{"id":218788,"date":"1999-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999"},"modified":"2015-06-23T04:20:34","modified_gmt":"2015-06-22T22:50:34","slug":"t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: R Babu<\/div>\n
Bench: R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nT.H.  MUSTHAFFA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nM.P.  VARGHESE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t23\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nR.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
RAJENDRA BABU, J.  :\n<\/p>\n
      Elections\t were  held on April 27, 1996 to the  Kerala
\nLegislative Assembly.  The appellant and respondents Nos.  1
\nto  19 contested in the said election from Kunnathunadu\t No.
\n78  Assembly Constituency.  Counting took place on May 8 and
\n9,  1996.  Appellant secured 49,974 votes, while  respondent
\nNo.   1\t secured 50,034 votes.\tThus respondent No.   1\t was
\ndeclared  elected  by  a  margin of 60\tvotes.\t Before\t the
\ndeclaration  of the result the appellant made an application
\nfor  recount  on  several grounds.   The  Returning  Officer
\nrejected  the said application.\t The appellant filed another
\napplication  styled  as Review Application which was  also
\nrejected.   The\t appellant,  thereafter, filed\tan  Election
\nPetition  before  the High Court of Kerala.  The High  Court
\ndismissed  the said Election Petition.\tHence, this  appeal.
\nThe  principal\tallegations raised by the appellant  in\t the
\nElection Petition are as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
      (i)  Votes  cast by 36 persons ( a list of  names\t and
\nother  particulars  of the said 36 persons was\tproduced  as
\nAnnexure-5  to the election petition) voted twice in  either
\nthe   same   Constituency   of\t  Kunnathunadu\t or    other
\nconstituencies.\t  The  votes  cast by them  are\t void  under
\nSection\t 62(3) and (4) of the Act.  All the 36 persons\thave
\nvoted for the respondent.  (ii) In addition to the above 36,
\n17  persons have voted in two polling stations.\t Their names
\nappeared  in electoral rolls of two polling stations of\t the
\nsame  Kunnathunadu  Constituency.  A list of the  names\t and
\nother  particulars  of the said 17 persons was\tattached  as
\nAnnexure-5(a)  to  the Election Petition.  (iii) 12  persons
\n(whose\tnames and particulars were given Annexure-6) are not
\nvoters of this constituency, their names having been deleted
\nfrom  the  final voters list but they have voted in  Polling
\nStation\t Nos.  195 and 158 taking advantage of the fact that
\ntheir names found a place in the original voters list.\t(iv)
\nAnnexure-7  is\ta list of the names, addresses etc.   of  56
\npersons\t who are employees of Kitex Ltd., an industrial unit
\nin  the constituency and who are voters in Booth Nos.\t194,
\n195 etc.  in the constituency.\tThey are natives of far away
\nplaces\tand were not in Kunnathunada Constituency during the
\nelection including the polling day so as to cast their votes
\ndue to the long day off of the factory.\t However their votes
\nare seen as cast by impersonation.  These voters are invalid
\nunder  Sec.  62(1) of the Act.\t(v) About 300 votes are cast
\nin  violation of Rules 39(2)(b) and 56(2)((b) of the Conduct
\nof Election Rules, 1961, in as much as in the polling booths
\nat   Puttannoor\t  school  and\tVarikoli  school  etc.\t  in
\nVadavucode-Puthencruz Panchayat about 300 voters voted using
\nan  instrument\tother  than  the   arrow  cross\t mark  stamp
\nprescribed  by the Election Commission.\t The said votes\t are
\ninvalid.   (vi)\t 5633 votes were wrongly  declared  invalid,
\nmajority  of  which  were  cast in favour  of  the  Election
\nPetitioner, and (vii) There are various other irregularities
\nin  mixing,  sorting  and  bundling  of\t the  ballot  papers
\ncontrary  to  Rules and instructions issued by the  Election
\nCommission.\n<\/p>\n
      Respondent  No.\t1  in the written  statement  raised
\ncertain\t preliminary points as to non- compliance of Section
