{"id":136623,"date":"1994-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1994-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994"},"modified":"2017-03-29T20:30:05","modified_gmt":"2017-03-29T15:00:05","slug":"a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994","title":{"rendered":"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC,   Supl.  (2) 619 JT 1994 (3)\t181<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: M Punchhi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Punchhi, M.M.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nA. NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGEORGE MASCRENE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT11\/04\/1994\n\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nBENCH:\nPUNCHHI, M.M.\nAHMADI, A.M. (J)\nRAMASWAMY, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1994 SCC  Supl.  (2) 619 JT 1994 (3)\t181\n 1994 SCALE  (2)522\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t   ORDER\n<\/p>\n<p>28.  For  the reasons given by the majority (R.M. Sahai,  J.<br \/>\ndissenting and S.P. Bharucha, J. with whom N.  Venkatachala,<br \/>\nJ.  has agreed) the appeal is allowed and the  judgment\t and<br \/>\norder under appeal is set aside.  The writ petition filed by<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t is allowed only to the extent\tthat  it  is<br \/>\ndeclared the instruments executed by them in Form VI of\t the<br \/>\nDistillery and Warehouse Rules made under the provisions  of<br \/>\nthe  Kerala Abkari Act shall be liable to stamp\t duty  under<br \/>\nArticle\t 32 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act.   There<br \/>\nshall be no order as\t to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>29.  We are informed that the respondent in pursuance of the<br \/>\ninterim order passed by the High Court had paid duty on\t the<br \/>\ndocument  to  the  State Government  as\t one  payable  under<br \/>\nArticle\t 13 of the Schedule to the Kerala Stamp Act.   Since<br \/>\nwe have held that the document was only indemnity bond,\t the<br \/>\namount of duty payable by the respondent was much less\tthan<br \/>\nwhat was paid by it. In the circumstances, the appellant  is<br \/>\ndirected  to refund the excess amount, if any, paid  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent.   The amount shall be refunded, as requested  by<br \/>\nthe learned counsel for the State, within three months\tfrom<br \/>\ntoday.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">623<\/span><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/192550\/\">A. NEELALOHITHADSAN NADAR V. GEORGE MASCRENE (Punchhi, J.)<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court<\/a> was delivered by<br \/>\nPUNCHHI,  J.-  Two  principles of  election  law  stand,  as<br \/>\nalways, in competition; one being &#8220;purity of elections&#8221;\t and<br \/>\nthe  other being &#8220;secrecy of ballot&#8221;.  On the basis  of\t the<br \/>\nformer, the Kerala High Court has upset the election of\t the<br \/>\nappellant herein.  Challenge to the order of the High  Court<br \/>\nis on the anvil of the latter principle.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.   The appellant and the first respondent were  contesting<br \/>\ncandidates  for\t the Kovalam Assembly Seat No.\t138  in\t the<br \/>\nState  of Kerala.  The appellant was a Janata Dal  supported<br \/>\ncandidate,  and\t the  first  respondent\t was  the  sponsored<br \/>\ncandidate  of the Indian National Congress (1).\t  Candidates<br \/>\nof  other political parties though being in the fray get  no<br \/>\nsignificance  insofar  as the present matter  is  concerned.<br \/>\nPolling took place on 12-6-1991.  Counting took place on 16-<br \/>\n61991.\t The Assistant Returning Officer who supervised\t the<br \/>\ncounting  announced  the  number  of  votes  polled  by\t the<br \/>\nappellant  as  49,516 and the first  respondent\t as  49,500.<br \/>\nThere  was a demand of recount which was conceded to by\t the<br \/>\nAssistant  Returning Officer.  The final  result  thereafter<br \/>\nshowed that the appellant had received 49,515 votes and\t the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  49,494 votes.  Since\t the  appellant\t had<br \/>\nobtained  21 votes in excess of the first respondent he\t was<br \/>\ndeclared  elected  from\t the  Constituency.   The  requisite<br \/>\ndeclaration  under Section 66 of the Representation  of\t the<br \/>\nPeople\tAct, 1951 (hereafter referred to as the\t &#8216;Act&#8217;)\t was<br \/>\nmade on 17-6-1991.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   An election petition was moved by the first respondent.<br \/>\nThe  claim  of\tthe  election petitioner  was  that  he\t had<br \/>\nobtained  more\tvalid  votes  than  the\t appellant  and\t was<br \/>\ntherefore  entitled  to be declared elected instead  of\t the<br \/>\nappellant  for reasons stated in the election petition.\t  In<br \/>\nparagraph 5-A of the election petition, it was asserted that<br \/>\nseveral\t voters,  whose names had wrongly  and\taccidentally<br \/>\nbeen  included\tin  the electoral rolls\t of  more  than\t one<br \/>\npolling\t stations in the Constituency had dishonestly  voted<br \/>\nin  the election in both the polling stations  taking  undue<br \/>\nadvantage  of the double inclusion of their names.   