SHER BAHADUR vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ELECTION TRIBUNAL ETC.
This matter arises from a civil petition for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which upheld the Election Tribunal's decision to set aside local government elections held on 25-9-79 in Electoral Unit No. 25, Union Council, Peelo Wance, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha. During the polling, all contesting candidates had mutually agreed with the Presiding Officer to exclude women voters and treat their votes as spoiled ballot papers. Subsequently, certain respondents filed an election petition challenging the election on the ground that women were prevented from voting, leading the Tribunal and High Court to set aside the election. The core legal question was whether candidates and a Presiding Officer can lawfully agree to disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court held that registered voters possess a statutory right to vote which candidates cannot waive or compromise, and that an agreement depriving voters of their franchise is void ab initio as being against public policy and law. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.
- Does a candidate have the right to refuse or not accept a vote from a registered voter?
- Can a Presiding Officer legally agree with contesting candidates to disenfranchise women voters?
- Is an agreement between candidates to exclude certain voters considered void ab initio as against public policy?
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-The elections in Electoral Unit No. 25, Union Council, Peelo Wance, Tehsil Khushab, District Sargodha, were held on 25-9-79. The petitioners and respondents Nos. 12 to 14 were declared elected. Sometimes after the polling started all the contesting candidates applied to the Presiding Officer stating that they do not want the ladies of the locality to cast their votes for them and so they should not be allowed to vote and votes of those women who had already cast them should not be counted. The Presiding Officer agreed and the votes of ladies cast in the election were treated as spoiled ballot papers and not taken into account for deciding the result of the election.
2. Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 filed an election petition for setting aside the election on the ground that there was hooliganism during the poll which bad to be suspended several times and women were riot allowed to vote.
3. On 26-8-80 the Tribunal set aside the election on the ground that women voters were not allowed to cast their votes. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 9989/80 before the Lahore High Court which was dismissed on 24-9-80. Hence this civil petition for special leave to appeal.
4. It is contended that the Presiding Officer had acted rightly because no candidate can be compelled to accept a vote from a particular voter. This submission has only the merit of ingenuity.
The voter whose name appears on the electoral roll has a right to cast his vote for any candidate that he liked. The candidate has no right to deprive him of his right to vote or to say that he does not accept his vote. The Presiding Officer had, therefore, no power to accept the agreement between the candidates and to disenfranchise the women voters.
5. It has been further submitted that since all the candidates had themselves applied to the Presiding Officer for excluding the votes of women, some of them could not go against it and file a petition before the election Tribunal on that very ground.
6. Any agreement which is against public policy and the law is ab initio void. Depriving a voter of his vote is both against the law and public policy.
7. This petition has no merit and is dismissed.
Cited by 3 cases
- MUHAMMAD ANWAR BUTT vs ELECTION TRIBUNAL, DASKA And 3 Other 1987 SCMR 933
- Sh. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF vs MUHAMMAD BASHIR AHMAD And ANOTHER 1986 CLC 211
- DARVESH KHAN vs MUHAMMAD SHER KHAN And Other 1986 SCMR 352