Validity of Votes Cast Before Disqualification: Supreme Court’s Landmark Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling, addressed the question of whether a vote cast by a legislator in the forenoon of an election day remains valid if the legislator is subsequently disqualified in the afternoon due to a criminal conviction. This case, involving Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia vs. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, set a significant precedent regarding electoral processes and legislative membership.

The case arose from the biennial elections held on 23rd March 2018 for two seats in the Rajya Sabha from the state of Jharkhand. The key issue revolved around the vote cast by Amit Kumar Mahto, an elected member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM), who voted at 9:15 AM. Later that day, at 2:30 PM, he was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison by a criminal court. Despite this conviction, his vote was included in the final tally, leading to the election of Dhiraj Prasad Sahu from the Indian National Congress (INC) by a narrow margin. This prompted the defeated candidate, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia, to challenge the validity of the election.

Background and Election Details

On 5th March 2018, the Election Commission of India announced the biennial elections for two Rajya Sabha seats from Jharkhand. Three candidates entered the contest:

• Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia (BJP)
• Samir Uraon (BJP)
• Dhiraj Prasad Sahu (INC)

The voting took place between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM on 23rd March 2018. A total of 80 members of the Legislative Assembly participated. The counting of votes began at 7:30 PM, and two votes were declared invalid. The final tally of valid votes converted into points resulted in:

• Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia: 2599
• Samir Uraon: 2601
• Dhiraj Prasad Sahu: 2600

Since the election was conducted under the proportional representation system using the single transferable vote method, every vote played a crucial role. A crucial aspect of this case was that Amit Kumar Mahto had voted in favor of Dhiraj Prasad Sahu. His vote significantly influenced the outcome of the election.

Legal Challenge by the Petitioner

After the results were declared, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election on the following grounds:

• Since Amit Kumar Mahto was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison at 2:30 PM on the same day, his disqualification was automatic under Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The disqualification should be considered effective from the start of the day (12:01 AM), thereby rendering his vote invalid.
• The improper inclusion of his vote resulted in an unfair election process.
• Had Mahto’s vote been excluded, Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia would have been declared the winner.

Respondent’s Defense

Dhiraj Prasad Sahu, the winning candidate, defended the election results by arguing that:

• At the time of casting his vote (9:15 AM), Amit Kumar Mahto was legally eligible to vote.
• His disqualification took effect only from the moment of conviction, which was at 2:30 PM, not before.
• Applying the rule retroactively to invalidate his vote would create administrative confusion and contradict legal principles.
• The Representation of the People Act, 1951, does not specify that disqualification is effective from the start of the day.

Supreme Court’s Judgment and Key Findings

The Supreme Court, in its ruling delivered by Chief Justice S.A. Bobde, along with Justices A.S. Bopanna and V. Ramasubramanian, dismissed the appeal, holding that:

“Disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act is the consequence of conviction, and a consequence can never precede its cause.”

The Court emphasized the following principles:

• The moment of conviction determines disqualification, not the entire date.
• Legal provisions should not be interpreted in a manner that creates an absurd outcome.
• If the argument of the petitioner were accepted, it would mean requiring the Election Commission to anticipate future judicial outcomes.
• The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” applies, and disqualification should not be presumed before a judicial determination.

Important Legal Precedents Considered

The Court relied on various legal precedents, including:

• Pashupati Nath Singh vs. Harihar Prasad Singh: Interpretation of the word “date” in legal contexts.
• Jyoti Basu vs. Devi Ghosal: Stating that election disputes fall under special statutory jurisdiction.
• Pierson vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department: Establishing that the rule of law mandates minimum standards of fairness.
• Union of India vs. M/S G.S. Chatha Rice Mills: Addressing the interpretation of legal dates.

Final Judgment and Implications

The Supreme Court ruled:

• Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia’s appeal was dismissed.
• The election of Dhiraj Prasad Sahu was upheld.
• Mahto’s vote was legally valid since he was not disqualified at the time of voting.
• Findings of the High Court that initially supported the election petition were overturned.

This decision has far-reaching implications for election law in India, ensuring that disqualifications apply only from the moment of judicial conviction and not retroactively from the start of the day.

Petitioner Name: Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia.
Respondent Name: Dhiraj Prasad Sahu.
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice V. Ramasubramanian.
Place Of Incident: Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 18-12-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Pradeep Kumar Sontha vs Dhiraj Prasad Sahu Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 18-12-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Legislative Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments December 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Election and Political Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Election and Political Cases Category