Election petition challenge over duplicate voter-list entries; rejected applications to reopen evidence and produce a screenshot of Form No.7 were upheld, but the court permitted summoning a State Election Commission official to testify about the deletion application and directed disposal within 45 days.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 6942 OF 2024 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SHRI GOWRISH S.K. S/O SRI. KRISHNAPPA M AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINGENA AGRAHARA VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-560 009
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN GOWDA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR R.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH THIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. VAISHALI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.0224, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2024 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL IN E.P.NO.6/2021 THEREBY ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.7 TO 10 INTERIM APPLICATIONS I.A.NO.7 TO 10 UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE TO REOPEN THE EVIDENCE OF RW1 FOR PRODUCTIONS OF DOCUMENTS, APPLICATION UNDER ORDER XVIII RULE 17 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC TO RECALL THE RW1 FOR FURTHER EVIDENCE, APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 65-B(1) OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT SEEKING PERMISSION TO PRODUCE SCREEN SHOT
COPY OF THE COMPUTER DESKTOP AS SECONDARY EVIDENCE, APPLICATION UNDER ORDER VIII RULE 1-A READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AND PERMIT HIM TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS AND MARKED THE SAME AS EXHIBITS, PERMITTING THE PETITIONER TO PRODUCE THE COPY OF SCREEN SHOTS OF COMPUTER DESKTOP.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The respondent No.4 in Election Petition No.6/2021 pending consideration before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal (henceforth referred to as 'Election Tribunal') is before this Court challenging the correctness of an order dated 27.01.2024 by which, four applications (I.A.Nos.VII to X) filed by him were rejected.
NC: 2024:KHC:52054 WP No. 6942 of 2024
I.A.No.VII under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') to reopen the stage of the election petition, I.A.No.VIII under XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC to recall RW.1 for further examination, I.A.No.IX under Section 65B(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and I.A.No.X under Order VIII Rule 1A read with Section 151 of CPC.
5. These applications were opposed by the respondent
No.1 herein on the ground,
(iii) when the petitioner herein filed his nomination, his name appeared at two places in the voters list and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the petitioner herein to lead further evidence to establish that he had filed an application on 28.11.2020.
that the petitioner herein claimed that he had filed Form No.7 to delete his name from voters list of one constituency and therefore, he could have produced an office copy or certified copy of said Form No.7. Therefore, it held that the photocopy of Form No.7 that was purportedly filed on 28.11.2020, cannot
be admitted as secondary evidence. It also held that the petitioner herein did not furnish a certificate as to how he obtained a copy of Form No.7 and therefore, it cannot be treated as secondary evidence as provided under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. It held that taking screenshot of the computer desktop cannot be considered as a copy made from original by mechanical process and therefore, accuracy of the document cannot be compared with the original. Thus, it further held that the petitioner herein could have obtained certified copy under the Right to Information Act, 2005, from the concerned authority.
before this Court in this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:52054 WP No. 6942 of 2024
that his name appeared at two places in the voters list and therefore, the election of the petitioner herein was liable to be countermanded. He contended that even before election was notified on 30.11.2020, he had filed Form No.7 for cancellation of his name from the voters list and this fact had to be placed
on record. He submits that the attempts made by the petitioner to download Form No.7 uploaded by him on the website of the State Election Commission proved futile and the only way to establish this fact is to produce screenshot of the computer desktop taken by him. Thus, he contends that the Election Tribunal must have allowed the petitioner to produce this document, which was crucial to establish that the name of the petitioner did not exist at two places when he filed his nomination.
and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in allowing the petitioner to mark any document to establish that he had uploaded Form No.7. Besides this, he contends that the petitioner must have filed an application for producing this document at the earliest point in time having regard to the timeline fixed under the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993. He therefore, contends that the Election Tribunal was justified in not permitting the petitioner to produce this document.
30.12.2020. One of the grounds urged for setting aside the election of the petitioner was that the name of the petitioner appeared in the voters list at more than one place.
petitioner herein contended that he had submitted an application before contesting the election to delete his name from voter ID No.YER-4236840. Therefore, the petitioner was bound to establish the said fact. It is now stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the deletion of the name from the voters list can be requested by uploading an online application on the website of State Election Commission, who would take steps for deletion. He submits that the petitioner has furnished a copy of the application that was uploaded and it is this document that the petitioner attempted to produce. He contends that now when the petitioner attempted to download all the information relating to his application, the website of the State Election Commission has re-diverted it to another location and therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to produce authentic document from the website of the State Election Commission. If the petitioner is not in a position to download authentic document from the website of the State Election
Commission, then the respondent No.1 would be at loss to verify its authenticity. Therefore, if the petitioner has filed his application for deletion of his name, it was appropriate to summon the concerned official from the State Election Commission to depose about the application uploaded by him for deletion of his name. The official from the State Election Commission would be in a better position to answer queries of the respondent No.1 also. Under the circumstances, though the Election Tribunal was right in not allowing the petitioner to produce this document as its authenticity was doubtful, the appropriate procedure would have been permit the petitioner to summon the concerned official from the State Election Commission to testify about the petitioner filing application for deletion of his name from the Mantapa Grama Panchayath. This would also meet the ends of justice and also would help the Election Tribunal to answer contentions urged by the respondent No.1 herein effectively.
NC: 2024:KHC:52054 WP No. 6942 of 2024
(iii) It is made clear that the petitioner herein shall take necessary steps before the Election Tribunal on the next date of hearing and ensure that the official is summoned before the Tribunal. If he fails, the Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with law.
(iv) Since the election petition is filed in the year 2021, the Election Tribunal is directed to
NC: 2024:KHC:52054 WP No. 6942 of 2024
consider and dispose off the proceedings within an outer limit of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same
stand disposed off.
Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a candidate in an election petition could reopen evidence to produce a screenshot of an online Form No.7 application as secondary evidence under Section 65B.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
SHRI GOWRISH S.K.
SRI. ANIL KUMAR P
THE COMMISSIONER ELECTION COMMISSION
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MUTTANALLUR GRAM PANCHAYATH
SRI. YELLAPPA
R. NATARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
