomination.
The electoral roll as revised by reason of such directions can therefore be
amended only thereafter. On the basis of direction issued by the competent
authority in relation to an application filed for inclusion of a voter's name, G
a.nomination can be filed. The person concerned, therefore, would not be
inconvenienced or in any way be prejudiced only because the revised
electoral role in Form 16 is published a few hours later. Result of filing
of such nomination would become known to the concerned parties also
after 3.00. p.m. H
108 SUJ>REME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Furthermore even if the statute specifies a time for publication of the
electoral roll, the same by itself could not have been held to be mandatory.
Such a ,provision would be directory in nature. It is well-settled pinciple
of law· that where a statutory functionary is asked to perform a statutory
duty within the time prescribed therefor, the same would be directory and
B not mandatory. (See Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha v. The District Magistrate
ofMonghyr & Anr., AIR ( 1966) Patna 144, Nomita Chowdhury v. The State
of West Bengal & Ors., (1999) CLJ 21 and Garbari Union Co-operative
Agricultural Credit Society Limited & Anr. v. Swapan Kumar Jana & Ors.,
(1997) 1 CHN 189.;

C Furthennore, a provision in a statute which is procedural in nature
although employs the word "shall" may not be held to be mandatory if
thereby no prejudice is caused. See Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd v.
Municipal Board, Rampur {1965] l SCR 970, State Bank ofPatiala v. S.K.
Shanna, {1996] 3 SCC 364, Venkataswamappa v. Special Dy. Commr.
D (Revenue), {1997) 9 sec 128 and Rai Vimal Krishna and Others v. State
of Bihar and Others, (2003] 6 SCC 401.

The Court cannot, it is trite, supply casus omissus. Reference in this
regard may be made on Dr. Baliram Waman Hiray v. Mr. Justice B. Lentin
and Others, AIR (1988) SC 2267, wherein it was observed:
E
"Law must be definite, and certain. If any of the features of the
law can usefully be regarded as normative, it is such basic
postulates as the requirement of consistency in judicial decision-
making. It is this requirement of consistency that gives "to the law
F much of its rigour. At the same time, there is need for flexibility.
Professor H.L.A. Hart regarded as one of the leading thinkers of
our time observes in his influential book 'The Concept of Law',
depicting the difficult task of a Judge to strike a balance between
certainty and flexibility :

G Where there is obscurity in the language of a statute, it results
in confusion and disorder. No doubt the Courts so frame their
judgments as to give the impression that their decisions are. the
necessary consequence of predetennined rules. In very simple .
cases it may be so; but in the vast majority of cases that trouble
H the Courts, neither statute nor precedents in which the rules are
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 109

legitimately contained allow of only one result. In most important A
cases there is always a choice. The judge has to choose between
alternative meanings to be given to the words of a statute or
between rival interpretations of what a precedent amounts to. It
is only the tradition that judges 'find' and do not ·make' law that
conceals this, and presents their decisions as if they were deductions B
smoothly made from clear pre-existing rules without intrusion of
the judge's choice."

See also Kanta Devi (Smt.) v. Union of India and Another, (2003]
4 sec 753.
c
In Shrimati Tarulata Shyam and Others v. Commissioner of Income-
tax, West Bengal, [ 1977] 3 SCC 305; it was held that if there. be a casus
omissus, the defect can be remedied only by legislation and not by judicial
interpretation.
D
Rule 22(b) of the 1960 Rules cannot, therefore, be interpreted to mean
that publication of the electoral roll must take place before the time of filing
nomination and not thereafter.

CASE LAWS OPERATING IN THE FIELD:
E
In Baidyanath Panjiar (supra), it is stated :
..
"The question for consideration is whether it was within the
competence of the electoral registration officer to amend the
electoral rolls after the last date for making the nomination was F
over."