It\t was<br \/>\nsuggested  that this had obviously been done by erasing\t the<br \/>\nink-mark on the little finger of the voters in order that at<br \/>\nthe  polling  station  where they  voted  the  second  time,<br \/>\nneither\t the  polling  staff nor the  polling  agents  could<br \/>\nbecome aware of the fraud.  The election petitioner  further<br \/>\nasserted that he had ascertained the names, roll numbers and<br \/>\nother details of 19 voters and the polling stations in which<br \/>\nthey had voted, necessary details of which were furnished in<br \/>\nAnnexures  1  and  1-A to the  election\t petition.   It\t was<br \/>\npleaded\t that  all  the\t 19 persons  had  voted\t twice\tand,<br \/>\naccording to Section 62(4) of the Act, both the votes polled<br \/>\nwere  void.   Further, those 19 persons had  voted  for\t the<br \/>\nappellant.  He therefore suggested that it was necessary  to<br \/>\npick out the votes cast by those persons and eliminate\tthem<br \/>\nfrom  consideration,  ejectable as they were  under  Section<br \/>\n62(4)  of the Act.  It was also asserted that if any one  or<br \/>\nmore of these voters claim and prove that their votes at one<br \/>\nof the polling stations had been validly cast, it would then<br \/>\nbe  obvious that the vote in &#8216;the other polling station\t was<br \/>\ncast  by an impersonator and hence void and would be  liable<br \/>\nto be rejected.\t The petition is supported by<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">624<\/span><br \/>\nan  affidavit in accordance with Rule 94-A of the  Statutory<br \/>\nElection Rules.\t Annexures 1 and 1-A are part and parcel  of<br \/>\nthe petition.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   The allegations in the election petition on this  score<br \/>\nwere   obviously   denied  by  the  appellant.\t  Rather   a<br \/>\nrecrimination petition was filed by the appellant to suggest<br \/>\nsimilar\t void voting pertaining to other votes, which  votes<br \/>\nwere alleged to have gone to the election petitioner.  Issue<br \/>\n1 struck by the High Court on that score was thus as under:<br \/>\n&#8220;Were  there  impersonation of voters in  the  election\t and<br \/>\nwhether single voter did cast votes in more than one polling<br \/>\nstation?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court on examining the evidence led by the  parties<br \/>\non  the\t issue\tfound  that  ballot  papers  enumerated\t  in<br \/>\nparagraph 67 of its judgment deserved being picked out\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  respective\t ballot boxes to be rejected as\t void.\t The<br \/>\nministerial  work for the purpose was assigned to the  Joint<br \/>\nRegistrar of the High Court.  It was ordered that the  above<br \/>\nvotes  be  deducted  from  the total  votes  polled  by\t the<br \/>\nrespective  candidates.\t Time allotted for the\tpurpose\t was<br \/>\nfive  days.   Inspection was to be done in the\tpresence  of<br \/>\ncounsel representing the election petitioner and the elected<br \/>\ncandidate.  Issue 1 was to be found in the above terms.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.   As\t directed  by  the High Court  the  Joint  Registrar<br \/>\npicked\tout  52 ballot papers which were declared  as  void.<br \/>\nOut of those 48 were cast in favour of the elected candidate<br \/>\nand  4\tin  favour of the election  petitioner.\t  Since\t the<br \/>\nReturning  Officer  had announced the elected  candidate  to<br \/>\nhave secured 49,515 votes, 48 void votes therefrom had to be<br \/>\ndeducted  and  as a consequence the appellant was  found  to<br \/>\nhave  secured a total of 49,467 votes.\t Correspondingly  in<br \/>\ncase of the election petitioner, the total votes polled,  as<br \/>\nannounced, being 49,494, subtracting 4 void votes  therefrom<br \/>\nbrought\t the figure down to 49,490.  So the result  recorded<br \/>\nwas that the first respondent, had secured 49,490 votes.  On<br \/>\nsuch  result the election petitioner entitled himself to  be<br \/>\ndeclared elected instead of the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.   Now  the understanding of the High Court has been\tthat<br \/>\nin  accordance\twith  Section 17 of the Act,  no  person  is<br \/>\nentitled  to  be registered in the electoral roll  for\tmore<br \/>\nthan one constituency.\tSection 18 further mandates that  no<br \/>\nperson\tshall be entitled to be registered in the  electoral<br \/>\nroll  in  any constituency more than once.  Subject  to\t the<br \/>\nexercise  of  correction  in  the  electoral  rolls  by\t the<br \/>\nprocedure  prescribed,\tonce  the final\t electoral  roll  is<br \/>\npublished and the elections held on the basis thereof, it is<br \/>\nnot  open  to  anyone to challenge  the\t election  from\t any<br \/>\nconstituency on the ground of defect in electoral rolls.  If<br \/>\nan elector has been registered in the electoral rolls of the<br \/>\nconstituency  for  more than once, this may  enable  him  to<br \/>\nexercise his votes in more than one polling stations.  