{"id":151983,"date":"1983-09-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-09-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983"},"modified":"2016-07-24T05:28:39","modified_gmt":"2016-07-23T23:58:39","slug":"s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983","title":{"rendered":"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 1293, \t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 104<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V B Eradi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nS. SIVASWAMI\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nV. MALAIKANNAN AND OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT27\/09\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nDESAI, D.A.\nMISRA, R.B. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR 1293\t\t  1984 SCR  (1) 104\n 1984 SCC  (1) 296\t  1983 SCALE  (2)418\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1984 SC1513\t (5)\n F\t    1990 SC 838\t (17)\n\n\nACT:\n     Election-Law-Representation of  the People\t Act,  1951,\nSections 80 to 83, 98, 100(1) (d) (iii) and (iv) and section\n101-Rejection  of   ballot  papers  where  the\tmarking\t was\npartially in  the column  of the candidate and partly in the\nshaded area  and also  those where the marking was partially\nin the\tcandidates column and partially on the dividing line\nin the\tbottom as invalid, based on the illustration at page\n40 of  the pamphlet  containing instructions  in  Tamil\t and\nissue by  the Chief  Electoral Officer,\t Tamil Nadu-Validity\nof-Conduct of  Election Rules,\t1961-Principle of Rule 39(2)\n(b) explained.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     In the  General Elections\tto the\tTamil Nadu  Assembly\nheld in May 1980, the appellant contested for the llayangudi\nAssembly Constituency seat and was duly elected as he polled\n34437 votes. The first respondent who had polled 34381 votes\nand missed  by a narrow margin of 56 votes filed an election\npetition before\t the High  Court of  Madras on three grounds\nviz., (a)  improper rejection  by the  Returning Officer  of\nvalid votes  cast in  favour of the respondent; (b) improper\nreception of  invalid votes  cast in favour of the appellant\nand (c)\t improper treatment of valid votes cast in favour of\nthe first respondent and the 3rd respondent as votes cast in\nfavour\tof  the\t appellant.  The  High\tCourt  accepted\t the\npetition on its finding on the first ground in favour of the\nIst respondent\tand ordered rescrutiny of the votes rejected\nas invalid. Hence the appeal by special leave.\n     Dismissing the appeal, the Court\n     HELD: 1:1\tThe  pamphlet  issued  in  Tamil  titled  \"A\npamphlet showing  illustrative cases  of valid\tand  invalid\npostal and  ordinary ballot  papers \"(Ex  P3) issued  by the\nchief  Electoral  Officer,  Tamil  Nadu\t is  misleading\t and\ntherefore should be withdrawn. [111 D]\n     1:2. In the illustration of invalid papers appearing at\npage 40\t of the\t Book (Ex  P3), the  major  portion  of\t the\nmarking is  in the  shaded area\t and a\tsmall portion of the\nmark is\t in the column of the candidate. Apparently what was\nintended to  be printed was an illustration showing a ballot\npaper in  which the  whole of  the marking was in the shaded\narea only  without any\tportion of it being in the column of\nthe candidate.\tThe illustration  as printed in the pamphlet\nobviously conveys  the erroneous  impression that  a  ballot\npaper where  the marking  is partly  in the  column  of\t the\ncandidate and partly in the shaded area is to be rejected by\nthe Returning Officer as invalid. This is\n105\ndirectly contrary to the intendment of the relevant rule and\nalso the  express wording  of the instructions issued by the\nElection Commission.\n\t\t\t\t\t    [110 H; 111 A-B]\n     In the instant case the Returning Officer was obviously\nmisled\tby  the\t aforesaid  illustration  contained  in\t the\npamphlet, Ex.  P 3  and that  was the  sole  reason  why  he\nrejected as  invalid the ballot papers where the marking was\ncontained partly  in the  column of the first respondent and\npartly on  the demarcating  line or  shaded  area.  Had\t the\nReturning  Officer   taken  the\t  trouble   to\t study\t the\ninstructions contained\tin the\t\"Handbook for  the Returning\nOfficer\" it  should have  been\tapparent  to  him  that\t the\nillustration aforementioned  contained in  Ex.