In Baidyanath Panjiar (supra), upon considering the scheme of the
Act and the principles underlying thereunder the court held that sub-section
(3) of Section 23 is mandatory-having regard to the provision of Section G
62 of the Act. It was opined :

" .. .In view of that provision the electoral roll referred to in Section
62(1) of the Act must be understood to be the electoral roll that
was in force on the last day for making the nominations for the
election. H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 9. It was next urged that even if we hold that in including fresh
electors in the electoral roll on April 27, 1968, the electoral
registration officer contravened Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act, the
same cannot be made a ground for invalidating the election as the
contravention in question does not come within the purview of
sub-section (I) of Section 100 of the Act. Th is contention again
B
does not appear to be sound. Clause (d)(iii) of sub-section (1) of
Section 100 of the Act povides that ifthe High Court is of the
opinion that the result of the election in so far as it concerns the
returned candidate has been materially affected by the improper
reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any
c vote which is void, it shall declare the election void. We have
earlier come to the conclusion that the electoral registration officer
had no power to include new names in the elctoral roll on April
27, 1968. Therefore votes of the electors whose names were
included in the roll on that date must be held to be void votes.
D That conclusion satisfies one of the conditions prescribed in
Section IOO(l)(d)."

ln Narendra Madivalapa (supra), a two-Judge Bench of this Court
following Baidyanath Panjiar (supra) reiterated that sub-section (3) of
E Section 23 is mandatory. The question which.arose therein revolved round
the inclusion of the 16 names in the electoral roll. Therein the Court was
considering an election of the local body ofBidar district. The said 16 votes
were directed to be ignored from the total tally of the returned candidate.
The court in the fact of that case exercised its jurisdiction in issuing a
F direction upon the High Court to send for the ballot papers, pick out the
16 ballots relating to the Bidar Board, examine them without exposing the
identity of the persons who had voted and to whom they had voted and
record a re-tally excluding these 16 tainted votes from the respective
candidates.

G The said decision was considered in /. Vikheshe Sema (supra). In that
case also the invalid votes were directed to be rejected. However, in that
case the High Court did not pass any order on the application filed by the
respondent therein. The respondent therein contended that the ballot papers
should be summoned and examined in order to find out the void votes and
H how the said votes affected the outcome of the election. In the aforementioned i .
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 111
situation, this Court made the following observations whereupon the A
learned counsel or the appellant placed strong reliance :

"14. Once the High Court was convinced, and it was evident from
the facts on record that a large number of void votes had been
received and they ~ould have affected the outcome of the election, B
then it was under a duty to have taken the next logical step which
would have been to examine the votes which had been cast,
exclude the void votes and then re-count the valid votes in order
to come to the conclusion whether the reception of the void votes
had materially affected the result of the returned candidate.
Without undertaking this exercise the High Court was wrong in C
coming to the conclusion that the election of the appellant had
been materially affected and that the same should be set aside."

The said observations were made having regard to the fact that an
application to that effect was filed. D
However, in D.B. Raju (supra), L.M. Sharma (as His Lordship then
was) speaking for the Bench held that any publication made after the
specified time under Section 33 would be bad in law. The learned Judge
opined :
E
"14. The v_ital difference between an Act of a legislature and a sub-
ordinate legislation was earlier noted in Har/av. State ofRajasthan,
[1952] SCR I IO: AIR (1951) SC 467. The Act of the legislature
are passed by the accredited representatives of the people who in
theory qm be trusted to see that their constituents know what has F
been done, and this is done only after debates take place which
are open to the public. The matter receives wide publicity through
the media. But the case is different with the delegated legislation
and, it we may add, also in the case of orders passed by the
authorities like that in the present appeal before us. The mode of G
publication can vary but there must be reasonable publication of
some sort. A reference may also be made to decision in Fatma
Haji Ali Mohammad Haji v. State of Bombay, [1951] SCR 266,
Which the question as to whether certain powers given to the
government for issuing a direction to the Collector not to act in
accordance with the prescribed rules had been actually exercised a
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS.[2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A or not was under consideration. It was stated that the power had
to be exercised in clear and unambiguous terms and, (SCR p. 275)

