Supreme Court Orders Revote on No-Confidence Motion Citing Secrecy Concerns: Laxmi Singh vs. Rekha Singh (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 19 June 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 483
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J., Krishna Murari, J. (Bench of three judges, with the opinion authored by Sanjiv Khanna, J.)

Can a vote of no-confidence be invalidated if some members reveal their vote, thereby violating the secrecy of the ballot? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a case concerning a no-confidence motion against a Panchayat Adhyaksha. The core issue revolved around whether the principle of secrecy of ballot, meant to ensure free and fair elections, can be waived by individual voters. The Supreme Court, while not definitively answering the legal question, ordered a revote to uphold the integrity of the electoral process.

Case Background

On 1st October 2018, sixty-four out of ninety-two elected members of the Zila Panchayat, Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, moved a motion of no confidence against the Panchayat Adhyaksha, Ms. Rekha Singh. The District Judge, Allahabad, nominated the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, to oversee the meeting to consider the motion. In the meeting held on 25th October 2018, forty-eight out of fifty-one members present voted in favor of the motion, two voted against, and one vote was rejected. The Presiding Officer declared the motion passed. However, the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the motion, citing that some members had violated the secrecy of the ballot by displaying their ballot papers, based on CCTV footage.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad set aside the minutes of the Zila Panchayat meeting dated 25th October 2018, which had approved the no-confidence motion. The High Court based its decision on the fact that some members had violated the rule of secrecy of the ballot by displaying their ballot papers, as evidenced by CCTV footage. The High Court held that this disclosure of vote was a violation of the statutory scheme governing no-confidence motions and would affect the purity of elections. The petitioners, challenging this finding, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The legal framework for this case is primarily based on the following:

• Section 28(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961: This section mandates that a motion of no confidence must be put to vote by secret ballot in the prescribed manner.
• Rule 4 of the Uttar Pradesh (Zila Panchayats) (Voting on Motions of Non-Confidence) Rules 1966: This rule obligates the Presiding Officer to ensure that arrangements are made to maintain the secrecy of the ballot.
• Rule 7(2) of the 1966 Rules: This sub-rule requires members to mark their choice on the ballot paper without disclosing their names and prohibits any signature or mark that could infringe the secrecy of the ballot.
• Rule 7(3) of the 1966 Rules: This sub-rule requires members to fold their ballot paper to conceal their mark and put it in the ballot box.

The High Court held that there was a violation of Rules 4 and 7 of the 1966 Rules, and that the disclosure of vote during the no-confidence motion was in violation of the statutory scheme and would affect the purity of elections.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the principle of secrecy of ballot is based on public policy to ensure that voters cast their votes without fear or favor and without any apprehension of disclosure. They cited the Supreme Court’s decision in S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Others [1980 Supp SCC 53], which emphasized that secrecy of ballot is a keystone of constitutional democracy.
• They argued that the right to secrecy is a privilege that can be waived by the voter. They contended that the High Court wrongly held that the voluntary waiver principle could not apply to the members of the Zila Panchayat voting on a no-confidence motion.
• The petitioners also highlighted that in cases like Shiv Sena v. Union of India [(2019) 10 SCC 809], the Supreme Court has directed that votes of confidence should be conducted by open ballot and captured in video recordings to ensure transparency.
• They referred to the decision in Kuldip Nayar and Others v. Union of India and Others [(2006) 7 SCC 1], where the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the open ballot system for elections to the Council of States. The court had held that the principle of secrecy is meant to protect the voter from being compelled to divulge information on how they voted, but it does not prevent a voter from voluntarily disclosing their vote.
• The petitioners asserted that the primary principle is the purity of election, and secrecy of voting is an adjunct to this principle. They argued that secrecy should not stand in isolation or in confrontation to the foundation of free and fair elections.

The petitioners argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the motion based on the disclosure of votes, as the voters had voluntarily waived their right to secrecy.

Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a numbered list. However, the core issue addressed by the Court was:

• Whether the waiver of secrecy by individual voters is allowable during the election process, specifically in a no-confidence motion where the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayat and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 and the 1966 Rules mandate secret ballot voting.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• S. Raghbir Singh Gill v. S. Gurcharan Singh Tohra and Others [1980 Supp SCC 53]*: The Court acknowledged that while this case highlighted the importance of secrecy, it also established that the principle is not absolute and can be waived by the voter.
• Kuldip Nayar and Others v. Union of India and Others [ (2006) 7 SCC 1]*: The Court noted that this case upheld the constitutional validity of the open ballot system and reiterated that the principle of secrecy is meant to protect the voter from being compelled to divulge information on how they voted, but it does not prevent a voter from voluntarily disclosing their vote.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure free and fair elections. While acknowledging the principle of secrecy of the ballot, the Court also recognized that this principle is not absolute. The Court was concerned that the High Court’s decision, while aiming to uphold the purity of elections, might have overlooked the possibility of voluntary waiver of secrecy by the voters. The Court also noted that the question of law regarding the waiver of secrecy was not fully argued before them. Given the circumstances and the contentions of both parties, the Court decided that a revote was the most appropriate course of action to ensure justice and fairness. The Court’s emphasis was on maintaining the integrity of the electoral process and ensuring that the outcome of the no-confidence motion was beyond reproach.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not delve into alternative interpretations, as the primary concern was the proper procedure for the no-confidence motion and the need for a fair outcome. The decision to order a revote was based on the unique circumstances of the case and the need to ensure that the electoral process was free from any doubt or suspicion.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court had set aside the motion on the grounds of violation of secrecy of ballot.
• The Court noted that the question of law regarding the waiver of secrecy was not fully argued before them.
• The Court felt that a revote would be a just and fair direction in the factual matrix of the case.
• The Court wanted to ensure that the electoral process was free from any doubt or suspicion.

“Whether such a proposition is correct or not would have to be tested in an appropriate case, and we desist form making any observations on the same as the question of law itself was not fully argued before us.”

“In the light of the above, we feel that ends of justice will be met if the Motion dated 1st October 2018 is put to revote at a meeting of the Zila Panchayat by way of secret ballot with the District Judge, Allahabad himself or his nominee Additional District Judge, Allahabad, acting as the Presiding Officer on a date and time to be fixed by the District Judge, which shall not be later than two months from today.”

“This would, in our opinion, be a just and fair direction in the factual matrix of the present case given the respective contentions and stand of the parties.”

There were no majority or minority opinions, as all three judges concurred with the final order.

Key Takeaways

• The principle of secrecy of the ballot is important for free and fair elections but is not absolute.
• The right to secrecy of the ballot can be waived by the voter.
• The Supreme Court ordered a revote of the no-confidence motion to ensure the integrity of the electoral process.
• The question of whether the voluntary waiver principle can apply to members of the Zila Panchayat voting on a no-confidence motion was left open for future consideration.

This judgment highlights the importance of maintaining the purity of elections and ensuring that the electoral process is free from any doubt or suspicion. It also emphasizes the need for a detailed analysis of the interplay between the principle of secrecy of ballot and the principle of free and fair elections.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the motion dated 1st October 2018 be put to a revote at a meeting of the Zila Panchayat by way of secret ballot. The District Judge, Allahabad, or his nominee Additional District Judge, Allahabad, was to act as the Presiding Officer. The revote was to be conducted within two months from the date of the judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion of specific amendments in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court ordered a revote on the no-confidence motion to uphold the integrity of the electoral process, while leaving the question of law regarding whether the principle of secrecy of ballot can be waived by individual voters in a no-confidence motion open for future consideration. The Court did not change the previous position of law but rather emphasized the need for a detailed analysis of the interplay between the principle of secrecy of ballot and the principle of free and fair elections.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court, in the case of Laxmi Singh vs. Rekha Singh, ordered a revote on the no-confidence motion against the Panchayat Adhyaksha, Ms. Rekha Singh. The Court did not definitively rule on the question of whether the principle of secrecy of ballot can be waived by individual voters in a no-confidence motion. Instead, it emphasized the importance of maintaining the purity of elections and ensuring that the electoral process is free from any doubt or suspicion. The Court directed that the revote be conducted within two months, overseen by the District Judge or his nominee, thus prioritizing the integrity of the electoral process over technicalities.