MP High Court Reinstates Election Of BJP Municipal Council President, Rejects Claim Of 'Unlawful' Votes From Congress Councillors
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the Election Tribunal's decision which had annulled the returning candidate's election–who belongs to the BJP–as Multai Municipal Council's President on the allegation that there was cross voting wherein the successful candidate got votes from Councillors of Congress party. In doing so the court held that the Tribunal had engaged in "moral policing"...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside the Election Tribunal's decision which had annulled the returning candidate's election–who belongs to the BJP–as Multai Municipal Council's President on the allegation that there was cross voting wherein the successful candidate got votes from Councillors of Congress party.
In doing so the court held that the Tribunal had engaged in "moral policing" by questioning the legitimacy of cross-voting even though the election was not conducted on party lines.
For context, elections to Municipal Councils were held in 2022 and the election for the post of President was an indirect election as the Councillors–one each from each Ward, were to be elected directly by the electorate of general public. Thereafter the Councillors, would elect a "President" of the Municipal Council from amongst themselves.
While the elections of Councillors was on party lines however the election of the President of the concerned Municipality was not on party lines. In the Presidential election respondent No.1, the present petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 had filled up their nomination forms. There were 15 Councillors elected in the present case.
Respondent No.1 had the support of Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) though the election was not on party lines. Meanwhile respondent No.2, a Congress party member, withdrew from her candidature and only two candidates remained–the present petitioner and the respondent No.1.
The petitioner secured 9 votes out of 15 whereas the respondent No.1 secured 6 votes out of 15 and the petitioner was declared the winner. Against the election of petitioner, respondent no. 1 filed an election petition alleging that various ballots had identification marks on them and the Election Officer accepted 4 such ballots which vitiated the election process.
It was alleged that the petitioner as well as the respondent No.1 both originally belonged to BJP and were elected on that mandate as Councillors, but the petitioner "unlawfully took the support of Indian National Congress Councillors" and managed to win the post of President. The Election Tribunal allowed respondent no. 1's election petition by holding that various ballots had identification marks and also that since the support of Councillors of opposite political party was taken, therefore, there is inference of corrupt practice. The matter then reached the High Court.
On the allegation that there were identification marks on the ballot, Justice Vivek Jain observed that while the ballot papers seem to contain "pen trails or ink droplets or ink blot dots" however the same had no "particular pattern" so as to identify the ballots.
"These cannot be taken to be identification marks because such type of blots and dots have appeared even in the ballot papers in favour of the election petitioner and all the six votes in favour of the election petitioner contain such type of dots and pen trails...If these blots and pen trails were there only in the ballots of the returned candidate, then in such circumstances, some conclusion or inference could have been drawn, but since similar type of blots and pen trails are there in the ballots of the other candidate also, therefore, it is to be inferred that it was something natural...Therefore, to that extent, the order of the Election Tribunal in holding that the ballot papers had identification marks, seems to be contrary to law and it deserves to be and is hereby set aside," the court held.
Three revision pleas were filed challenging the tribunal's order which set aside the election of the returning candidate and declared the election void. It also passed orders to conduct fresh elections. One of the revisionists is the returned candidate whose election was invalidated, and the other two are councillors who were electors in the presidential election but not parties in the original election petition.
On the allegation that there was corrupt practices involved in the election since votes of the opposite party were procured the high court said that proof of corrupt practice requires strict proof and no inference as to corrupt practice can be made.
The court observed that in the present case the election of the President was not on party lines but on individual basis; though there was a letter of support by BJP in favour of the respondent No.1 but she "did not contest election on party symbol". It said:
"In the present case, it is undisputed that both the petitioner and the respondent No.1 were elected on the mandate of BJP as Councillors and no candidate who was elected on the mandate of INC was in the fray for the post of President and 6 Councillors had been selected on the mandate of INC in the election. Once no INC Councillor was in the fray for the post of President of Municipal Council, then these six INC Councillors had to vote and they were not expected to abstain from voting in the election. Once the INC Councillors had to vote, then their vote had to go in favour of either of the two candidates.
It can be equated to a situation where for the post of Vice President, no candidate from a particular opposition party is in the fray, then whether its MPs would be expected to abstain from voting or whether if the MPs of that party from whom there is no candidate to the post of Vice President in the election, can the election of the Vice President be held to be illegal, the answer would be “no” but the Election Tribunal seems to be ignorant of the basic principles of parliamentary democracy....As the election was not on party symbol, there was no question of cross voting".
The court said that even if there was cross-voting, then it could have been a ground for Congress to take action against their Councillors, but it was hardly a ground for the Tribunal to set aside the election. It thereafter said:
"The Election Tribunal seems to have done a moral policing inasmuch the winning candidate should not have taken the support of cross-voters. Though as the election was not on party lines, there was no question of cross voting, but even if there was cross voting, then also the votes were legal. The Election Tribunal could not stepped into the shoes of party authority of BJP and tried to remedy if something was wronged by cross-voting of INC Councillors".
The court clarified that the appointment of the committee was made per the statutory provisions and cannot, by itself, imply bribery and illegality. Thus, the bench allowed the revision filed by the successful candidate and set aside the Tribunal's order.
Further, the bench restored the election of the candidate and permitted her to resume office.
Case Title: Neetu Parmar v Varshagadekar, Civil Revision Nos. 464 of 2023, 497 of 2023 & 499 of 2023
For Revisionists: Senior Advocate Sanjay Agrawal with Advocates Aishwarya Nandani Tiwari and Aditya Raj Shukla
For State: Advocate Amit Mishra