\tP3  did\t not\ncorrectly reflect  the position\t laid down  in the rules and\ninstructions. [111 C-D]\n     2:1 The  essence of  the principle in Rule 39(2) (b) of\nthe Conduct Rules, 1961, is that so long as the ballot paper\nbears a\t mark made  with the  instrument  supplied  for\t the\npurpose, the  ballot paper shall not be rejected as invalid,\nif it is reasonably possible to gather a definite indication\nfrom the  marking as  to the  identity of  the candidate  in\nfavour of whom the vote had been given. [109 C-D]\n     2:2. Nearly  90% of  the  electorate  in  this  country\nconsists of  illiterate and  uneducated rural  folk  totally\nunacquainted  with   the  intricacies\tof  the\t  rules\t and\ntechnicalities of procedure pertaining to elections. Even if\nthe best  of endeavour\tis made\t to  explain  to  them\tsuch\ncomplicated rules  and procedures they may not be capable of\ngrasping and  fully understanding  all the  implications and\nactually carrying  them into  effect while  exercising their\nfranchise. If  the right  conferred on\tthe people to choose\ntheir representatives  to the  State  Legislatures  and\t the\nParliament through the process of free and fair elections is\nto  be\t meaningful  the   will\t of   the   illiterate\t and\nunsophisticated voter  expressed through  a marking  on\t the\nballot paper  which though not strictly inside the column of\nthe  particular\t candidate  is\tclearly\t indicative  of\t the\nidentity of  the candidate  for whom the vote is cast has to\nbe  respected  and  given  its\tfull  effect.  The  Election\nCommission  has\t manifested  due  awareness  of\t this  stark\nreality while issuing instructions to the Returning Officers\nregarding the  principles to  be adopted  for  rejection  of\nballot papers  in  the\t\"Handbook  for\tReturning  Officers\"\npublished by  the Commission  in 1982,\tand also a \"Handbook\nfor  candidates'  for  election\t to  the  House\t of  People,\nLegislative Assemblies\tof States and Union Territories etc.\n[109 D-G]\n     Observation: In  order to\tavoid a\t recurrence of\tsuch\nunfortunate instances  of illegal  rejection of votes on the\nbasis of  misleading illustration contained in the pamphlet,\nEx. P3,\t it is\tessential that\timmediate action  should  be\ntaken by the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu to withdraw\nthe  said   pamphlet  containing   illustrations   correctly\nreflecting the\tlegal  position\t under\trelevant  rules\t and\ninstructions  relating\t to  the   scrutiny  acceptance\t  or\nrejection or ballot papers. [111 F-G]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Civil  Appeal  No.\t1737<br \/>\n(NCE) of 1981.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">106<\/span><\/p>\n<p>     Appeal by\tSpecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order<br \/>\ndated the  29th June,  1981 of\tthe  Madras  High  Court  in<br \/>\nElection Petition No. 3 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>     R.K. Garg, V.J. Francis for the Appellant.<br \/>\n     Dr.  Y.S.\t Chitale,  K.\tRajendra  Choudhary  and  S.<br \/>\nSrinivasan for Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A.V. Rangam  and Mrs,  Sarla Chandra for Respondent No.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.<br \/>\n     The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n     BALAKRISHNA ERADI,\t J. At the conclusion of the hearing<br \/>\nof this\t appeal arising\t out of\t an election  petition filed<br \/>\nunder Sections\t80 to  83, 98, 100(1) (d) (iii) and (iv) and<br \/>\nSection 101  of the  Representation of\tPeople Act,  1951 we<br \/>\npassed the  following order  announcing the decision arrived<br \/>\nat by us:\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. All<br \/>\ninterim orders passed by this Court are vacated.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Reasons will follow.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     We now  proceed to\t state the reasons in support of the<br \/>\naforesaid conclusion.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  General Elections\tto the\tTamil Nadu  Assembly<br \/>\nheld in\t May 1980,  the\t Appellant  had\t contested  for\t the<br \/>\nIlayangudi  Assembly   Constituency  seat,   and   the\t 1st<br \/>\nRespondent was\ta rival candidate sponsored by the Communist<br \/>\nParty of  India. Respondents  2, 3  and 4 had also stood for<br \/>\nelection in the same constituency as independent candidates.<br \/>\nThe polling took place on the 28th of May 1980. The counting<br \/>\nof votes  was commenced\t at 10.000  a.m. on  the 1st of June<br \/>\n1980 and  at 5.00  p.m. after  the postal  ballot votes were<br \/>\nalso counted,  the result  of the  election was announced by<br \/>\nthe Returning Officer, declaring that the appellant was duly<br \/>\nelected on the ground that he had secured the highest number<br \/>\nof votes  among the  contesting candidates. According to the<br \/>\nresults of  the counting  as announced,\t the  appellant\t had<br \/>\nsecured 34,  437 votes and the 1st respondent had polled 34,<br \/>\n381 votes.  