He is<br \/>\ncapable of presenting himself in the two respective  polling<br \/>\nstations without his identity being questioned.\t Possibility<br \/>\nhowever,  though remote, cannot be ruled out that he may  be<br \/>\nchallenged  when exercising his vote at the  second  polling<br \/>\nstation if someone thereat, be he the election agent or\t any<br \/>\nother person, could successfully point out that he had voted<br \/>\nin  another  polling station.  Normally, such  an  incidence<br \/>\nwould  be rare because of the gigantic task involved  in  an<br \/>\nelection.   That such a situation of double registration  is<br \/>\npossible and capable of misuse was pertinently conceived  of<br \/>\nby  the\t legislature.  Therefore Section 62 of the  Act\t was<br \/>\nmade  specifically to provide that every person who  is\t for<br \/>\nthe  time  being  entered  in  the  electoral  roll  of\t any<br \/>\nconstituency shall be entitled to vote in that constituency.<br \/>\nSub-section  (3)  of that section provided  that  no  person<br \/>\nshall<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">625<\/span><br \/>\n vote at a general election in more than one constituency of<br \/>\nthe  same  class  and  if he votes in  more  than  one\tsuch<br \/>\nconstituency,  his vote in all such constituencies shall  be<br \/>\nvoid.\tFurther sub-section (4) of Section 62 also  provided<br \/>\nthat  no  person  shall at any election\t vote  in  the\tsame<br \/>\nconstituency  more than once, notwithstanding that his\tname<br \/>\nstood registered in the electoral roll of that\tconstituency<br \/>\nfor more than once.  And if he does vote more than once, all<br \/>\nhis  votes in the constituency shall be void.  It is on\t the<br \/>\nstrength  of  Section 62(4) of the Act that the\t High  Court<br \/>\nallowed the election petition on the principle of &#8220;purity of<br \/>\nelections&#8221;  by\tundertaking the exercise to  cull  out\tvoid<br \/>\nvotes  irrespective  of the choice of voting.\tThe  evident<br \/>\nthrust\tthus  has been to put such purity  in  a  dominating<br \/>\nposition  even\tif the secrecy of ballot  got  some  bruises<br \/>\nincidentally.  The approach of the High Court on that  score<br \/>\nwas  under  a major attack by Mr Prashant  Bhushan,  learned<br \/>\ncounsel for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   Significantly,  as\t hinted earlier, the  appellant\t had<br \/>\nfiled  a  recriminatory petition making inter  alia  similar<br \/>\nallegations  of double voting of other instances.  This\t was<br \/>\nthe  reason why the High Court proceeded on the footing,  as<br \/>\nis reflective from paragraph 9 of the judgment under appeal,<br \/>\nthat  both  contesting\tparties had come  forward  with\t the<br \/>\ncommon\t allegation   that  in\tvarious\t  sectors   of\t the<br \/>\nconstituency, some voters had exercised votes more than once<br \/>\nand those votes had to be traced and rejected as void votes.<br \/>\nIt  had\t then  to  be seen whether the\ttotal  had  gone  to<br \/>\nmaterially affect the result of the election.  The result of<br \/>\nthe election as aforenarrated had provided sufficient ground<br \/>\nto  declare  it\t void.\tThe High Court then  made  a  common<br \/>\nobservation,  &#8220;so it is to be examined whether the  electors<br \/>\nmentioned  by the petitioner and the first  respondent\thave<br \/>\nexercised votes more than once in the last General Elections<br \/>\nto  the\t Kerala Legislative Assembly&#8221;.\tIt would,  in  these<br \/>\ncircumstances,\tbe  legitimate\tto  assume  that  both\t the<br \/>\ncontestants  had bowed to the principle embodied in  Section<br \/>\n64(4)  of  the\tAct for the sake of  &#8220;purity  of  elections&#8221;<br \/>\nprinciple and were willing partners to have the void element<br \/>\nidentified and extricated from the voted lot.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.   It\t is  therefore unnecessary to burden  this  judgment<br \/>\nwith the details of oral evidence of each and every  witness<br \/>\non the point examined by the respective parties.  Discussion<br \/>\nthereon in detail is available in paragraphs 10 to 67 of the<br \/>\njudgment  under\t appeal.  Three broad features\thowever\t are<br \/>\nevident as emerging from the appreciation of evidence by the<br \/>\nHigh Court:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (i)   In cases of double registration of votes<br \/>\n\t      the  exercise  by one and the same  person  of<br \/>\n\t      both votes at two different polling  stations,<br \/>\n\t      led the High Court to reject both votes;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (ii)  In\tcases  of  double  registration\t  of<br \/>\n\t      votes,  in which one vote was validly cast  by<br \/>\n\t      one  and\tthe  same  person  in  some  polling<br \/>\n\t      station  and the other by\t some  impersonator,<br \/>\n\t      the High Court declared void the vote cast  by<br \/>\n\t      the impersonator; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (iii) The\t Court\texercised its  powers  under<br \/>\n\t      Section  73 of the Evidence Act  in  comparing<br \/>\n\t      the  admitted  and proved handwriting  of\t the<br \/>\n\t      voter  with the disputed ones to come  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      conclusion  whether  a  particular  voter\t had<br \/>\n\t      voted  twice or just once.  