Makkan vs Vedandi and others

ORDER

Rajamannar, C.J.—The point which arises for determination in these two writ petitions concerns the construction of R. 10 (3) (iii) of the

rules relating to the conduct of election of members to Panchayats made under the Madras Village Panchayats Act, 1950. The petitions originally

came on for hearing before Rajagopalan J. but, as he was inclined to take a view of the relevant provision which was different from the view which

had already been taken by Balakrishna Ayyar J. in Karia Gounder v. State of Madras W.P. No. 303 of 1958, he made a reference of the case for

disposal by a Division Bench. R. 10 (3) (iii) runs thus :

The Presiding Officer shall also explain each elector at the time of issuing a ballot paper or papers-

(a) the number of candidates for whom he may vote;

(b) that he may place one ballot paper in the ballot box of each of the candidates for whom he wishes to vote or place more than one ballot paper

or all the ballot papers in the ballot box of any particular candidate for whom he wishes to vote;

(c) that where he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates than he has votes, he shall return the surplus ballot or ballot papers to the

Presiding Officer.

Balakrishna Aiyar J. pointed out the inconsistency amounting to a contradiction between the latter part of Cl. (b) and Cl. (c). Obviously, Cl. (b)

confers a right on the voter to place more than one ballot paper in the ballot box of any particular candidate. The learned Judge thought that the

effect of Cl. (c) was to prohibit this, because, it says that where a voter wishes to vote, say, only for cue candidate, then he can use only one ballot

paper and return the rest. The learned Judge observed :

It was pointed out that this rule is not merely obscure but involves a contradiction. An illustration will make the matter clear. Suppose there are

four seats to be filled. Each voter is given four papers. Apparently the intention of the rule is that a voter may distribute the four papers in whatever

manner he thinks fit. He may place one paper in each of the four boxes, or he may place all the papers in one box, or he may place two in one and

two in another, or three in one and one in another. But then, Sub-Cl. (c) states that if he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates he shall

return the surplus ballot papers to the Presiding Officer. How can the two rules co-exist ? The criticism that there is an inherent contradiction in the

rules appears to be correct.

I presume that what it was intended to say is this. If a voter decides to use only some of his votes, that is to say, if he decides to place only some of

the papers given to him in the ballot boxes then he should return the rest. But this is not what the rule actually says.

It may, however, be mentioned that the learned Judge did not decide the petition before him on the point, because in the case before him, the

election was not yet over. What exactly he would have held, it is difficult to be certain about,--whether he would have held that Cl. (c) would

prevail over the latter part of Cl. (b) or that on account of the irreconcilable inconsistency between Cl. (b) and Cl. (c), both are invalid.

Rajagopalan, J., was not so much oppressed by the inconsistency as Balakrishna Aiyar, J., was. This is what he said :

If the only obligation cast on a voter by Cl. (c) was to return the unused or ''surplus'' ballot papers, there should be no difficulty in holding that Cl.

(c) was quite consistent with Cl. (b). The learned Judge (Balakrishna Aiyar, J.,) pointed out that that was not what Cl. (c) actually said. It has still

to be considered whether on applying the rule of interpretation that, where possible, the different statutory provisions should be so construed as to

harmonise with each other the apparent inconsistency between Cls. (b) and (c) can be resolved.

In our opinion, the view of Rajagopalan, J., should prevail having regard to the well-established rule of interpretation of statutes that no part of

the statute can be disregarded as being inconsistent with another part of the same statute unless it is impossible to reconcile them. It is true that the

language of Cl. (c) is not quite appropriate to express the idea that if a voter wishes to use a smaller number of papers than the papers supplied to

him he shall return the surplus ballot paper or papers to the Presiding Officer. But the governing factor must be the express intention of the rule-

making authority to confer on the voter a right to place more than one ballot paper or all the ballot papers in the ballot box of any particular

candidate"". We cannot so interpret Cl. (c) as in effect to render this provision nugatory, or, in other words to practically repeal that portion of Cl.

(b). We, therefore, hold that Cl. (b) and Cl. (c) are not mutually inconsistent with each other and that Cl. (c) does not prevent the voter from

placing more than one ballot paper or all the ballot papers with which he is supplied in the ballot box of any particular candidate for whom he

wishes to vote. On this interpretation the writ petitions admittedly must be, and are hereby, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. It is not

difficult to discover the reason for this apparent inconsistency. Originally, election to minor Panchayats, such as the Panchayat in question in these

cases was by show of hands. So far as major Panchayats were concerned, the election was by ballot and for the purpose of the point now under

consideration, the material rule runs thus :

At elections for constituencies, in which more than one seat has to be filled, an elector shall be given as many ballot papers as there are seats to be

filled and the polling officer shall explain to the Collector;

(i) the number of candidates for whom he may vote;

(ii) that he may place one ballot paper in the ballot box of each of the candidates for whom he wishes to vole;

(iii) that he shall not place two or more ballot papers in the same ballot box; and

(iv) that where he wishes to vote for a smaller number of candidates than he has votes, he shall return the surplus ballot paper or ballot papers to

the polling officer.

The rules relating to minor Panchayats were presumably framed on the model of the rules obtaining for the major Panchayats. But deliberately the

Government made a departure as regards the manner of voting. For the reasons which it is unnecessary to discuss, Government obviously decided

to confer on the voter the right to place all the ballot papers or as many as he wishes in the ballot box of any particular candidate for whom he

wishes to vote. This is clearly a departure from the rule relating to major Panchayats. Having made this provision Cl. (c) which followed and was

modelled on Cl. (iv) of R. 21 (2) relating to major Panchayats should have been suitably amended. Instead, Cl. (iv) of the major Panchayat rules

was bodily incorporated as Cl. (c) in the rules relating to minor Panchayats. This has caused the difficulty with which we have been faced. A little

more care in drafting would have avoided uncertainty and waste of time over litigation.