No one can be allowed to dilute right to free and fair elections, booth capturing/ bogus voting must be dealt with iron hands: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday emphasized that any attempt at booth capturing or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands since it affects the rule of law and democracy [Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)]..Pertinent observations in this regard were made by the Court while dismissing appeals filed by eight persons convicted for rioting as part of attempts to capture election booths during the 1989 Lok Sabha elections..The Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah cited observations made by the top court in the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2013), in which it was held that the freedom of voting is a part of the freedom of expression. .The Court added that the secrecy of casting votes is necessary to strengthen democracy since it ensures that the voter casts his or her vote without fear of being victimized should the vote be disclosed. Democracy and elections are a part of the Basic Structure of the Constitution, the Bench further noted. ."It is also further observed that the election is a mechanism which ultimately represents the will of the people. The essence of the electoral system should be to ensure freedom of voters to exercise their free choice. Therefore, any attempt of booth capturing and/or bogus voting should be dealt with iron hands because it ultimately affects the rule of law and democracy. Nobody can be permitted to dilute the right to free and fair election," the Court proceeded to highlight..Before the Court were appeals preferred by eight persons, who had been convicted by the trial court under Sections 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 147 (rioting) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Their conviction was confirmed by the High Court as well in 2018, prompting them to move the Supreme Court in appeal..The complaint had been lodged in 1989 by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker, Rajeev Ranjan Tiwari. As per Tiwari's complaint, the accused had come armed with lathis, sticks and country-made pistols, asked him to stop issuing voter slips and to hand over the voters' list he possessed. Upon Tiwari's refusal to give the slips, the accused physically beat him up. A riot ensued and it was only when the villagers rushed to help that the accused fled the scene, the Court was informed. An FIR was filed against sixteen persons, of whom fifteen were charge-sheeted..The eight appellants before the Supreme Court were awarded a six month imprisonment term for the offences they stood convicted of. The Supreme Court noted that some of the other accused were awarded longer imprisonment terms for other offences. .The Supreme Court on Friday noted that the High Court had not dealt with the case on behalf of the appellant-accused or discussed the evidence with respect to each of the accused, "which ought to have been done.".All the same, the Supreme Court concluded that it agrees with the Jharkhand High Court's final conclusion whereby the conviction of the appellants was upheld. "Instead of remanding the matter to the High Court, we ourselves have re-appreciated the entire evidence on record," the top court said. .The Bench concluded that all eight appellant-accused were members of an unlawful assembly with the common intention "to snatch the voters slips and to cast bogus voting”, to which end they used force and violence. As such, each member was guilty of rioting, the Court said. .Further, since the State had not filed an appeal against the imposition of only six months' imprisonment on the appellants, the Supreme Court did not interfere with this sentence either. The Court proceeded to dismiss the appeals by directing the accused-appellants to serve the remainder of their jail sentence. ."We are of the firm view that the appellants are rightly convicted under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment only for the said offences. Since, the applications for exemption from surrendering of the accused appellants herein were allowed by this Court vide orders dated 15.03.2019 and 08.07.2019 respectively, the accused-appellants are directed to surrender forthwith to serve out their sentence," the judgment stated..[Read Judgment]