Polls cannot be annulled over minor discrepancies

ISLAMABAD: The judgements of the superior judiciary have already held that minor discrepancies in the voting process which do not make an overall effect on the result, could not be made the basis to declare the entire election process null and void.
The Election Tribunals have also validated the 2013 election in constituencies where the counterfoils were not stamped or were not signed but contained other particulars like the thumb impressions, identity card number and vote number of the voter.
As claimed by Imran Khan that at least 34,000 votes were bogus in NA-122 as they did not contain signs, stamps of the presiding officer but the legal team of Khan perhaps has not told the PTI chief that the Supreme Court and the ETs do not declare the election null and void on such small irregularities done by presiding officers.
Recently four election petitions namely Election Petition No. 311/2013 Ch. Habib Alam Virk V/s Ali Salman and 27 others; Election Petition No. 268/2013 Ch. Manzoor Ahmad v/s Waseem Akhtar Sheikh etc. Election Petition No. 193/2013 Ch. Mubashir Nawaz V/s Malik Ahmad Saeed Khan and Election Petition No. 278/2013 Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim v/s Sardar Muhammad Asif Nakai etc. were disposed of in light of two judgements of the Supreme Court Malik i.e. Umar Aslam v/s Sumera Malik and others reported in PLD-2007 Supreme Court, 362 and Sardar Abdul Hafeez Khan vs Sardar Tahir Khan Loni and 13 others reported as 1999 SMCR 286.
In Election Petition No.311/2013 the tribunal laid down that ‘it was alleged that twenty two (22) ballot papers were polled in access at four polling stations. Reliance was placed on ballot paper account in form XV, statement of the count in form XIV and consolidated statement of the results of the count in form XVI. The tribunal observed that difference of 22 votes did not materially affect the election of the returned candidate. It was alleged that presiding officer committed calculation mistakes while counting the used and unused counter foils of six polling stations.’
The tribunal ignored this mistake for the simple reason that the total ballot papers polled at the six (06) polling stations to all the contesting candidates and counted towards their vote account were less than the used counter foils mentioned in the ballot paper account. It was further observed that “had the Presiding Officer mentioned polled ballot papers in the statements in form XIV and XV beyond the used counter foils, I would have thrown away results of six polling stations”.
In election petition No.237/2013 the judgement says that ‘the petitioner secured 17,815 votes whereas the returned candidate obtained 34,335 votes. 18,988 counter foils were without stamp and signatures of the Presiding Officers/Assistant Presiding Officers. Likewise, 1,359 counterfoils did not bear vote number. 990 counterfoils were stamped but not signed by Presiding Officer/Assistant Presiding Officer. The Commission found 137 and 20 counterfoils from the election bags of polling stations No.70 and 268. The total number of above said four categories of counterfoils came to 21,454.’
“It is not disputable that the electors to whom 21,454 ballot papers in question had been issued by the Presiding Officer or the Assistant Presiding Officer established their identity by producing National Identity Card in terms of section 33(1) of ROPA, 1976. Compliance of the voting procedure in terms of section 33(2)(b)(c)(cc)(d)(3)(c)(d)5(a)(b)(c) qua the ballot papers under challenge is not in dispute or disputable. This is a matter of record that the Presiding Officer or the Assistant Presiding Officer concerned failed to stamp and sign 18,988 counterfoils. They also did not record vote number of the electors of 1,359 counter foils.”
The Tribunal observed that requirement of law to great extent as they recorded vote number, national identity card number of the elector and obtained their thumb impression on 18,988 counterfoils of the first category.
It was also observed that the ballot papers issued against 18,988 counterfoils had been stamped and signed on the back as laid down in section 33(2)(d) of ROPA, 1976. The Tribunal sought wisdom from 1999 SCMR 284. “Although, learned counsel for the petitioner did not agitate the other irregularities observed by the commission/TW-2, yet I have minutely gone through the inspection reports, which reveal that 900, 02 and 1000 counterfoils were not available in the election bags of polling stations No.PP-79 (NA-220), PP-96 (NA-237) and PP-110 (NA-251) respectively. The 11 counterfoils of polling station No.PP-70 (NA-211) and 71 counterfoils of polling station No.PP-76 (NA-217) were without thumb impressions of the voters. The CNIC number of the electors had not been mentioned on 75 counterfoils of polling station No.PP-72 (NA-213). Here I must say that ballot papers issued against the aforesaid categories of counterfoils cannot be treated as validly polled votes. The evidence adduced by the petitioner and the inspection reports do not tell to whom 2059 votes were polled. For the sake of arguments, if it is presumed for a moment that 2059 votes had been polled to the returned candidate, the result of the election is not materially affected. In case, 2059 votes are excluded from the vote account of the returned candidate, he is still possessed with 33,168 valid votes against 17,837 votes of the petitioner.”
In Election Petition No.205/2013 the petition was allowed an election of the returned candidate was declared void on the following grounds:“Two returning officer of PP-136 and NA-115 joined hands and high-jacked the election from PP-136, Norowal. Entire election record of PP-136 did not remain in safe custody. The 72 polling bags of PP-136 were retained by Returning Officer of NA-115.
Rana Muhammad Ali, Returning officer deposed that he did not de-seal the 72 polling bags in question for consolidation of results in terms of Section-39(3) of ROPA, after having failed to retrieve 51 polling bags from Syed Amjad Ali Shah, Returning Officer.
Amjad Ali Shah (Returning Officer NA-117, Narowal) withheld 51 election bags of PP-136 and had refused to hand them over to Rana Muhammad Ali, Returning Officer PP-136 for consolidation of results. The 72 election bags of PP-136 Narowal could not be made available for inspection by the Commission. The 28,533 votes had been wrongly and illegally counted towards the vote account of the contesting candidates.
Statement on forms-XIV, XV and XVI were not consistent qua the valid votes and rejected votes. The rejected ballot papers and validly polled ballot papers mentioned in the statements on forms XIV and XV do not correspond with the ballot papers found on physical inspection of the record under Section-46 of the Act, 1976.
Corresponding counter foils of 3,947 ballot papers did not exist hence counting 3,947 ballot papers towards the vote account of the contesting candidates were fake and bogus. Used counter foils were not available in the polling bags of 16 polling stations.
Statement of the count on form XIV relating to four (04) polling stations, prepared by the Presiding Officers and consolidated statement of results of the count on form XVI drawn up by the RO were without any basis because used counter foils and unused ballot books were found missing. There was loss of 72 election bags of the constituency.”