Case Note & Summary
The case involves an appeal against the dismissal of an election petition challenging the election of Dhiraj Prasad Sahu to the Rajya Sabha from Jharkhand in 2018. The appellant, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, was a defeated candidate. The key fact is that one MLA, Amit Kumar Mahto, cast his vote at 9:15 AM on the election day, but was convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment by a criminal court at 2:30 PM on the same day. The appellant argued that Mahto's vote should be treated as invalid because his disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 took effect from the beginning of the day of conviction. The High Court found in favor of the appellant on several issues but dismissed the petition on the ground that it was too complex to determine the outcome in a proportional representation system. The Supreme Court held that disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction, not from the start of the day, and therefore the vote cast before conviction was valid. However, the Court found that the Returning Officer improperly received the vote because Mahto was disqualified at the time of counting. The Court held that the election was void under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act, but since the margin was only 0.01 vote, it was impossible to declare the appellant elected. The Court set aside the election of Dhiraj Prasad Sahu and directed the Election Commission to hold a fresh election.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Disqualification of MLA - Date of Conviction - Section 8(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951 read with Article 191(1)(e) of Constitution - Disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction, not from the beginning of the day - The word 'date' in Section 8(3) refers to the calendar date on which conviction is pronounced, and the disqualification operates from that date, but does not retrospectively invalidate acts done earlier on the same day - Held that the vote cast at 9:15 AM was valid as the conviction occurred at 2:30 PM on the same day (Paras 11-20). B) Election Law - Rajya Sabha Election - Proportional Representation - Single Transferable Vote - Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of Representation of People Act, 1951 - Improper reception of a void vote - If a vote is improperly received, the election can be declared void - However, the court must determine whether the result of the election has been materially affected - In a proportional representation system, it is possible to recalculate the result after excluding the invalid vote - Held that the High Court erred in refusing relief on the ground of complexity (Paras 21-25). C) Election Law - Election Petition - Relief - Declaration of Election Void - Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of Representation of People Act, 1951 - If the court finds that a vote was improperly received and the result was materially affected, it can declare the election void - However, the court cannot declare the defeated candidate as elected unless it is possible to determine the winner with certainty - In this case, after excluding the invalid vote, the margin was 0.01 vote, making it impossible to declare the appellant elected - Held that the election of respondent No.1 is declared void, and a fresh election is directed (Paras 26-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the vote cast by a Member of the Legislative Assembly in an election to the Rajya Sabha, in the forenoon on the date of election, becomes invalid, consequent upon his disqualification, arising out of a conviction and sentence imposed by a Criminal Court, in the afternoon on the very same day?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the vote cast by Shri Amit Kumar Mahto was valid as it was cast before his conviction. However, the Court found that the Returning Officer improperly received the vote because Mahto was disqualified at the time of counting. The Court set aside the election of respondent No.1 (Dhiraj Prasad Sahu) under Section 100(1)(d)(iii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, but declined to declare the appellant elected as it was impossible to determine the winner with certainty. The Court directed the Election Commission to hold a fresh election for the Rajya Sabha seat.
Law Points
- Disqualification takes effect from date of conviction
- not from start of day
- vote cast before conviction is valid
- election petition cannot be dismissed solely on complexity of proportional representation
- court can declare election void and order fresh election if improper reception of vote is proved.
