1969 PLP 183 (SCMR)

Article 157 of the Constitution provides:‑ Except as provided by law, any citizen‑ (a) who is not less than twenty‑one years of age; (b) who is not of unsound mind; and (c) who is a resident of, or who is deemed by law to be a resident of, an electoral unit, shall be entitled to be enrolled on the electoral roll for that electoral unit. Section 8 of the Electoral College Act (hereinafter called the Act) is in the following terms:‑ "The Registration Officer shall, under the Superintendence, direction and control of the Commissioner, prepare for each electoral unit in the prescribed manner a draft electoral roll containing the name of every citizen who, on the qualifying date‑ (a) is not less than twenty‑one years of age ; (b) is not of unsound mind; and (c) is, or is deemed under section 10 to be a resident of the electoral unit. " Section 9 of the Act authorises the Registration Officer and any person authorised by him in this behalf to have access to any register of births and deaths maintained under any law for the time being in force to collect such information and take such extracts from such register as may be necessary for the purposes of the Act. Rule 9 of the Electoral College Rules provides for the appointment of a Revising Authority by the Election Commissioner for a group of electoral units for the purpose of deciding claims and objections with respect to the electoral rolls for such units included in that group. These provisions show that in the Act and the Rules elaborate arrangements have been made for preparation of electoral rolls and for consideration of claims and objections with regard to entries therein. This is why section 23 (3)(d)(W) lays down that the Returning Officer while carrying on scrutiny of nomination papers shall not enquire into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral rolls. In the case of Imtiaz All v. Ghulam Muhammad Butt and another (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 228 ), this Court observed:‑ "This view is based upon a settled principle of election law that Election Commissions cannot go behind the final electoral rolls as amended in accordance with the final orders of the revising authority. It is settled that every person whose name is entered in this electoral roll is entitled to vote at the election to which the roll relates, unless there be some personal disqualification. A reference may here be made to the case of Stove v. Joliffe 9 L R C P 734 where it was held that the register of voters is conclusive on a Returning officer, as well as on any Tribunal which is to enquire into the election unless there be some personal disqualification. In the Pembroke Boroughs case M & H 135 it was held that the register is conclusive and the people whose names are mentioned on it are presumed to have the necessary qualifications: "it may be that their names ought not to have been there, but they were there at the time of the election". It was declared also that the policy of the law is to make it necessary to raise all questions as to rights to vote before the Registering and Revising authorities and this has been done by preventing any such question from being raised at any other time, or in any other manner. These views have been approved in reported cases of elections to Legislative Assemblies in India as well." To the same effect is the decision of this Court in the case of Syed Aminuddin Chowdhury alias Syed Ainuddin Chowdhury v. The Election Tribunal, Chittagong and others (P L D 1966 S C 235) it has been said in this case :‑ "The only conclusion therefore which can be arrived at from the general scheme of procedure as to preparation of the electoral roll is that if a person is entered in the electoral roll in contravention of the provisions of the Act and the rules, the only remedy to the person objecting to the same is by way of objection under the rule and that if the said remedy is not availed of, the electoral roll becomes final and conclusive as to his qualifications as a voter. The electoral roll as revised by the Revising Authority would therefore be binding on the Tribunal except as regards statutory disqualifications. In other words, if a person's name is entered in the electoral roll maintained under the law and if he is not under any statutory disqualification he becomes ipso facto qualified to stand as a candidate in the election and the Election Tribunal has no jurisdiction to enquire whether the candidate has the necessary qualifications." Section 21 of the Act says that any voter of an electoral unit may for the purpose of election as a member of the Electoral College from that unit, propose or second the name of any person who is duly qualified to be elected as such member. The only qualification of a proposer or seconder therefore is that he is voter of the electoral unit from which the candidate whose name is proposed or seconded by him seeks election. The conclusion that follows from these provisions is that a person whose name appears in the roll of an electoral unit is entitled to vote and his right in this regard cannot be challenged and We do not therefore see any ground for interference with the judgment of the High Court. The appeal is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.