- (1.) The petition invoking the jurisdiction in public interest seeks two reliefs in regard to the law pertaining to elections to Parliament and the State legislature. The first relief is in respect of Rule 64 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 (Rule Of 1961) under which a candidate to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given, is to be declared to be elected under Section 66 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act Of 1951). The petitioner seeks a mandamus by this Court to refrain from giving effect to the expression "to whom the largest number of valid votes have been given".
(2.) The contention of the petitioner is that Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1951 contain no provision under which a candidate with the largest number of votes is to be declared to be elected. Section 14 provides for a notification of a general election to the House of the People. Sub-section (2) of Section 14 empowers the President by notification to call upon all Parliamentary constituencies to elect members in accordance with the provisions of the Act on such dates as may be recommended by the Election Commission. A similar provision is contained in Section 15 in relation to the State Legislative Assembly.
(3.) Rule 64 adopts the first past the post principle since a candidate with the largest number of valid votes is to be declared as elected. The petitioner has not challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 64. But, technicalities apart, there is no reasonable basis for this Court to come to the conclusion that the provision is ultra vires. The manner in which elections have to be held and results computed and declared is a matter of legislative policy. Rule 64 provides an acceptable mode for declaration of results in a democracy by postulating that a candidate with the largest number of valid votes would be declared to be elected. This does not either infringe the provisions of the parent legislation or for that matter of the Constitution. Hence we see no substance in the challenge.;