Makkan vs Vedandi and Others

Rajamannar C.J.

The point which arises for determination in these two writ petitions concerns the construction of Rule 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 BALAKRISHA AYYAR J., in Writ Petition No. 303 of 1958 (Karia Gounder v. The State of Madras represented by the

Secretary, Department of Health, Education and Local Administration, Fort St. George ,Madras, and two Ors.) he made a reference of the case

for disposal by a Division Bench.

Rule 10 (3) (iii) runs thus:

The Presiding Officer shall also explain to 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 paper or ballot papers to

the Presiding Officer.

BALAKRISHNA AYYAR J., pointed out the inconsistency amounting to a contradiction between the latter part of Clause (b) and Clause (c).

Obviously, Clause (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 Clause (c) was to prohibit this, because, it says that where a voter wishes to vote, say, only for one 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 net 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-clause (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 so 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 Clause (c) would

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

RAJAGOPALAN J., was not so much oppressed by the inconsistency as BALAKRISHNA AYYAR J., was. This is what he said:

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

Clause (c) was quite consistent with Clause (b). The learned Judge (BALAKRISHNA AYYAR J.) pointed out that that was not what Clause (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 Clauses (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 Clause (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 Clause (c) as in effect to render this provision nugatory, or, in other words, to practically repeal that

portion of Clause (b). We, therefore, hold that Clause (b) and Clause (c) are not mutually inconsistent with each other and that Clause (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 scat has to be filled, an elector shall be given as many ballot papers as there are seats 10 be

filled and the polling officer shall explain to the elector (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 vote ;

(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, Clause (c) which

followed and was modelled on Clause (iv) of Rule 21(2) relating to major panchayats should have been suitably amended. Instead, Clause (iv) of

the major panchayat rules was bodily incorporated as Clause (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.