\n81(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 [hereinafter
\nreferred  to as the R.P.  Act].\t He also raised objections
\nas to the manner in which the signature has been put and the
\nverification  made  in the petition in violation of  Section
\n83(1)  and  (2)\t of the R.P.  Act.  He\tcontended  that\t the
\nentire\t counting  process  had\t  been\tconducted   legally,
\nregularly  and correctly.  He denied the allegation that the
\nCounting  Supervisor  and  the\t Counting  Assistants\twere
\npro-left minded and indulged in manipulations.\tHe contended
\nthat  the  facilities provided in the Counting Centres\twere
\nadequate with full opportunity to the counting agents of the
\ncandidates  to observe or scrupulously watch the scrutiny of
\nthe  ballot  papers.  He claimed that the ballot  papers  in
\nfavour\tof  the candidates were accurately bundled  with  25
\nballots\t in each of the bundles and not even a single ballot
\npaper  of  the\tappellant  was\tbundled\t with  that  of\t the
\nrespondent.   He contended that test checking had been\tdone
\nby the Returning Officer in accordance with the instructions
\nin   the  Hand\tBook.\tHe   asserted  that  there  was\t  no
\nimpersonation  in  voting,  or any of them had\tvoted  twice
\neither\tin Kunnathunada Constituency or elsewhere.  On these
\npleadings  17  issues have been raised.\t As  regards  Issues
\nNos.   1,  2,  3, 4 and 5 pertaining to\t preliminary  points
\nraised\tby  respondent No.  1, the High Court held that\t the
\nElection  Petition  was\t not  liable   to  be  rejected\t for
\nnon-compliance\twith Section 86(1) of the R.P.\tAct and\t the
\nparties\t were  directed to go for trial.  67 witnesses\twere
\nexamined  on  behalf of the petitioners, while on behalf  of
\nrespondent No.\t1, he examined himself as sole witness.\t The
\nlearned\t Judge in the course of the order recorded as  under
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
      Issues Nos.  7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13:\tCounsel for
\nthe  petitioner Shri K.\t Ramakumar fairly conceded that\t the
\npetitioner  was not successful in his attempt to prove\tthat
\nmore than 60 votes were invalid on account of double voting,
\nvoting by ineligible persons, impersonation, etc.  and hence
\nhe  is not pressing those issues.  According to him, at\t the
\nmost  the invalid votes would come to only 54 and as it\t has
\nnot reached 60, the margin by which the first respondent was
\ndeclared  elected, there is no useful purpose in considering
\nthe points which arise for consideration on the basis of the
\nabove  issues.\tSo, recording the submission, the issues are
\nanswered against the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
      Thus   the   principal   issue\tthat   remains\t for
\nconsideration  is Issue No.  6 and other issues 14 to 17 are
\nconsequential to the finding to be recorded on Issue No.  6.
\nThe  averments\tcontained  in the Election Petition  are  as
\nfollows :-\n<\/p>\n
      Paragraph 2<\/p>\n
      Upon  such  announcement\tthe   petitioner  who  was
\npresent\t at  the  counting   station  submitted\t a  petition
\nrequesting  a recounting on the basis of several allegations
\nof  manipulations  in the sorting and bundling of votes,  in
\nthe  wrong  acceptance of invalid votes polled for  the\t Ist
\nrespondent as valid, the rejection of valid votes polled for
\nthe  petitioner as invalid, irregularities committed by\t the
\nCounting Supervisors and Counting Assistants, the absence of
\ntest checking of the bundles of 25 of all the candidates and
\nseveral\t other\tgrounds\t which\thas   caused  error  in\t the
\nannouncement of the number of votes of each candidate..\n<\/p>\n
      Paragraph 4<\/p>\n
      ..In  several  instances votes which were invalid\t as
\nper  the instructions issued by the Election Commission in a
\npamphlet  showing  illustrative cases of valid\tand  invalid
\npapers\twere  honoured\tin  the breach\tto  favour  the\t Ist
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
