impracticable, imaginary, without any basis and unreasonable. This Court is also of the opinion that this pleading is vexatious. In other words, it is not only annoying to the returned candidate, but also to the Court as it is not the case of the Election Petitioner that a survey was held or statistical study was done in that area from which it is borne out that those 21,060 votes are anti-congress votes and obviously the identity of 21,060 voters cannot be revealed. It is also the settled principle of law that secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct in a democracy. So stating that 21,060 votes are anticongress itself is vexatious. There is no pleading to the effect that those votes are anti-congress because of any particular reasons. There is also every possibility of the voters changing their minds and casting votes in favour of a particular candidate depending upon his personality, his social work and so many other factors. It cannot be predicated that certain votes are anti-congress and certain votes are pro-congress. The electorate of India are very intelligent. They have shown over the period of time that they have ability to elect a person who will truly represent their interest and uphold the rule of law and secular democracy. Moreover, if this pleading is not deleted and the matter is taken to trial, it will be impossible on the part of the Election Petitioner to establish that 21,060 votes would have cast in his favour. Firstly, it is not possible to identify the voters and it is also not possible to examine the group of persons to show that 21,060 voters would have cast vote in favour of the Election Petitioner. Thus a protracted trial involving examination of too many witnesses, who can have no knowledge about the pattern of voting of these 21,060 votes, it will only delay the trial of the Election Petition. Moreover, it is further argued by the Returned Candidate that there is no pleading as to the basis of such imaginary and speculative pleading. There is no pleading leading to the source of knowledge of the Election Petitioner that the votes polled in favour of respondent no.2 would have gone in favour of the Election Petitioner.