"the decision that the power pas been exercised should be
notified in the usual manner in which such decisions' are
made known to the public."
B
With utmost respect, we are•·. unable to
t
su:hscribe
•
tb• the extr~me 'viewsJ"
1

'•t•' , , .

for the reasons stated hereinbefore. · · ·· ' ·

In Lal Babu Hussein (supra); this Court was' cohsideririg a situation·
C where without giving an opportunity to the voters to place the relevant
. t. , . • • ·'
materials and solely acting on a police report removed the name of the
voters for undertaking a special intensive revision. The Couit h~ld that even
for that purpose the procedure must be followed.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has placed
D strong reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Radhey
Shyam Dani (supra). Therein the Constitution Bench was considering an
election held under Ajmer Merwara Municipalities Regulation. The name
of the respondent was incorrectly described, his father's name had been
mentioned as Ratan Lal instead of Chitar Mal. He filed an application for
E correction but no order was passed thereon. His nomination was, however,'
rejected on the ground that he was not one of the voters. In that situation
the election was set aside stating :

"It is of the essence of these electi- ins that proper electoral
rolls should be maintained and in order that a proper electoral roil
F should be maintained it is ~ecessary that after the preparation of
the electoral roll opportunity should be given to the parties
concerned to scrutinize whether the persons enrolled as electors
possessed the requisite qualifications. Opportunity should also be
given for the revision of the electoral roll and for the adjudication
G of claims to be em::olled therein and entertaining objections to such
enrolment. Unless.this is done,the entire obligation cast upon the
authorities holding the elections is not discharged and the elections
held on such imperfect electoral rolls would acquire ~o validity
and would be liable to be challenged at the instance of the parties
H concerned. It was in our opinion, therefore, necessary for the
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] I 1-3

Chief Commissioner to frame rules in this behalf, and in so far A
as the rules which were thus framed omitted these provisions they
were defective."

The said judgment is clearly distinguishable and cannot be held to
have any application in the instant case.
B
The learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Division
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hafiz Mohammad Anwar
Khan (supra) wherein in a petition for issuance of a writ of quo war.ranto
the election was set aside on the ground that the eelctoral roll was invalid.

"It is no doubt true that the petitioner could have moved this
c
Court earlier for appropriate relief even before the election was
held, but the relief now claimed is in the nature of a writ of quo
warranto questioning the right of the respondents 6 to 13 to hold
their offices. There is in such ~ case no question of delay or D
estoppel. On the other hand, as we have already indicated, no
election on the basis of the rolls such as those in this case can be
allowed to stand."

We do not think that the said decisions lay down the correct principles
~~ E
Strong reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the
appellant A. C. Jose v. Sivan Pillai and Others, [ 1984] 2 SCC 656 for the
proposition that the election contrary to the scheme of the 1951 Act and
the 1960 Rules would be void. In that case the Commission in exercise of f
its power under Article 324 of the Constitution of India issued a notification
directing that the votes be cast by mechanical process in 50 out of 84
polling stations in a particular constituency in the State of Kerala. The
respondent therein was declared elected from that constituency defeating .
the appellant by a margin of 123 votes only. The validity of the said
notification was questioned. This Court set aside the election of the G
respondent with respect of the 50 polling stations where voting machines
were used stating that by exercise of its power under Article 324 of the
Constitution of India, no direction could be issued by the Commission in
contravention of the parliamentary legislation. It was held that Article 324
of the Constitution relating to superintendence, direction and control was H
•
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A actually vesting merely executive powers and not the legislative powers.
In the aforementioned situation, the election was set aside as voting
machines were used in certain constituencies contrary to law.

A.C. Jose (supra) is not an authority for the proposition that although
some irregularity has been committed, an election otherwise valid will have
B to be declared void even without arriving at a finding that the same has
materially affected the result. The question as regard the applicability of
Section 100(1 )(d) of the 1951 Act was not examined therein nor in the facts
and circumstunces obtaining therein it was necessary to be examined.