      In the course of the trial evidence was adduced to the
\neffect\t that  the  instrument\t supplied  by  the  Election
\nCommission for the purpose of exercising the preference of a
\nvoter  is  the arrow cross mark rubber stamp in all  polling
\nstations  but  in  two of the polling stations\tat  Varikole
\nschool and Koothmannoor school, votes had been cast by using
\nthe  instrument\t meant for the polling officials for  making
\ndistinguishing\tmark  of the polling station.  Thus a  wrong
\ninstrument had been used in these two polling stations.\t The
\nReturning  Officer  (P.W.   46) admitted in  his  deposition
\nbefore\tthe  High  Court that the Polling Officers  had,  by
\nmistake,  handed  over\tthe  wrong seal to  the\t voters\t for
\nexercising  their  preference.\t Reliance was placed  on  A
\nPamphlet  Showing  Illustrative Cases of Valid\tand  Invalid
\nPostal\tand  Ordinary Ballot Papers issued by the  Election
\nCommission  of\tIndia in 1996.\tIt is indicated\t therein  as
\nillustrations  II  and\tIII in respect of  Ordinary  Ballot
\nPapers\tInvalid Cases at pages 24 and 25 to treat a  ballot
\npaper containing a mark not made with instrument supplied to
\nbe  treated  as\t invalid and to be put in  the\tdoubtful
\nbundle\tby the Counting Party and rejected by the  Returning
\nOfficer.   The learned trial Judge adverted to the pleadings
\nof  the case and noticed that there is no plea in the entire
\nelection  petition  as to using a wrong instrument  for\t the
\npurpose\t of  expressing preference by the voters so that  an
\ninstrument to be used for distinguishing mark of the polling
\nstation\t had  been used instead of arrow cross\tmark  rubber
\nstamp,\tnor was any reference made to the pamphlet issued by
\nthe  Election  Commission thereby putting the respondent  on
\nnotice\tthereof.   The learned Judge, therefore, found\tthat
\nthe pleading was insufficient in election petition to base a
\nclaim  to attract Rules 39(2)(b) and 56(2)(b) of the Conduct
\nof  Election  Rules, 1961 [for short the Rules].   In  the
\nabsence\t of  any pleading regarding the violation  of  Rules
\n39(2)(b)  and  56(2)(b)\t of the Rules in the course  of\t the
\nelection  petition  with  reference  to\t the  facts  alleged
\ntherein,  no issue could arise on that aspect of the matter.
\nThe  learned  counsel for the appellant submitted  that\t the
\nclaim  for  recount  was  based on  two\t grounds.   Firstly,
\nviolation  of Rules 39(2)(b) and 56(2)(b) inasmuch as in the
\npolling\t booths\t at Varikole school and Koothmannoor  school
\ninstrument  other than the arrow cross mark rubber stamp had
\nnot been used contrary to the one prescribed by the Election
\nCommission   and   secondly,  there    are   various   other
\nirregularities such as wrong mixing, sorting and bundling of
\nballots\t papers.   The pleading raised in the case does\t not
\nrefer  to either Rule 39 or 56 of the Rules much less to the
\npamphlet  showing  illustrative cases of valid and  invalid
\npostal\tand  ordinary ballot papers issued by the  Election
\nCommission  of India, nor any specific allegations are found
\nin  the\t case.\t The allegation made in the  course  of\t the
\npetition  is that there is wrong acceptance of invalid votes
\npolled\tfor  respondent No.  1.\t It is not made clear as  to
\nhow  many  votes are liable to be rejected for\tusing  wrong
\ninstrument  by\tthe voters for expressing their\t preference.
\nThere  is no further indication as to how many of such votes
\nhad  been  polled  in favour of respondent No.\t1 so  as  to
\nmaterially  affect  the\t result\t of the\t election.   In\t the
\nabsence\t of  such  plea\t the learned Judge  could  not\thave
\ngranted the relief of recount.\tTherefore, the view taken by
\nthe  High Court that the pleadings are insufficient to order
\nrecount\t is perfectly in order.\t So far as the evidence that
\nhad  been adduced in the case is concerned, it need not have
\nbeen  looked  at  by  the learned Judge in  the\t absence  of
\nappropriate  pleadings in that regard.\tHowever, Shri E.M.S.