The signatures  on<br \/>\n\t      the counterfoils of the ballot papers obtained<br \/>\n\t      at one. polling station were compared with the<br \/>\n\t      signatures  on  the  counterfoils\t of   ballot<br \/>\n\t      papers  obtained\tat  the\t other;\t the   Court<br \/>\n\t      holding whether they did or did not tally.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">626<\/span><\/p>\n<p>9.   Pursuant  to such approach the High Court\tlocated\t the<br \/>\nvoid  votes in order to throw them away tracing them to\t the<br \/>\ncontents  of  the  related voting,  which  according  to  Mr<br \/>\nPrashant  Bhushan,  was breach of the  &#8220;secrecy\t of  ballot&#8221;<br \/>\nprinciple.  He pressed for the primacy of the principle into<br \/>\nservice by citing some precedents.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.  The  existence of the principle of &#8220;secrecy of  ballot&#8221;<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  denied.   It  undoubtedly  is  an  indispensable<br \/>\nadjunct\t of  free and fair elections.  The  Act\t statutorily<br \/>\nassures\t a  voter  that he would not  be  compelled  by\t any<br \/>\nauthority  to disclose as to for whom he has voted, so\tthat<br \/>\nhe  may\t vote  without\tfear or favour\tand  free  from\t any<br \/>\napprehension of its disclosure against his will from his own<br \/>\nlips.\tSee  in\t this  connection  <a href=\"\/doc\/1598757\/\">Raghbir  Singh  Gill\t  v.<br \/>\nGurcharan Singh Tohral.\t But<\/a> this right of the voter is\t not<br \/>\nabsolute.   It\tmust yield to the principle  of\t &#8220;purity  of<br \/>\nelection&#8221;  in  larger  public  interest.   The\texercise  of<br \/>\nextrication  of\t void votes under Section 62(4) of  the\t Act<br \/>\nwould  not  in any manner impinge on the secrecy  of  ballot<br \/>\nespecially  when  void\tvotes are those\t which\thave  to  be<br \/>\ntreated\t as no votes at all.  &#8220;Secrecy of ballot&#8221;  principle<br \/>\npresupposes   a\t  validly  cast\t vote,\tthe   sanctity\t and<br \/>\nsacrosanctity  of  which must in all  events  be  preserved.<br \/>\nWhen it is talked of ensuring free and fair elections it  is<br \/>\nmeant elections held on the fundamental foundation of purity<br \/>\nand  the &#8220;secrecy of ballot&#8221; as an allied  vital  principle.<br \/>\nIt  was\t observed by this Court in Raghbir  Singh  case&#8217;  as<br \/>\nfollows (SCR p. 1320: SCC p. 68, para 23)<br \/>\n\t      &#8220;Secrecy of ballot though undoubtedly a  vital<br \/>\n\t      principle\t  for\tensuring   free\t  and\tfair<br \/>\n\t      elections, it was enshrined in law to subserve<br \/>\n\t      the larger public interest, namely, purity  of<br \/>\n\t      election for ensuring free and fair  election.<br \/>\n\t      The  principle  of secrecy  of  ballot  cannot<br \/>\n\t      stand   aloof   or   in\tisolation   and\t  in<br \/>\n\t      confrontation  to the foundation of  free\t and<br \/>\n\t      fair  elections,\tviz.,  purity  of  election.<br \/>\n\t      They can coexist but as stated earlier,  where<br \/>\n\t      one  is used to destroy the other,  the  first<br \/>\n\t      one  must\t yield\tto principle  of  purity  of<br \/>\n\t      election\tin larger public interest.  In\tfact<br \/>\n\t      secrecy  of ballot, a privilege of the  voter,<br \/>\n\t      is not inviolable and may be waived by him  as<br \/>\n\t      a\t responsible  citizen  of  this\t country  to<br \/>\n\t      ensure  free and fair election and to  unravel<br \/>\n\t      foul play.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.  In\t view of the above it is the settled  position\tthat<br \/>\nout of the two competing principles, the purity of  election<br \/>\nprinciple  must have its way.  Section 94 of the Act  cannot<br \/>\nbe pressed into service to suppress a wrong coming to  light<br \/>\nand to protect a fraud on the election process.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.  That  both\t the  election\tpetition  and  recrimination<br \/>\npetition  were\tdealt with on the principle  of\t &#8220;purity  of<br \/>\nelection&#8221; is not in dispute.  The approach of the High Court<br \/>\non the subject on the commonality of the attack also  cannot<br \/>\nbe  questioned.\t  But  what was questioned  by\tMr  Prashant<br \/>\nBhushan,  as reiterated in his written submissions of  14-9-<br \/>\n1993,  was that the High Court was not correct\tin  allowing<br \/>\nexamination   of  marked  copies  of  electoral\t rolls\t and<br \/>\ncounterfoils without any evidence or material in support  of<br \/>\nthe plea for inspection and that the High Court allowed\t the<br \/>\ninspection  casually without inviting a written\t application<br \/>\nor  even by a written order.  It was submitted\tthat  except<br \/>\nfor  pleadings\tin  the\t election  petition  regarding\tvoid<br \/>\nvoting,\t there was no cause pleaded to permit  the  election<br \/>\npapers\tto be thrown open for inspection and  this  exercise<br \/>\nwas termed by learned counsel as &#8216;fishing or roving&#8217;.