Madras High Court: In a writ petition challenging the election of the respondent 3 as member of the syndicate of Bharathidasan University (‘University’) and to direct the University and the Returning Officer, to count all the votes without ignoring any one of 37 polled votes as eligible votes and declare the results by declaring the petitioner as one of the two elected member of the University syndicate, G.R. Swaminathan, J. has held that respondent 3 was rightly declared as a winner.
There was a tie between the petitioner and respondent 3, as both got the first 8 preferential votes. To break the deadlock, there was a draw of lots. A lady officer picked one of the lots and it contained the name of respondent 3. Thus, he was declared the winner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed this writ petition, praying to declare respondent 3 as elected as syndicate member to the University as illegal and against law.
The Court said that the first question concerns the invalidation of one ballot paper. The second question concerns the interpretation of the results of the draw of lots.
The Court noted that one ballot paper in which the first preferential vote was cast in favour of the petitioner had been invalidated on the ground that the marking of the second preference was not as per instructions.
The petitioner submitted that the voter concerned had employed Roman numeral instead of Arab numeral and that this would not go to the root of the matter. In any event, the second preferential vote alone should have been invalidated and not the entire ballot paper. There is no ambiguity regarding the first preferential vote, the returning officer ought to have declared the petitioner as winner as he had secured 9 votes compared to eight obtained by the respondent 3. The invalidation of the ballot paper had prejudicially affected the outcome.
The Court noted that there is no dispute that the voter concerned had acted in breach of the instructions. Further, the Court said that as per the statutes, “where more than one vote can be given on the same ballot paper if one of the marks is so placed as to render it doubtful to which candidate it is intended to apply, the vote concerned but not whole ballot paper shall be invalid on that count.” But this proviso will not come to the petitioner’s rescue.
The Court also noted that in this case, there were only 4 candidates. Only two votes had to be cast. The voter had marked the second preference vote as “11”.
After perusing Clause 12 of the Bharathidasan University, 1981, the Court noted that the proviso to Clause 12 will be attracted only if there is doubt regarding the casting of the vote other than the first preferential vote. The proviso will not kick in if the ballot paper itself is rendered invalid for other reasons set out in clause 12. Thus, the Court said that by putting the figure “11”, the ballot paper has become recognizable. Since there were only four candidates, the question of putting “11” does not arise at all. The voter concerned could have written 1, 2, 3 or 4 or I, II, III or IV if at all. Thus, Clause 12(b) got attracted and the entire ballot paper became invalid. The returning officer was justified in rejecting the said ballot paper in its entirety.
The Court said that when specific instructions had been issued as to how the vote should be marked, the voter is obliged to conform to the same. 1, 2, 3… alone should have been put. He did not have the choice of employing equivalent expressions or figures. 2 and II may have the same mathematical value but will not have the same result when marking on a ballot paper.
Concerning the submission, where the petitioner employed the expression “Arab numerals”, the Court remarked that they should actually be known as “Hindu numerals”. Further, the Court said that it is time to understand the term “Hindu” as having territorial connotation.
After taking note of the Ballot papers, the Court said that all the other voters have put “1” or “2”. In the invalidated ballot paper alone, the mark “11” is found, which makes it recognizable. Thus, it was rejected. If there is some doubt regarding the second preferential vote, then the first preferential vote can be considered, and the ballot paper will not be rendered invalid. But if making a mark on the ballot paper has rendered it recognizable, then the invalidity will affect the entire ballot paper.
Therefore, the Court held that respondent 3 was rightly declared as a winner.
[Dr.D.Muthuramakrishnan v. Bharathidasan University, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad 3313, decided on 08-07-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: Advocate G. Prabhu Rajadurai
For Respondents: Standing Counsel V.R. Shanmuganathan, Senior Counsel Lajapathy Roy
