- (1.) This bunch of writ petitions impugns four set of grievances, namely (i) illegal addition or deletion of the names of voters in electoral rolls, (ii) shifting or non-shifting of polling booths, (iii) rejection/acceptance of nomination papers and (iv) non-issuance/ cancellation of caste certificates required for filing nomination papers in respect of reserved constituencies'. Thus these writ petitions in bunch are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) As regards the first set of grievance relating to addition or deletion of the names in voters' lists, learned Counsel for Petitioners, Sri C. B. Pandey, referred to the judgment of 5 Judges Bench in the case of Indrajit Barua and Ors. v. Election Commission of India and Ors., 1986 AIR(SC) 103. Para 12 of the aforesaid judgment which appears to have a direct bearing on this issue reads as: 12. From the materials placed by the parties and the Election Commission, we have come to the conclusion that the Election Commission did not give directions contrary to the requirements of Section 16 of the Act and the revision of the 1979 electoral rolls could not be under-taken for reasons beyond the control of the Election Commission. As pointed out by us in our order of September 28, 1984, there was no dispute to the electoral roll of 1977 nor was any challenge advanced against the election of 1978 to the State Legislature held on the basis of such rolls. Admittedly, the 1979 rolls were the outcome of intensive revision of the rolls of 1977. That being the position and in view of the proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 21 which we have extracted above the electoral rolls of 1979 were validly in existence and remained effective even though the process contemplated in Sub-section (2) for revision had not either been undertaken or completed. It has been indicated by a Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Lakshmi Charan Sen and Ors. v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman and Ors. C.As. 739-741/82 decided on 8.5.1985, that preparation and revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process not connected with any particular election but when an election is to be held, the electoral roll which exists at the time when election is notified would form the foundation for holding of such election. That is why Sub-section (3) of section 23 provides for suspension of any modification to the electoral roll after the last date of modification of nominations for an election and until completion of the election. We had, therefore, come to the conclusion that the electoral rolls of 1979 were not invalid and could provide the basis for holding of the elections in 1983. Whether preparation and publication of the electoral rolls are a part of the process of election within the meaning of Article 329(b) of the Constitution is the next aspect to be considered. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Ors., 1952 SCR 218 this Court had to decide the amplitude of the term "election". Fazal Ali, J., speaking for the Constitution Bench indicated: It seems to me that the word 'election' has been used in Part XV of the Constitution in the wide sense, that is to say to connote the entire procedure to be go through to return a candidate to the legislature. The use of the expression "conduct of elections" in Article 324 specifically points to the wide meaning, and that meaning can also be read consistently into the other provisions which occur in Part XV including Article 329(b). That the word "election" bears this wide meaning' whenever we talk of elections in a democratic country, is borne out by the fact that in most of the books on the subject and in several cases dealing with the matter, one of the questions mooted is, when the election begins. The subject is dealt with quite concisely in Halsbury's Laws of England in the following passage under the heading "Commencement of the Election: Although the first formal step in every election is the issue of the writ, the election is considered for some purposes to begin at an earlier date. It is a question of fact in each case when an election begins in such a way as to make the parties concerned responsible for breaches of election law, the test being whether the contest is "reasonably imminent". Neither the issue of the writ nor the publication of the notice of election can be looked to as fixing the date when an election begins from this point of view. Nor, again does the nomination day afford any criterion. The election will usually begin at least earlier than the issue of the writ. The question when the election begins must be carefully distinguished from that as to when "the conduct and management of" an election may be said to begin. Again, the question as to when a particular person commences to be a candidate is a question to be considered in each case. The discussion in this passage makes it clear that the word "election" can be and has been appropriately used with reference to the entire process which consists of several stages and embraces many steps, some of which may have an important bearing on the result of the process." We are not prepared to take the view that preparation of electoral rolls is also a process of election. We find support for our view from the observations of Chadrachud, C.J., in Laxami Charan Sen's case (supra) that "it may be difficult, consistently with that view, to hold that preparation and revision of electoral roll, is a part of 'election' within the meaning of Article 329(b)". In a suitable case challenge to the electoral roll for not complying with the requirements of the law may be entertained subject to the rule indicated in Ponnuswami's case (supra). But the election of a candidate is not open to challenge on the score of the electoral roll being defective. Holding the election to the Legislature and holding them according to law are both matters of paramount importance. Such elections have to be held also in accordance with a time bound programme contemplate in the Constitution and the Act. The proviso added in section 22(2) of the Act of 1950 is intended to extend cover to the electoral rolls in eventualities which otherwise might have interfered with the smooth working of the programme. These are the reasons for which we came to the conclusion that the electoral roll of 1979 had not been vitiated and was not open to be attacked as invalid.
(3.) From the aforesaid discussions and conclusions, it is obvious that a defective electoral roll would not be a ground for challenging the election by way of an election petition. Sri C. B. Pandey also referred to section 12-C of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 which contains specific grounds for challenging the Panchayat elections. The section reads like: Section 12-C.--Questioning of elections. (1) The election of Pradhan and member shall be questioned by an application presented to the prescribed authority within such time as may be prescribed on the grounds that: (a) the election has not been free by reason of corrupt practice, or (b) the result of election has been materially affected by improper acceptance or rejection of any nomination or gross failure to comply with the provisions of this Act or the Rules. (2) This application may be presented by any candidate at the election or any elector. (3) The disposal of application may be by summary hearing. (4) The revision against the order of the prescribed authority may be filed within thirty days before the District Judge. The decision of the revising authority shall be final. The aforesaid provisions of the Act also do not provide that a defective electoral roll can be a ground for challenging Panchayat elections.;