\tRule<br \/>\n93  of\tthe Conduct of Election Rules,\t1961,  provides\t for<br \/>\ndocuments which shall not be<br \/>\n1    1980 Supp SCC 53 :(1980) 3 SCR 1302<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">627<\/span><br \/>\n opened and their Contents inspected by, or produced before,<br \/>\nany  person  or\t authority  except under  the  orders  of  a<br \/>\ncompetent  court.   On the basis thereof it  was  maintained<br \/>\nthat  by  a string of judgments of this Court  it  has\tbeen<br \/>\nruled  that  inspection\t could\tonly  be  allowed  when\t two<br \/>\nconditions are satisfied:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      1.    The material facts on the basis of which<br \/>\n\t      inspection of documents is sought,  must\t  be<br \/>\n\t      clearly and specifically pleaded; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      2.    The Court must be satisfied on evidence,<br \/>\n\t      even if in the form of<br \/>\n\t      Support  for these principles was sought\tfrom<br \/>\n\t      <a href=\"\/doc\/447461\/\">Ram  Sewak  Yadav v.  Hussain  Kamil  Kidwai2,<br \/>\n\t      Hariram<\/a>  v.  Hira Singh3, R. Narayanan  v.  S.<br \/>\n\t      Semmalai4,   Jagjit  Singh  v.  <a href=\"\/doc\/1992927\/\">Giani   Kartar<br \/>\n\t      Singh5,  Jitendra\t Bahadur  Singh\t v.  Krishna<br \/>\n\t      Behari6 and<\/a> other decisions of the like.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>13.  But  by  and large these are cases where  there  was  a<br \/>\nclaim  for  recount.   In contrast the instant\tcase  is  of<br \/>\ndouble\tvoting\twhich has specifically been pleaded  in\t the<br \/>\nelection petition filed on 29-7-1991 supported by  affidavit<br \/>\nand the names of the voters have been supplied in the  lists<br \/>\nannexed\t thereto.   The appellant  had\tfiled  recrimination<br \/>\npetition  pleading  that there were several other  cases  of<br \/>\ndouble\tvoting and reception of invalid votes in  favour  of<br \/>\nthe   election\tpetitioner.   This  written   statement-cum-<br \/>\nrecrimination petition was filed on 10-9-1991.\tIssues\twere<br \/>\nframed\ton 20-9-1991.  The election petitioner on  26-9-1991<br \/>\nwas allowed to amend the Election Petition so as to  include<br \/>\n10 more cases of double voting.\t The corresponding amendment<br \/>\napplication  filed by the appellant for taking into  account<br \/>\ndetails\t of  double  voting having taken  place\t in  another<br \/>\nneighbouring constituency was rejected by the High Court for<br \/>\nit  was\t based\ton  a  new  charge.   The  second  amendment<br \/>\napplication of the election petitioner was allowed on  7-10-<br \/>\n1991  so  as  to include 23 more  cases\t of  alleged  double<br \/>\nvoting.\t  It is at that stage that is on 7-10-1991 that\t the<br \/>\nCourt permitted inspection of the counterfoils since several<br \/>\ndouble\tvoters\thad been summoned for the following  day  to<br \/>\nappear\ton  8-10-1991  and  subsequent\tdays,  on  the\toral<br \/>\nprayer\/application  of both the election petitioner and\t the<br \/>\nappellant.   The  court apparently took\t into  account\tthat<br \/>\nsince witnesses were to be examined on the question of their<br \/>\ndouble voting and were expected to take a positive stand, it<br \/>\nwould become necessary to corroborate or confront them\twith<br \/>\nthe  counterfoils of the ballot papers issued to them  which<br \/>\npurported  to have been signed or not by them, in  order  to<br \/>\nsave  time  lest  examination  of  the\twitnesses  be\ttime<br \/>\nconsuming.   The  Court allowed inspection of the  roll\t and<br \/>\ncounterfoils   in  order  to  facilitate  evidence  of\t the<br \/>\nwitnesses  on  the date of their appearance, which  was\t the<br \/>\nfollowing  day.\t  The suggestion no doubt was oral  but\t the<br \/>\nCourt seemed to agree with the suggestion and inspection was<br \/>\npermitted to both parties in the presence of the  Registrar.<br \/>\nThe  commonality  of  the approach of  the  parties  on\t the<br \/>\nquestion of double voting must have clearly goaded the Court<br \/>\nto adopt such measure to facilitate quick trial.  It is\t the<br \/>\ncase  of the election petitioner that the counsel  for\tboth<br \/>\nthe parties inspected the counterfoils on 7-10-1991 in the<br \/>\n2    (1964) 6 SCR 238, 247-50: AIR 1964 SC 1249 : 26 ELR 14<br \/>\n3    (1984) 2 SCC 36: (1984) 1 SCR 932, 937<br \/>\n4    (1980) 2 SCC 537<br \/>\n5    AIR 1966 SC 773, 783 (para 31): 28 ELR 81<br \/>\n6   (1969) 2 SCC 433, 436 (para 7) : (1970) 1 SCR 852,\t856-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">885<\/span><br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">628<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Registrar&#8217;s  room  as also on subsequent days,\teven  though<br \/>\nthere  was  no\twritten application made and  there  was  no<br \/>\nformal\twritten order of the Court.  Yet the inspection\t was<br \/>\nopen  to both the parties without any objection having\tever<br \/>\nbeen   raised\tby  the\t appellant.   In   the\t facts\t and<br \/>\ncircumstances,\twe fail to see how the principle of  secrecy<br \/>\nof ballot can be imported to question the power of the Court<br \/>\nto orally allow inspection in its endeavour to eliminate the<br \/>\nimpurity in elections, the opportunity provided having\tbeen<br \/>\navailed\t  of  without  demur  by  both\tparties.   