\nAnam,  the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that
\nthe  fact that votes in the two polling stations at Varikole
\nschool\tand  Koothmannoor  school had been cast by  using  a
\nwrong  instrument was not in dispute and the evidence of the
\nReturning  Officer  clearly indicated the use of  the  wrong
\ninstrument  in the two polling stations which amounted to an
\nadmission in the case and, therefore, even in the absence of
\nan appropriate pleading in that regard the evidence could be
\nlooked at.  We fail to appreciate this argument.  Unless the
\nappellant  had\tput forth his case in the pleading  and\t the
\nrespondents  are put on notice, the respondents cannot\tmake
\nan  admission  at all and there is no such admission in\t the
\ncourse\tof the pleadings.  If the pleadings did not  contain
\nthe  necessary foundation for raising an appropriate  issue,
\nthe same cannot go to trial.  Any amount of evidence in that
\nregard,\t however excellent the same may be, will be  futile.
\nTherefore,  the\t learned counsel is not justified in  making
\nthe  said submission and the same is rejected.\tThe  learned
\nJudge\tnoticed\t that  the   appellant,\t though\t had  raised
\nobjection in this regard in the application for recount, did
\nnot  reiterate the same in second application much less\t any
\naverment  is made in the petition.  The learned Judge  held,
\nin  our\t view,\trightly that there is no  pleading  in\tthis
\nregard\tand the evidence adduced cannot be looked into as no
\nissue  thereto arises.\tThe learned Judge did not,  however,
\nrest  his  decision on that basis but examined the scope  of
\nRules  39(2)(b) and 56(2)(b) of the Rules.  After  adverting
\nto  decisions in Hari Vishnu v.\t Ahmad Ishaque, AIR<\/a> 1955  SC
\n233;   Manni  Lal v.  Parmai Lal, AIR<\/a> 1971 SC 330;  and\t Era
\nSezhiyan v.  T.R.  Balu,<\/a> 1990 Supp.  (3) SCC 22, the learned
\nJudge  came  to the conclusion that the Rules are  mandatory
\nand  held that when the marking of the ballot papers is made
\nby an instrument other than the one supplied for the purpose
\nit  will  invalidate the ballot papers.\t  While\t considering
\nquestion  whether the marking of the ballots in this case is
\nmade  otherwise\t than  by the instrument  supplied  for\t the
\npurpose, the learned Judge took the view that Rules 39(2)(b)
\nand  56(2)(b) of the Rules should be read with clause 10F of
\nthe  Handbook  for Candidates under the\t heading  Marking
\nSystem\tof Voting and concluded that a voter has no control
\nover  the  instrument  supplied\t to him\t and  when  a  wrong
\ninstrument  is handed over to him by the Polling Officer, he
\nwill  naturally exercise his preference with the aid of that
\ninstrument  and in such cases he cannot be found fault with.
\nThe  learned  Judge made it clear that the present is not  a
\ncase  where a voter had made use of an instrument which\t was
\nnot  supplied  to  him\tfor   the  purpose  of\tmarking\t his
\npreference,  but one where preference was exercised with the
\ninstrument  supplied to him for the purpose and,  therefore,
\nthere  is  no violation of the Rules in marking\t the  ballot
\npapers.\t  The learned Judge also took note of the fact\tthat
\nthe  evidence of Returning Officer (P.W.  46) discloses that
\nin  respect  of\t two  polling  stations\t in  question  wrong
\nmarkings  were\tdone  with a wrong instrument in  the  votes
\npolled\tin  favour  of almost all the  candidates  and\tsuch
\nmistake\t was on the part of the Polling Officers in  handing
\nover  a\t wrong\tinstrument  for marking\t a  vote.   All\t the
\ncandidates  had taken advantage of votes having been cast in
\ntheir  favour by using a wrong instrument and did not  raise
\nany  objection.\t Therefore, he took those votes to be valid.\n<\/p>\n
     On this analysis of the evidence the learned Judge held
\nthat  no objection was taken to the same at the time  second
\npetition  for recounting.  of counting or even\tsubsequently
\nwhen  the  appellant filed Shri E.M.S.Anam, learned  counsel
\nfor  the appellant, relied on the observations of this Court
\nin  Ram\t Autar Singh Bhadauria v.  Ram Gopal Singh  &  Ors.,<\/a>
\n1976  (1) SCR 191, to the effect that once it is established
\nthat  the  fault  specified in Rule 56(2)(a) or (b)  of\t the
\nRules  has been committed, there is no option left with\t the
\nReturning Officer but to reject the faulty ballot paper.  He