C Re : Question No. 2

Effect of Section lOO(l){d) of 1951 Act:

The appellant herein has filed an elecfion petition for declaring the
D election of the respondent herein a:; void. For obtaining the aforementioned
relief, .it was necessary for him to show that amendment, addition or
deletion in the electoral roll after 3.00 p.m.' on 23.4.2001 had indeed
materially affected the result of the election.

The law as it stands, ir. our opinion, would require a strict pleading
E and proof of the factors enumerated in Section 100 of the 1951 Act for
obtaining a declaration that the election was a void one. Such a ~eclaration
can only be made upon consideration of the materials brought on records.
Th election tribunal will have jurisdiction to issue such a direction only
in the event one or the other' fact~rs enumerated in the sub-clauses
F contained in· Sub-Section (1) of Section 100 of the 1951 Act are fulfilled
and not otherwise. · ' ' .

· The appellant herein has not place~ any material to show as to names
of how many persons were added, or deleted after 3.00 p.m. As discussed
herein before, even those electoral rolls ha.ve not been produced before the
G High Court for its comparison. Whether the provision· of Section lOO(l)(d)
of the 1951 Act is required to be mandatorily complied with or not fell
for consideration in Vashit Narain Sharma '(supra). In ~o uncertain terms
it was held that the burden of proof would be on the election petitioner.
. .-
H In Vashit Narain Sharma (supra), this Court 'observed :
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 115

"But we are not prepared to hold that the mere fact that the A
wasted votes are gieater than the margin of votes between the
returned candidate and the candidate securing the next highest
number of votes must lead to the necessary inference that the
result of the election has been materially affected. That is a matter
which has to be proved and the onus of proving it liles upon the B
petitioner. It will not do merely to say that all or a majority of
the wasted votes might have gone to the next highest candidate.
The casting of votes at an election depends upon a variety of
factors and it is not possible for any one to predicate how many
or which propo1tion of the votes will go to one or the other of C
the candidates. While it must be recognized that petitioner in such
a case is confronted with a difficult situation, it is not possible to
relieve him of the duty imposed upon him by section 10(1 )( c) and
hold without evidence that the duty has been discharged. Should
the petitioner fail to adduce satisfactory evidence to enable the D
Court to find in his favour on this point, the inevitable result would
be that the Tribunal would not interfere in his favour and would
allow the election to stand."

The said view was reiterated in Mahadeo v. Babu Udai Partap Singh
and Others, AIR ( 1966) SC 824. As noticed herein before, even Baidyanath E
Panjiar (supra) whereupon the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of
appellant placed strong reliance, this Court while holding the provisions
of Section 23(3) of the 1950 Act to be mandatory held that the said
illegality committed in the matter of amendment in the electoral roll has
materially affected the result as envisaged under Section IOO(l)(d) of the F
1951 Act was required to bP. proved.

The question raised herein is squarely covered by a three-judge Bench
decision of this Court in G.K. Sama! (supra) wherein following Vashit '
Narain Sharma (supra), it was held : G
"On the material on record we agree with the High Court that it
has not been shown that the result of the election had been
materially affected by the casting of votes by persons whose
names were added to the electoral roll on Apirl 27, 1968 and the H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A alleged non-voting of 15 fonner electors whose names had been
deleted."

Upon considering the pleadings in the election petition this Court
opined :
B
"The High Court was rightly impressed by the omission pf any
allegation that all or majority of the persons whose names were
included in the electoral roll for the first time in the evening of
April 27, 1968, were the supporters of respondent No. 1 in the
election.
c
The learned counsel has not been able to show us any
evidence which might indicate how many of the first preference
votes counted in favour of respondent No. I were polled at
-
Jamshadpur, Adityapur or Jugsalai respectively.
D
On the facts and the pattern of voting it is impossible to say
that there was any substantial number of votes counted in favour
of respondent No. I which were void while those counted in
favour of the petitioner were of the original electors."