In\tthis<br \/>\nsituation,  it\tis difficult for us to digest  the  argument<br \/>\nthat  here  the\t High Court proceeded  to  allow  inspection<br \/>\nwithout\t being\tsatisfied on evidence, even in the  form  of<br \/>\naffidavit, that it was necessary to allow inspection in\t the<br \/>\ninterest of justice.  Since the names of the voters who were<br \/>\nalleged to have double voted, had specifically been  pleaded<br \/>\nin the election petition (as amended from time to time)\t and<br \/>\nthe  recrimination petition, it was necessary  to  correlate<br \/>\ntheir names with the electoral rolls and the counterfoils of<br \/>\nthe  ballot  papers  so that in case  of  double  voting  or<br \/>\nimpersonated  voting,  the impure element  in  the  election<br \/>\nprocess could be identified and retrieved from the  election<br \/>\npackage.   The\tprimary\t purpose  thus\twas  to\t purify\t the<br \/>\nelectoral  process  and\t not to hunt or\t hound\tthe  voter&#8217;s<br \/>\nchoice,\t when exercised validly and freely.  It is for\tthat<br \/>\npurpose\t that  the  Court, in the interest  of\tjustice,  to<br \/>\nfacilitate  a quick trial permitted the parties\t to  inspect<br \/>\nbeforehand  the\t records  but  after  the  framing  of\t the<br \/>\nrequisite  issues arising from the pleadings of the  parties<br \/>\nand  not  earlier.   This approach could not  be  termed  as<br \/>\npermitting a &#8216;roving or fishing&#8217; enquiry, as it is sometimes<br \/>\ndescribed in cases of a claim for re-count.  We are thus  of<br \/>\nthe  view  that\t the  High  Court  committed  no  error\t  in<br \/>\npermitting  such inspection in the facts and  circumstances.<br \/>\nWe  must, however, hasten to clarify that we should  not  be<br \/>\nunderstood  to\tapprove\t of  the  High\tCourt  giving\toral<br \/>\ndirections  in such serious matters without insisting  on  a<br \/>\nformal application setting out how a prima facie  foundation<br \/>\nwas laid for the grant of such relief.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.  Another  argument put forth by Mr Prashant Bhushan\t was<br \/>\nthat   the   pleadings\tin  the\t  election   petition\twere<br \/>\ninsufficient  to justify inspection inasmuch as\t except\t for<br \/>\nmentioning  that there had been double voting by 19  persons<br \/>\nnothing\t else  was  stated  about the  basis  on  which\t the<br \/>\nelection petitioner came to the conclusion that these names,<br \/>\nwhich  apparently had appeared twice in the electoral  roll,<br \/>\nbelonged  to one and the same person and that those  persons<br \/>\nhad  in\t fact voted twice.  It was also\t commented  that  no<br \/>\nmaterial facts, in the form of affidavits by single  persons<br \/>\nor  polling  agents alleging that they had  seen  and  heard<br \/>\nabout those persons having voted twice. was filed in support<br \/>\nof  the petition.  It is maintained that in the\t absence  of<br \/>\nevidence of these particulars being pleaded as to the source<br \/>\nof  knowledge  of double voting it was\tdangerous  to  allow<br \/>\nenquiring into such an allegation on the bare allegation  of<br \/>\ndouble registration of votes and possible double voting.  We<br \/>\nhave pondered over this matter but regretfully do not accept<br \/>\nthe  argument  of the learned counsel.\tIf a name  has\tbeen<br \/>\nregistered twice enabling a person to take the advantage  of<br \/>\nvoting\tin  two\t different  polling  stations,\tSection\t  62<br \/>\nmandates  that if he polls both these votes then both  votes<br \/>\nare  void.  A void vote cast is a vote void ab\tinitio.\t  In<br \/>\nthe  nature of things the void taint in the  election  would<br \/>\nhave  to be traced to the election papers for  without\tthat<br \/>\nbare oral evidence would be of no use, and at best would  be<br \/>\nword  against  word,  making application  of  Section  62(4)<br \/>\nwelling\t impossible.   If the election\tpetitioner  on\tsome<br \/>\ninformation, material or otherwise<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">629<\/span><br \/>\n is  able to entertain the belief that a  particular  voter,<br \/>\ndouble\tregistered,  is known to have voted  twice,  he\t can<br \/>\ncertainly  plead to that fact on his own entertained  belief<br \/>\nand  need  not ordinarily resort to giving  details  of\t the<br \/>\nsources of his information or knowledge or the entertainment<br \/>\nof  his\t belief because registration of double\tvote  is  by<br \/>\nitself the starting point; the exercise of both votes  being<br \/>\nthe  second.   The  election  petitioner  had\tspecifically<br \/>\nmentioned and in clear-cut terms that 19 persons had  double<br \/>\nvoted.\t The  question\twas not\t resoluble  merely  on\toral<br \/>\nevidence,  whether they had or had not, except to put  those<br \/>\npersons\t into  the  witness  box,  hear\t their\tversion\t and<br \/>\nconfront  them\twith  the election papers.   The  sphere  of<br \/>\nenquiry\t at  that  stage  is  to  the  voting  and  not\t for<br \/>\ndiscovering  the  name of the person to whom  the  vote\t was<br \/>\ncast.