The other  three candidates\t secured only a very<br \/>\nsmall number  of votes\tand had\t forfeited  their  deposits.<br \/>\nThus, it was only by a<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">107<\/span><br \/>\nnarrow margin of 56 votes that the appellant was declared to<br \/>\nhave won the election.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The validity  of the election was challenged by the 1st<br \/>\nrespondent by  filing the  election petition before the High<br \/>\nCourt of  Madras praying  for an  order for the scrutiny and<br \/>\nrecounting of  all the ballot papers cast in the election to<br \/>\nthe Ilayangudi Assembly Constituency held on 28.5.80 and for<br \/>\na declaration  that the\t election of  the appellant  to that<br \/>\nconstituency was  void and  that the 1st respondent had been<br \/>\nduly elected  in respect  of  that  constituency.  The\tmain<br \/>\ngrounds urged in support of the prayer for setting aside the<br \/>\nelection  of   the  appellant  were  three-fold,  viz.,\t (1)<br \/>\nimproper rejection  by the  Returning Officer of valid votes<br \/>\ncast in favour of the 1st respondent; (2) improper reception<br \/>\nof invalid  votes cast\tin favour  of the appellant; and (3)<br \/>\nimproper treatment  of valid  votes cast  in favour  of\t the<br \/>\nfirst respondent  and the  3rd respondent  as votes  cast in<br \/>\nfavour of  the appellant. A further ground was also taken in<br \/>\nthe petition  that the\tprocedure adopted  by the  Returning<br \/>\nOfficer in  the counting of votes and the declaration of the<br \/>\nresult of  the election\t was  not  in  accordance  with\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of\t the  Representation   of  the\t People\t Act<br \/>\n(hereinafter called the Act), the rules and the instructions<br \/>\nissued in that regard.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After a  detailed discussion of the evidence adduced in<br \/>\nthe case  the learned  single Judge  of the  High Court, who<br \/>\ntried the  election petition,  found that there was no basis<br \/>\nfor the\t allegation made  in the petition that the procedure<br \/>\nadopted by  the Returning  Officer in  the counting of votes<br \/>\nwas not\t in accordance\twith the  relevant provisions of the<br \/>\nAct, the rules and the instructions. It was further found by<br \/>\nthe learned  Judge that\t the averment  made in\tthe petition<br \/>\nthat valid  votes cast\tin favour  of the 1st respondent and<br \/>\nthe 3rd\t respondent had\t been improperly  treated  as  votes<br \/>\npolled in  favour of  the appellant  was devoid\t of  factual<br \/>\nfoundation. However,  on the  issue relating to the question<br \/>\nwhether there  had been\t improper rejection  of valid  votes<br \/>\ncast in\t favour of  the 1st respondent herein (petitioner in<br \/>\nthe election  petition), the learned Judge found that it was<br \/>\nclearly established  by\t the  evidence\tthat  the  Returning<br \/>\nOfficer had  erroneously and  illegally rejected  as invalid<br \/>\nballot papers  in which\t the marking had been done either on<br \/>\nthe demarcation\t line at  the bottom of the 1st respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\ncolumn-the first respondent&#8217;s name was printed on the ballot<br \/>\npaper as the last name immediately beneath the said name was<br \/>\nthe demarcation\t line at  the  bottom-or  partially  on\t the<br \/>\ndemarcation<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">108<\/span><br \/>\nline and  partially in the column of the 1st respondent. The<br \/>\ndifference in  votes  between  the  appellant  and  the\t 1st<br \/>\nrespondent being  only 56, the learned Judge held that there<br \/>\nshould be  a rescrutiny\t of the rejected votes and a recount<br \/>\nin the\tlight of  such scrutiny\t should be  undertaken.\t The<br \/>\ntotal number  of votes rejected on different counts was 751.<br \/>\nThe 1st\t respondent deposed  in his evidence that there were<br \/>\nas many\t as about  300 votes cast in his favour in which the<br \/>\nmarking was  partially on the demarcation line and partially<br \/>\nin the\tcolumn where  his name\twas printed and they had all<br \/>\nbeen rejected.\tThe Returning  Officer, in his testimony, as<br \/>\nRW 2,  admitted that  he had  treated such  ballot papers as<br \/>\ninvalid but  asserted that the total number of ballot papers<br \/>\nrejected on the said ground was only 127. The learned single<br \/>\nJudge was  of opinion  that even  if the  version  of  RW  2<br \/>\nregarding the  number  of  ballot  papers  rejected  on\t the<br \/>\naforesaid  ground   was\t to  be\t accepted  as  correct,\t the<br \/>\nReturning Officer  had committed a manifest illegality while<br \/>\ncounting the votes and the declaration of the result made on<br \/>\nthe basis  of such  defective counting\thad  to\t set  aside.