P.H. PUJAR V. KANTHI RAJASHEKHAR KIDIYAPPA AND ORS INSC 109

Name of the case: P.H. Pujar v. Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa & Ors.

Year of Judgment: 2002

Facts: In the elections of Karnataka Legislative Assembly, P.H. Pujar, the appellant was declared elected by a narrow margin of 138 votes over respondent Kanthi Rajashekhar Kidiyappa. The total polled votes were 88,353. Pujar got 40,418 votes and Kidiyappa got 40,280 votes. 3,872 ballot papers were rejected as invalid, and it was alleged that 59 ballot papers were missing. Kidiyappa challenged the election result under Section 81 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging improper rejection of votes and non-compliance with electoral procedures. Issue: Whether the process of election, particularly counting and rejection of votes, was in accordance with the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether any irregularity materially affected the result of the election.

Decision: The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the High Court which had declared the election null and void and ordered a recount. The Supreme Court dismissed the election petition filed by Kidiyappa and thus confirmed Pujar's election.

Majority Opinion Explanation: The Supreme Court indicated that for an election recount to be justified, the petitioner has to make concrete allegations and material facts showing irregularities that may have changed the result of the election.

It held that on the facts, allegations made by Kidiyappa were too vague and not particularized enough. The Court has further reasoned out that mere proximity of votes would not entitle one to a recount in the absence of evidence of irregularity. The court further noted that the processes running in connection with the counting were significantly in compliance with the rules set, and there was no convincing evidence revealing that the missing ballot papers and the rejected votes would have probably changed the election result. Dissenting Opinion Reasoning: There was no dissenting opinion in this case; the decision was unanimous. Impact of the case: The case reiterates the concept that election results should not be challenged on a mere or a vague allegation without proof. The judgment highlights that the petitioners must present relevant and material facts when alleging election irregularities. The judgment affirms the legitimacy of the electoral process by protecting the process so that recounts will not be granted without substantial reason, thus precluding frivolous challenges that can nullify the democratic outcome of an election. <ref>AIR 2002 SC 1368, 3 SCC 742<ref>