CASE NO.: Special Leave Petition (civil) 24367 of 2003 PETITIONER: AMARJIT SINGH RESPONDENT: CHARANJIT SINGH AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/01/2004 BENCH: V.N. KHARE, CJ. S.H. KAPADIA JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2004(1) SCR 397
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
It is not disputed that the polling had taken place by show of hands. It is
also not disputed that the vote of Sher Singh, who cast his vote by show
of hand for the respondent, was recorded and recorded votes were counted.
Under such circumstances, the Presiding Officer could not have directed for
re-poll in the garb of recounting of votes. We are of the view that the
High Court has taken a correct decision.
Before concluding, we may usefully refer to Blackwell’s Law of Meetings-9th
Edition, page 60. In common law voting at all meetings is by a show of
hands. Voting by show of hands means counting the persons present who are
entitled to vote and who choose to vote by holding up (raising) their
hands. Any person having legal right to be present at the meeting may, at
the conclusion of the voting, demand a poll and the Chairperson is the
proper person to grant or refuse a poll which is in the nature of an appeal
by one of the parties dissatisfied with the decision of the Chairperson
upon the show of bands. In modem parliamentary usage a motion is carried by
acclamation or by show of hands. The Chairman or the Presiding Officer asks
those present to indicate their vote or choice by holding up their hands.
Once the Presiding Officer records the votes and, after counting the votes,
declares the result, it is conclusive and it can be challenged only by a
demand for poll. If the demand is not made, the Chairman’s declaration will
stand (see: Shackleton On The Law And Practice of Meetings-8th Edition,
pages 60-62.) Once a motion has been voted upon, it becomes a resolution of
the meeting. The result of a vote once announced is final (see: The Rules
of Debate in the Parliament of France by D.W.S. Lidderdule, page 145). In
the present case, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the High
Court that it was not permissible for the Presiding Officer to change the
vote of Sher Singh once it has been recorded in favour of the original
petitioner under Punjab Municipal (President and Vice-President) Election
Rules, 1994.
For foregoing reasons special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.