<br \/>\nAccordingly, the  High Court  directed a  re-scrutiny and  a<br \/>\nrecount of  all the  rejected votes to be carried out in the<br \/>\npremises of  the High Court. The learned Judge appointed one<br \/>\nof Assistant  Registrars of  the High  Court  was  Presiding<br \/>\nOfficer to  supervise the  recounting. The  Chief  Electoral<br \/>\nOfficer was  directed to  cause the  production of  all\t the<br \/>\nrejected  votes\t  in  respect  of  the\tIlayangudi  Assembly<br \/>\nconstituency at\t the election held on 28.5.1980. A direction<br \/>\nwas also  issued to the Returning Officer-5th respondent -to<br \/>\nrender all  necessary assistance  to enable  the re-scrutiny<br \/>\nand recounting\tto be  properly carried out by the Assistant<br \/>\nRegistrar as  presiding officer.  It  is  against  the\tsaid<br \/>\ndecision of the High Court that this appeal by special leave<br \/>\nhas been preferred.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Returning Officer, in the testimony given by him as<br \/>\nRW2, has  admitted in categorical terms that he had rejected<br \/>\nas invalid  ballot papers where the marking was partially in<br \/>\nthe column of the candidate and partially in the shaded area<br \/>\nand also  those where  the  marking  was  partially  in\t the<br \/>\ncandidate&#8217;s column and partially on the dividing line in the<br \/>\nbottom. His explanation was that in doing so he had strictly<br \/>\nfollowed the  instructions constrained\tin the\tbooklet\t P3,<br \/>\nentitled &#8220;Instructions\tto counting  staff&#8221; issued  in Tamil<br \/>\nlanguage by  the Chief\tElectoral Officer  of Tamil  Nadu in<br \/>\nconnection with\t the elections to the Tamil Nadu Legislative<br \/>\nAssembly, 1980.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Rule 39(2)\t (b) of\t the Conduct  of Election Rules 1961<br \/>\nrequires an  elector to make a mark on the ballot paper with<br \/>\nthe instrument<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">109<\/span><br \/>\nsupplied for  the purpose  &#8220;on or  near the  symbol  of\t the<br \/>\ncandidate for  whom he\tintends to vote&#8221;. Rule 56(2) directs<br \/>\nthe   Returning\t  Officer   to\t reject\t  a   ballot   paper<br \/>\n&#8220;(a)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230; or  (b) if it bears no mark at all<br \/>\nto indicate  the vote, or it bears a mark else where than on<br \/>\nor near\t the symbol  of one of the candidates on the face of<br \/>\nthe ballot  paper or,  it bears\t a mark\t made otherwise than<br \/>\nwith  the   instrument\tsupplied   for\t the   purpose,\t  or\n<\/p>\n<p>(c)&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;, or\t (d) if\t the mark indicating<br \/>\nthe vote  thereon is  placed in\t such a manner as to make it<br \/>\ndoubtful to  which candidate  the vote\thas been given.&#8221; The<br \/>\nessence of the principle incorporated in the rule is that so<br \/>\nlong as\t the  ballot  paper  bears  a  mark  made  with\t the<br \/>\ninstrument supplied  for the purpose, the ballot paper shall<br \/>\nnot be\trejected as invalid, if it is reasonably possible to<br \/>\ngather a  definite indication  from the\t marking as  to\t the<br \/>\nidentity of  the candidate  in favour  of whom\tthe vote had<br \/>\nbeen given. In this context it is necessary to remember that<br \/>\nnearly 90%  of the  electorate in  this country\t consists of<br \/>\nilliterate and\tuneducated rural  folk totally\tunacquainted<br \/>\nwith the  intricacies of  the rules  and  technicalities  of<br \/>\nprocedure pertaining  to elections.  Even  if  the  best  of<br \/>\nendeavour is  made to explain to them such complicated rules<br \/>\nand procedures they may not be capable of grasping and fully<br \/>\nunderstanding all  the implications  and  actually  carrying<br \/>\nthem into  effect while\t exercising their  franchise. If the<br \/>\nright\tconferred    on\t  the\tpeople\t to   choose   their<br \/>\nrepresentatives to the State Legislatures and the Parliament<br \/>\nthrough the  process of\t free and  fair elections  is to  be<br \/>\nmeaningful the\twill of\t the illiterate\t and unsophisticated<br \/>\nvoter expressed\t through a marking on the ballot paper which<br \/>\nthough not  strictly inside  that column  of the  particular<br \/>\ncandidate is  clearly indicative  of  the  identity  of\t the<br \/>\ncandidate for  whom the vote is cast has to be respected and<br \/>\ngiven its  full effect.