\tThat  inevitably has to be found  out  after  double<br \/>\nvoting or impersonated voting has been found out leading  to<br \/>\nthe  new  step\tto  trace them and  nullify  them.   On\t the<br \/>\npleading  of the parties as such, on both sides, a case\t for<br \/>\ninspection at the stage when it was done had been made\tout.<br \/>\nWe thus find no error committed in the approach of the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n<p>15.  In the matter of correlation and employment of  Section<br \/>\n73  of the Evidence Act, the High Court took support from  a<br \/>\ndecision  of this Court in Fakhruddin v. State of  Mp.7\t The<br \/>\nHigh Court justified its step of comparison in paragraph  13<br \/>\nof the judgment under appeal as follows:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      &#8220;Learned\t counsel  representing\t the   first<br \/>\n\t      respondent raised a contention that this Court<br \/>\n\t      should  not  take\t the part of  an  expert  in<br \/>\n\t      handwriting  to  compare\tthe  signatures\t  of<br \/>\n\t      witnesses\t to  find  out\twhether\t they\twere<br \/>\n\t      signatures  of the same person.  According  to<br \/>\n\t      counsel,\tthe  disputed signatures  should  be<br \/>\n\t      sent  to\texperts for their opinion.   In\t the<br \/>\n\t      alternative  it is contended  that  petitioner<br \/>\n\t      should  examine  persons\tfamiliar  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      signature\t of the witnesses to  establish\t the<br \/>\n\t      identity\tof signatures.\tHandwriting  may  be<br \/>\n\t      proved  on admission of the writer or  by\t the<br \/>\n\t      evidence of some witness in whose presence  it<br \/>\n\t      was written.  This is direct evidence.  In the<br \/>\n\t      absence  of such direct evidence,\t opinion  of<br \/>\n\t      handwriting expert or of some who is  familiar<br \/>\n\t      with  the writing of the person  is  relevant.<br \/>\n\t      Thus  besides direct evidence which of  course<br \/>\n\t      is the best method of proof, the law makes two<br \/>\n\t      other modes also as relevant, i.e., a  writing<br \/>\n\t      may  be  proved  to be the  handwriting  of  a<br \/>\n\t      particular  individual  by the evidence  of  a<br \/>\n\t      person  familiar with the handwriting of\tthat<br \/>\n\t      individual  or by the testimony of  an  expert<br \/>\n\t      competent\t to  compare the handwritings  on  a<br \/>\n\t      scientific  basis.   A third  method  is\talso<br \/>\n\t      provided\tby the Evidence Act in\tSection\t 73.<br \/>\n\t      It is comparison by the court with the writing<br \/>\n\t      made in the presence of the court or  admitted<br \/>\n\t      or  proved  to be the writing of\tthe  person.<br \/>\n\t      The Court can apply its own observation to the<br \/>\n\t      admitted\tor  proved writings and\t to  compare<br \/>\n\t      them  with the disputed one.  This  comparison<br \/>\n\t      depends on an analysis of the  characteristics<br \/>\n\t      in the admitted or proved writings and of\t the<br \/>\n\t      same  characteristics in large measure in\t the<br \/>\n\t      disputed\twriting.   Even\t if  there  is\t the<br \/>\n\t      opinion  of the expert on the handwriting,  it<br \/>\n\t      is  subjected to the scrutiny by\tcourt.\t The<br \/>\n\t      expert&#8217;s\topinion is not the final word.\t The<br \/>\n\t      court  must  see\tfor itself  whether  it\t can<br \/>\n\t      safely  be held that the two writings  are  of<br \/>\n\t      the  same person.\t To this extent,  court\t may<br \/>\n\t      play  the\t role of an expert.  The  court\t can<br \/>\n\t      accept  the disputed signature to be  that  of<br \/>\n\t      the  witness  when  it  is  satisfied  on\t its<br \/>\n\t      observation  that\t it is safe  to\t accept\t the<br \/>\n\t      same.   In  this\tview,  I  do  not  think  it<br \/>\n\t      necessary\t to have the admitted signature of<br \/>\n\t      the witness to be compared with the  signature<br \/>\n\t      in the<br \/>\n\t      7\t AIR 1967 SC 1326: 1967 Cri LJ\t1197<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      630<\/span><br \/>\n\t      disputed\tcounterfoils of the ballot paper  by<br \/>\n\t      any  expert.   This Court can  scrutinise\t the<br \/>\n\t      characteristics  of  the\tsignatures.   If  it<br \/>\n\t      finds that the disputed signature has the same<br \/>\n\t      characteristics  in  large  measure  with\t the<br \/>\n\t      admitted signature, it can safely come to\t the<br \/>\n\t      conclusion that both are of the same person.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The   High  Court  finally  recorded  its  satisfaction\t  or<br \/>\notherwise  in  the case of signatures  resulting  in  double<br \/>\nvoting\t and   impersonation,  and  signatures\t and   thumb<br \/>\nimpression  not tallying at all.  No meaningful argument  on<br \/>\nfacts  in regard thereto was addressed before us  except  to<br \/>\nthe  approach of employing Section 73 of the  Evidence\tAct.<br \/>\nIt  was urged that the High Court should not have become  an<br \/>\nexpert.