THE SECRETARY, B. D. L. C. DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF EAST PAKISTAN AND 2 Others vs SYED AHMED, MEMBER, SHIKARPUR UNION COUNCIL
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the validity of a ballot paper in a no-confidence motion against a Union Council Chairman. The core legal question was whether the absence of a member's signature on the ballot paper rendered the vote invalid under the applicable rules. The Circle Officer had rejected the respondent's ballot paper solely due to the lack of a signature, causing the no-confidence motion to fail for lack of the required two-thirds majority. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the requirement for a signature or thumb impression on the ballot paper form was merely directory rather than mandatory. The Court reasoned that the specific sub-rule governing the voting procedure provided detailed instructions for both the Presiding Officer and the members but notably omitted any requirement for the member to sign the ballot paper. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the absence of a signature did not invalidate the ballot, and the petition was dismissed.
- Does the absence of a member's signature on a ballot paper invalidate a vote cast in a no-confidence motion under the East Pakistan Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence) Rules, 1963?
- Is the requirement for a signature on a ballot paper in a no-confidence motion directory or mandatory?
- Can a vote be rejected for a procedural omission not explicitly required by the governing sub-rule?
- Article 89, Basic Democracies Order 1959
- Article 25-A, Basic Democracies Order 1959
- Article 98, Constitution of Pakistan 1962
- Rule 5(2), East Pakistan Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence) Rules 1963
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED , J.-In this leave petition the only question for consideration is whether the absence of signature of respondent Syed Ahmed, a member of the Union Council, on his ballot paper invalidated the ballot paper.
2. The question has arisen in the following circumstances :-A Special meeting of Shikarpur Union Council within Police Station Hathazari in the District of Chittagong was convened to consider a no- confidence motion against the then Chairman of the said Union Council. The meeting was presided over by petitioner No. 3, the Circle Officer (Revenue), Hathazari and it was attended by all the ten members of the Union Council. At the voting seven members voted in support of the no- confidence motion, while three members voted against the motion. Among the seven members who voted in favour of the no-confidence motion was respondent Syed Ahmed. The respondent's ballot paper was, however, rejected by the Circle Officer on the ground that it did not contain the signature of the member. The result was that only six votes remained in support of the no confidence motion, and this number not being two-thirds of the members, the no-- confidence motion failed in accordance with the East Pakistan Local Councils (Vote of No-Confidence) Rules, 1963 framed under Article 89 read with Article 25-A of the Basic Democracies Order, 1959.
3. The respondent having been aggrieved by the rejection of his ballot paper approached the High Court under Article 98 of the Constitution, and the Court, having held that the impugned order was illegal, allowed the respondent's petition and set aside the impugned order of the Circle Officer rejecting the respondent's ballot paper.
4. Sub-rule (2) of rule 5 of the said rules is as follows :- "(2) In the event of the minimum requisite two-thirds number of the existing members being present the Presiding Officer shall proceed with the meeting reading out the requisition petition to the members present and calling upon them to record their votes. The Presiding Officer shall hand over to each member present a voting paper in the following form in English, Bengali or Urdu as may be deemed convenient and shall ask each member in turn to record his vote by appropriate mark in the space provided for the purpose in the voting paper at a table so placed that no other person present can see the recording before handing over the voting paper to each member the Presiding Officer shall sign on the reverse of the voting paper to ensure its genuineness and explain to the member the procedure and mark of voting to be put, namely, cross-mark (X) for "no-- confidence" and tickmark (i---) for "confidence" in the person mentioned in the voting paper.
5. VOTING PAPER "For the vote of no-confidence against Mr . . . . . . . Chair--man/Vice-Chairman of . . . . . . . Union Council/Union Com--mittee/Town Committee/District Council (space for voting mark) Cross or no-confidence X Tick for confidence V.
6. Date...... Signature or L. T.-I. of member voting.
7. After recording the vote, the member shall fold the voting paper and then, return it to the Presiding Officer.
8. As soon as all the voting papers have been received by the Presiding Officer, he shall count the number of members who have recorded cross mark (X) and those who have recorded tick-mark
(V) and shall forthwith declare the result of such counting and record a note to this effect. If the number of members recording cross-mark (X) is two-thirds number or more of the existing members, the vote of no-confidence shall be deemed to have been passed and the Chairman or the Vice-- Chairman shall vacate his office forthwith."
9. The learned Judges of the High Court rightly interpreted that the rule prescribing the voting paper form indicating a space at the right hand bottom corner of the form for putting the sig--nature or left thumb-impression of the member voting, is merely directory in nature and that the signature of the member on the ballot paper was not essential to the validity of the ballot cast. We may add that the said sub-rule (2) which contained detailed A instructions as to what a number is required to do in the ballot paper and what the Presiding Officer is required to do in the vot--ing paper and what he is required to explain to the member totally omits to mention that the member must sign on the ballot paper.
10. We accordingly find no substance in this petition and the petition is, therefore, dismissed.