E In Paokai Haokip (supra) this Court in no uncertain terms held that
ifthere existed a lacuna in the legislation, it is for it to provide for a remedy
stating :

"In our opinion, the decision of the learned Judicial Commissioner·
F that the election was to contravention of the Act and the Rules '
was correct in the circumstances ofthis case; but that does not
alter the position with regard to s. IOO(l)(d)(iv) of the Act. That
section requires that the election petitioner must go a little further
and prove that the result of the election had been materially
affected. How he has to prove it has already been stated by this
G Court and applying that test, we find that he has significantly
failed in !Jis attempt and therefore the election of the returned
.candidate could not be avoided."

Chhedi Ram (supra) was decided in somewhat peculiar situation. An
H election petition was filed on the ground that a nomination of one Moti
P.T. RAJAN v. T.P.M. SAHIR [SINHA, J.] 117

Ram had been improperly accepted. The winning candidate obtained A
17,822 votes and the appellant herein got 17,449 votes leaving a margin
of 373 votes. The said Moti Ram secured 6710 votes. The election petition
was filed that Moti Ram was not entitied to seek election from the reserved
constituency being Kahar by caste and not a member of the Scheduled
Caste. In the peculiar fact and circumstances of this case and in particular B
having regard to the fact that 6710 votes obtained by Moti Ram were
almost 20 times the difference between the number of votes secured by and
successful candidates ar.d the candidate securing the next highest number
of votes: it was held an impossible burden of proof cannot be thrown upon
the appellant therein. This Court observed :
c
"The number of votes secured by the candidate whose nomination
was improperly accepted bore a fairly high proportion to the
number of votes secured by the successful candidate - it was a
little over one-third. Surely, in that situation, the result o[ the
election may safely be said to have been affected." D
The Bench while agreeing with the observation of Ghulam Hasan, J.
in Vashit Narain Sharma (supra), however, opined :

"ft does not, however, mean that whatever the number of wasted
votes and whatever the margin of differene -between the number E
of votes secured by the successful candidate and the number of
votes secured by the next highest candidate, the court would
invariably hold that the result of the election had not been
materially affected. In an appropriate case having regard to the
margin of difference between the votes secured by the successful F
candidate and thi! candidate securing the next highest number of
votes and the proportion which such margin bears to the wasted
votes, it is permissible for the court to hold that the burden of
proving that the result of the election has been materially affected
has been discharged." •
G
Chhedi Ram (supra), therefore, is not a decision which can be $aid
to be an authority for the proposition that the number of votes which were
liable to be rejected would itself be a barometer for the purpose of arriving

• • at a conclusion that the burden of the election petitioner to prove the legal
requirement of Section IOO(l)(d) of the 1951 Act stands discharged. H
118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A The said decision was rightly held to have been rendered in the
peculiar fact situa'Lion of that case in Shiv Charan Singh (supra) and
Santosh Yadav (supra) on, thus, does not constitute a binding
precedent.

B In Santosh Yadav (supra) this Court held :

"The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant placed heavy
reliance on Chhedi Ram v. Jhilmit Ram, (1984] 2 SCC 281 : AIR
(1984) SC 146 and submitted that the ratio of the decision
squarely applies to the present case and should govern the
c decision thereof. It was submitted that in Chhedi Ram case [ 1984]
2 SCC 281 : AIR (1984) SC \46 the candidate whose nomination
was improperly accepted had obtained 6710 votes which was
almost 20 times the difference between the number of votes
secured by the successful candidate and the candidate securing the
D next highest number of votes. So also the number of votes secured
by the candidate whose nomination was improperly accepted bore
a fairly high proportion to the number of votes secured by the
successful candidate - a little over I/3rd. The learned Senior
Counsel submitted that on availability of these twin factors it was
held by this Court that "the result of the election might safely be
E
said to have been affected"; while the case of the present appellant
stands on a much better footing inasmuch as the number of votes
secured by Shri Naresh Yadav is almost 59 times of the margin
between the votes secured by the appellant and the respondent.