\t  We,  however,\t are of the view  that\twhen  larger<br \/>\npublic\tinterest  is served by expeditious  disposal  of  an<br \/>\nelection  petition,  then  the course adopted  by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt,\tas  suggested  from  the  afore-extraction,  is\t  in<br \/>\nconformity  therewith.\t Although courts should be  slow  in<br \/>\nresorting to this method, we do not find it faulted, more so<br \/>\nwhen the courts resort to exercise of such power is approved<br \/>\nin   two  other\t cases\tof  this  Court\t in   <a href=\"\/doc\/763713\/\">State   (Delhi<br \/>\nAdministration)\t v.  Pali Ram8 and Murari Lal<\/a>  v.  State  of<br \/>\nM.P.9  As a sequitur the finding recorded by the High  Court<br \/>\non issue 1 is perfectly sound.\n<\/p>\n<p>16.The\taffirmed  finding  on issue 1  alone  is  enough  to<br \/>\ndismiss\t the appeal.  The related issues 6 and 7 also go  in<br \/>\nfavour of the election petitioner.  These issues were to the<br \/>\neffect\tthat  &#8220;Is  the\telection  of  the  first  respondent<br \/>\n(appellant herein) liable to be declared void for all or any<br \/>\nof  the reasons mentioned in the petition.&#8221; Further &#8220;Is\t the<br \/>\npetitioner entitled to a declaration that he is duly elected<br \/>\nfrom No. 138, Kovalam Legislative Assembly.&#8221; Since the final<br \/>\nresult\tapproved by the High Court on this particular  point<br \/>\nis that 48 void votes had to be deducted, as found on  issue<br \/>\n1, holding that the appellant secured 49,467 votes only, and<br \/>\nthe  election petitioner 49,490.  There is thus a margin  of<br \/>\n23  votes materially affecting the result of  the  election.<br \/>\nThis  finding alone is enough to reject the  appeal,  though<br \/>\nthe High Court has not based its decision alone on the basis<br \/>\nthereon.\n<\/p>\n<p>17.On issues 2 and 3 which were to the effect as to  whether<br \/>\nthere was any illegality in the issue and counting of postal<br \/>\nballot\tpapers\tand further was any valid vote\trejected  as<br \/>\ninvalid\t and  invalid vote accepted as valid,  the  ultimate<br \/>\nfinding\t of the High Court was that 20 votes  had  invalidly<br \/>\nbeen rejected and out of those 10 had been cast in favour of<br \/>\nthe  election petitioner and 10 in favour of the  appellant.<br \/>\nSo that made them even.\t The result thus came to be  finally<br \/>\nresting\t on issue 1 whereunder 23 votes were found  to\thave<br \/>\nbeen  polled in favour of the election petitioner more\tthan<br \/>\nthe  appellant.\t  With this result the\tHigh  Court  rightly<br \/>\nallowed\t  the  election\t petition  declaring  the   election<br \/>\npetitioner-first  respondent as the duly elected  member  of<br \/>\nKerala\tLegislative  Assembly  instead\tof  the\t  appellant,<br \/>\nsetting aside the election of the latter.\n<\/p>\n<p>18.  As a result of the above discussion, this appeal  fails<br \/>\nand is hereby dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>8 (1979) 2 SCC 158 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 389: (1979) 1 SCR 931<br \/>\n9    (1980) 1 SCC 704: 1980 SCC (Cri) 330: (1980) 2 SCR 249<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">631<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 Equivalent citations: 1994 SCC, Supl. (2) 619 JT 1994 (3) 181 Author: M Punchhi Bench: Punchhi, M.M. PETITIONER: A. NEELALOHITHADASAN NADAR Vs. RESPONDENT: GEORGE MASCRENE DATE OF JUDGMENT11\/04\/1994 BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. AHMADI, A.M. (J) RAMASWAMY, K. CITATION: 1994 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-136623","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1994-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-29T15:00:05+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994\",\"datePublished\":\"1994-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T15:00:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\"},\"wordCount\":5003,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\",\"name\":\"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1994-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-29T15:00:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1994-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-29T15:00:05+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994","datePublished":"1994-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T15:00:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994"},"wordCount":5003,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994","name":"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1994-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-29T15:00:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/a-neelalohithadasan-nadar-vs-george-mascrene-on-11-april-1994#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar vs George Mascrene on 11 April, 1994"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136623","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=136623"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/136623\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136623"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=136623"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=136623"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}