\t It is\tgratifying to  note that the<br \/>\nElection Commission  has manifested  due awareness  of\tthis<br \/>\nstark reality  while issuing  instructions to  the Returning<br \/>\nOfficers  regarding   the  principles\tto  be\tadopted\t for<br \/>\nrejection of  ballot papers  in the  &#8220;Handbook for Returning<br \/>\nOfficers&#8221; published by the Commission in 1982. At page 90 of<br \/>\nthe book,  the Returning  Officers have\t been instructed  to<br \/>\nreject a ballot paper only-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     (i)  when there  is no  mark at all on the front or the<br \/>\n\t  mark is  made otherwise  than with  the instrument<br \/>\n\t  supplied for the purpose;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (ii) when the mark is in blank area, that is to say, at<br \/>\n\t  the back or entirely in the shaded area; or<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">110<\/span>\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iii)when\tthere\tare  marks   against  two   or\tmore<br \/>\n\t  candidates;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (iv) When there  is any  writing or  mark by  which the<br \/>\n\t  voter can be identified; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (v)  when\tthe   ballot  paper   is  mutilated   beyond<br \/>\n\t  recognition; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (vi) when the  ballot paper  is not  genuine or  it  is<br \/>\n\t  spurious.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The Election  Commission has  also issued  a  &#8220;Handbook\t for<br \/>\ncandidates&#8221;  for  election  to\tthe  House  of\tthe  People,<br \/>\nLegislative Assemblies of States and Union Territories, etc.<br \/>\nAt page\t 78 of\tthe book, it is specifically stated that the<br \/>\nReturning Officer  will not  reject any\t ballot paper simply<br \/>\nbecause the  mark is only partially within the column of one<br \/>\ncandidate and  the rest of the mark is in the blank area. It<br \/>\nhas also clarified that a ballot paper shall not be rejected<br \/>\nmerely on  the ground  that the\t mark indicating and vote is<br \/>\nindistinct or made more than once, if the intention that the<br \/>\nvote is\t for a particular candidate clearly appears from the<br \/>\nway the\t paper\tis  marked.  The  matter  has  been  further<br \/>\nclarified in a pamphlet issued by the Election Commission of<br \/>\nIndia in  1982 entitled&#8221;  A  Pamphlet  showing\tillustrative<br \/>\ncases of  valid\t and  invalid  postal  and  ordinary  ballot<br \/>\npapers&#8221;. The illustration at page 17 of the pamphlet depicts<br \/>\na case\twhere the  mark\t affixed  on  the  ballot  paper  is<br \/>\npartially in  the column of the candidate No. 1, the rest of<br \/>\nit being  in the shaded area and it is clearly directed that<br \/>\nin  such  cases\t the  ballot  paper  should  be\t treated  as<br \/>\ncontaining a  valid vote  in favour  of Candidate No. 1. The<br \/>\nChief Electoral\t Officer of  Tamil Nadu had issued a similar<br \/>\npamphlet containing  instructions in  Tamil to\tthe counting<br \/>\nstaff  purporting  to  be  in  terms  identical\t with  those<br \/>\ncontained in  the Handbook  and the  pamphlet issued  by the<br \/>\nElection Commission  of India,\tEx.P3 marked in this case is<br \/>\nthe pamphlet  so issued in Tamil by the Chief Officer, Tamil<br \/>\nNadu. Ex.P3 contains illustrative cases of valid and invalid<br \/>\npostal and  ordinary ballot papers and in publishing it, the<br \/>\nobvious\t intention   was  to   have  the   illustrations  on<br \/>\nindentical lines  as those  found in  corresponding pamphlet<br \/>\nissued by  the Election\t Commission of India. Unfortunately,<br \/>\nhowever,  in  the  illustration\t of  invalid  ballot  papers<br \/>\nappearing at  page 40 of the Book (Ex.P3), the major portion<br \/>\nof the\tmarking is in the shaded area and a small portion of<br \/>\nthe mark  is in the column of the candidate. Apparently what<br \/>\nwas intended to be printed was an illustration<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">111<\/span><br \/>\nshowing a  a ballot  paper in which the whole of the marking<br \/>\nwas in\tthe shaded area only without any portion of it being<br \/>\nin the\tcolumn of the candidate. The illustration as printed<br \/>\nin the\tpamphlet obviously  conveys the erroneous impression<br \/>\nthat a\tballot paper  where the\t marking is  partly  in\t the<br \/>\ncolumn of  the candidate and partly in the shaded area is to<br \/>\nbe rejected  by the  Returning Officer\tas invalid.  