F At the first blush the submission appears to be attractive but is
found to be devoid of merit on closer scrutiny. Chhedi Ram case
[1984] 2 SCC 281 : AIR (1984) SC 146 came up for the
consideration of this Court at least on three occasions. In Shiv
Charan case [1988] 2 SCC 12 : AIR (1988) SC 637, Tek Chand
G case [200 I] 3 SCC 290 : [200 I] SCC L&S 555 and J.
Chandrasekhara Rao v. V Jagapathi Rao, [1993) Supp. 2 SCC
229 this Court has held that Chhedi Ram case [1984] 2 SCC 281
: AIR (1984) SC 146 rested "on its own facts" and did not overrule
the earlier decisions of this Court, namely, the decisions in Vashist
H Narain Sharma case AIR (1954) SC 513 and Sam ant N. Balkrishna
P.T. RAJAN v.. T.P.M. SAHIR (SINHA, J.] 119
case (1969] 3 SCC 238: AIR (1969) SC 1201. In Chhedi Ram A
case (1984] 2 SCC 281 : AIR (1984) SC 146 not only the
proportion of wasted voted was 20 times of the margin, there were
six candidates in all in the election fray. The Court formed an
opinion that a reasonable probability was raised in favour of
holding that the result of the election had been materially affected. 8
The decision in Chhedi Ram case [ 1984] 2 SCC 281 : AIR (1984)
SC 146 does not set out detailed facts and circumstances and the
nature of the evidence adduced which may have persuaded the
Court in arriving at a finding in favour of the election petitioner.
In view of the earlier decisions of this Court existing before C
Chhedi Ram case [1984] 2 sec 281 : AIR (1984) SC 146 was
decided, it cannot be held that merely because the number of
wasted votes bears a high degree of proportion to the margin of
votes between the winning candidate and the next highest candidate,
an inference must always be tlrawn that the result of the election
was materially affected insofar as the returned candidate is D
concerned. There must be definite evidence available before the
court enabling an inference being drawn as to how the wasted
votes would have been distributed amongst the contesting
candidates. The court cannot conjecturise or return findings on
sunnises." E
The view taken by th.is Court in Vashit Narain Sharma (supra) has
consistently been followed also in J. Chandra Sekhara Rao, Uma Bal/m,
Rath (Smt.), Tek Chand and a recent decision of this Court in Harsh Kumar
v. Bhagwan Sahai Rawat and Others, (2003) 6 SCALE 599.
F
The appellant herein has not been able to show that names of how
many persons were included after 3 p.m. on 23.4.2001 and how they have
exercised their right of franchise. He has also failed to show by adducing
any evidence that those persons whose names had been omitted would have
voted for the second respondent. The least the appellant could do was to G
file an appropriate application before the Tribunal praying for inspection
of ballot papers to find out the void votes which had been accepted so as
to enable the High Court to arrive at a conclusion how casting of such void
)
votes affected the outcome of sch election. Further for inspection of ballot
papers, the election petition must make out a strong prima facie case, only H
. 120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R .
A after setting out material facts in the Election Petition and leading evidence
to that effect.

The learned counsel, however, would submit that such an application
was not necessary to be filed as it was the duty of the Court to issue such
B directions. Reliance in this connection had been placed on I. Vikheshe Sema
(supra). In that case such an application was filed bui no order had been
passed in that situation.

The fact of the matter obtaining therein was absolutely different.
Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, therein such an application had been
C filed and this Court merely held that without passing any order on such
a:tlAlpplication and without inspection of the ballot papers, the High Court
could not have an-ived at a finding that the result was materially affected.
The fact of that case was converse to the present case.

D For the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this
appeal which is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

S,K.S. Appeal dismissed.