\nfurther\t submitted  that  even if such defect is  caused  by
\nmistake\t or  failure  of the polling officer or\t members  of
\nstaff,\tthe Returning Officer was bound to reject the ballot
\npaper  on  the ground of such defect.  It is no\t doubt\ttrue
\nthat  at the first blush one is impressed with this argument
\nappearing  to  derive support from the observations made  in
\nthat  decision.\t  However,  a closer scrutiny  of  the\tsaid
\ndecision  will\tunveil\tthe spell.  The facts in  that\tcase
\nreveal\tthat  41  ballot papers were alleged  to  have\tbeen
\nrejected  on the ground that electors choice was  expressed
\nthrough a wrong instrument.  Dealing with this aspect of the
\nmatter,\t this Court observed that the court had to apply its
\nmind  as  to whether these facts were sufficient to  attract
\nRule  56(2)(b) of the Rules and to do so had to consider two
\nquestions  :   (i)  Was the stamping instrument\t with  which
\nthese  41 electors marked the ballot papers, given to them
\nby  the Presiding Officer or any member of his staff?\t(ii)
\nIf  so,\t could\tthese ballot papers be deemed to  have\tbeen
\nmarked with the instrument supplied for the purpose within
\nthe contemplation of Rules 39(2)(b) and 56(2)(b) ?  Although
\ncertain\t observations  were made in regard to the  mandatory
\nnature\tof  the provisions of Rules 39 and  56(2)(b),  still
\nultimately  this Court remanded the matter for consideration
\nof  these two questions and stated that if both these issues
\nare  answered  in the affirmative, then and only  then,\t the
\ntrial  Judge may proceed to inspection and recount of  these
\n41 votes referred to earlier.  Therefore, the contention put
\nforth  on behalf of the appellant in this case that the mere
\nfact  of  certain  ballot papers have been marked  with\t the
\nwrong  instrument would not by itself lead to the conclusion
\nthat such ballot papers are liable to be rejected unless the
\ntwo  questions raised in Ram Autar (supra) to which we\thave
\nadverted to above are answered.\t On the question whether the
\nstamping  instrument with which the ballot papers are marked
\nin the two polling stations are given by the Polling Officer
\nor  any\t member\t of his staff, the answer is  given  by\t the
\nlearned\t Judge\tin  the\t affirmative,  on  analysis  of\t the
\nevidence  and particularly from what has been stated by\t the
\nReturning  Officer who was examined in the case.  Therefore,
\nthe  learned  Judge proceeded to consider the next  question
\nwhether\t such instrument could have been deemed to have been
\nsupplied  for  the  purpose of marking ballot  papers.\t The
\nlearned\t Judge\ttook the view on the admission made  by\t the
\nReturning  Officer that the said instrument was supplied  to
\nthe  electors  for that purpose by the officers by  mistake.
\nThis  question again arose for consideration in the decision
\nof this Court in Era Sezhiyan v.  T.R.Balu<\/a> (supra), in which
\nthis  Court  again  took  the view that\t if  the  instrument
\nsupplied  to  the voters, though mistakenly, was other\tthan
\nthe  one  intended  for\t marking   the\tballot\tpapers,\t the
\ninstrument  must  be  deemed to have been  supplied  by\t the
\nofficers  concerned  for the purpose of marking\t the  ballot
\npapers.\t  If  we read the relevant Rules 39 and 56(2)(b)  of
\nthe  Rules with the instructions given at clause 10F in\t the
\nHandbook  for the Candidates it will be clear that the voter
\nwill  record his vote by stamping a mark on the ballot paper
\nwith  the rubber stamp supplied to him by one of the polling
\nofficers.   In\tthis  case, admittedly, it  is\tthe  polling
\nofficer\t who  had  supplied the instrument for\tmarking\t the
\nballot\tpaper.\t It is thus clear that the appellant  cannot
\ntake  advantage\t of  the mistake, if any, in  supplying\t the
\ninstrument for marking the ballot papers.\n<\/p>\n
      The  next argument advanced by the learned counsel for
\nthe  appellant\tis that the intention of Rules 39 and 56  of
\nthe  Rules is to maintain the secrecy in voting and when the
\nballot\tpapers are marked with a distinguishing mark by\t the
\nvoters\tit  would  certainly  be possible  to  identify\t the
\nvoters.\t  If  the appellant contends that about\t 100  voters
\ncast their votes using the wrong instrument, respondent No.1
\nwould  put  that figure at 300 in the two polling  stations.