This is<br \/>\ndirectly contrary to the intendment of the relevant rule and<br \/>\nalso the  express wording  of the instructions issued by the<br \/>\nElection Commission.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the  case  before  us,\tthe  Returning\tofficer\t was<br \/>\nobviously misled  by the aforesaid illustration contained in<br \/>\nthe pamphlet, Ex.P.3 and that was the sole reason why he was<br \/>\nrejected as  invalid the ballot papers where the marking was<br \/>\ncontained partly  in the  column of the first respondent and<br \/>\npartly on  the demarcating  line or  shaded  area.  Had\t the<br \/>\nReturning  Officer   taken  the\t  trouble   to\t study\t the<br \/>\ninstructions contained the &#8220;Handbook for the candidates&#8221; and<br \/>\nthe &#8220;Handbook  for the\tReturning Officers&#8221;  it should\thave<br \/>\nbeen apparent  to him  that the\t illustration aforementioned<br \/>\ncontained in  Ex. P3  did not correctly reflect the position<br \/>\nlaid down in the rules and instructions. It follows that the<br \/>\nHigh Court  was perfectly right in holding that the counting<br \/>\nand declaration\t of the\t results in  the instant  case\twere<br \/>\nvitiated by  serious  illegality  and  in  directing  a\t re-<br \/>\nscrutiny and  recounting of  all  the  rejected\t votes.\t The<br \/>\nappeal is, therefore, devoid of merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Before we\tpart with the case, we consider it necessary<br \/>\nto observe  that in  order to  avoid a\trecurrence  of\tsuch<br \/>\nunfortunate instances  illegal rejection  of  votes  on\t the<br \/>\nbasis  of  the\tmisleading  illustration  contained  in\t the<br \/>\npamphlet, Ex.  P3, it  is essential  that  immediate  action<br \/>\nshould be  taken by the Chief Electoral Officer, Tamil Nadu,<br \/>\nto withdraw  the  said\tpamphlet  from\tcirculation  and  to<br \/>\nsubstitute  it\t by  issuing  a\t fresh\tpamphlet  containing<br \/>\nillustration correctly\treflecting the\tlegal position under<br \/>\nrelevant rules\tand instructions  relating to  the scrutiny,<br \/>\nacceptance of rejection of ballot papers.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The Registrar  will forward  copies of this judgment to<br \/>\nthe Election  Commission of India and to the Chief Electoral<br \/>\nOfficer, Tamil\tNadu, for necessary early action being taken<br \/>\nin the light of our foregoing observations,<br \/>\nS.R.\t\t\t\t\t   Appeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">112<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 1293, 1984 SCR (1) 104 Author: V B Eradi Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J) PETITIONER: S. SIVASWAMI Vs. RESPONDENT: V. MALAIKANNAN AND OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT27\/09\/1983 BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) [&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-151983","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>S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 - 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\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-23T23:58:39+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-23T23:58:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2493,\"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\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\",\"name\":\"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-09-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-23T23:58:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 - 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\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-23T23:58:39+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983","datePublished":"1983-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-23T23:58:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983"},"wordCount":2493,"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\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983","name":"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-09-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-23T23:58:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/s-sivaswami-vs-v-malaikannan-and-others-on-27-september-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"S. Sivaswami vs V. Malaikannan And Others on 27 September, 1983"}]},{"@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\/151983","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=151983"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151983\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151983"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151983"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151983"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}