\nThe appellant and respondent No.1 appear to have made only a
\nguess work and have not laid any foundation in the pleadings
\nor  by\tway of evidence to draw such an inference.   On\t the
\nother  hand,  the  Returning Officer is categorical  in\t his
\ntestimony  that\t almost\t all the voters in the\ttwo  polling
\nstations  marked their votes using the wrong instrument.  If
\nall the voters in the two polling stations had marked in the
\nmanner\tstated\tby  the Returning Officer, and\twe  have  no
\nreason\tto doubt the correctness of his statement, the whole
\ncase,  as  sought  to  be  set up by  the  appellant  as  to
\nviolation of secrecy in voting, falls to ground.  Thus, none
\nof  the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant based on
\nRules  39  and\t56 of the Rules are tenable and\t they  stand
\nrejected.\n<\/p>\n
      After adverting to various principles as enunciated by
\nthis  Court  in\t various decisions  regarding  recount,\t the
\nlearned\t Judge examined the case put forth by the  appellant
\nas  to the various irregularities committed in the course of
\ncounting.   The\t first\tirregularity  pointed  out  is\tnon-
\nobservance  of the requirement that 5 per cent of the  total
\nnumber\tof  bundles  of\t valid ballot  papers  of  different
\ncontesting  candidates should be counted again at the  table
\nof  the Returning Officer by making selection of 5 per\tcent
\nof  ballot papers in such a manner that it contains  bundles
\npertaining to different contesting candidates.\tThe evidence
\nof  the\t Returning Officer is to the contrary.\tThe  learned
\nJudge  believed\t him and held that test\t of  checking\/random
\nchecking  cannot  be stated to have been not done.  He\theld
\nthat  the averments in the pleadings or evidence as to other
\nirregularities\t alleged  regarding   mixing,  sorting\t and
\nbundling  of  ballots papers were very vague and  no  weight
\ncould  be  attached  to\t the same.   Thus,  the\t High  Court
\nconcluded  that\t the allegations contained in  the  election
\npetition and evidence adduced were not sufficient to warrant
\nrecount or inspection of the ballot papers.\n<\/p>\n
      The  learned counsel for the appellant in spite of his
\nstrenuous  efforts  is unable to point out any error in\t the
\nreasoning  or conclusion in the judgment under appeal as  to
\nlaying any foundation for recount.  Mere smallness of margin
\nof votes by which the election is decided is irrelevant.  Of
\ncourse,\t in  a given case on the totality of  pleadings\t and
\nevidence, smallness of margin may gain importance but not in
\nthis  case.   The pleadings do not indicate the errors\tmade
\neither with reference to number of ballot papers or table or
\nround in which such mistakes occurred.\tExcept to make vague
\nstatements,  the  appellant has not either pleaded or  given
\nany testimony through witnesses.  Hence the appeal is liable
\nto  be\tdismissed.   In\t the   result,\tthis  appeal  stands
\ndismissed  but in the circumstances of the case the  parties
\nshall bear their respective costs in this appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 Author: R Babu Bench: R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu PETITIONER: T.H. MUSTHAFFA Vs. RESPONDENT: M.P. VARGHESE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/09\/1999 BENCH: R.C.Lahoti, S.R.Babu JUDGMENT: RAJENDRA BABU, J. : Elections were held on April 27, 1996 to the Kerala Legislative Assembly. The […]<\/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-218788","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nT.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-06-22T22:50:34+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=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T22:50:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3603,\"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\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\",\"name\":\"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-06-22T22:50:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@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":"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-06-22T22:50:34+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":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T22:50:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999"},"wordCount":3603,"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\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999","name":"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-06-22T22:50:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-h-musthaffa-vs-m-p-varghese-ors-on-23-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.H. Musthaffa vs M.P. Varghese & Ors on 23 September, 1999"}]},{"@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\/218788","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=218788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/218788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=218788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=218788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=218788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}