SC decides fate of candidate for AP MLC seat by draw of lots

Don't want to miss the best from Business Standard?

After reaching a conclusion that two candidates for a seat in Andhra Pradesh Legislative Council received equal numbers of valid votes, the Supreme Court has decided their fate by draw of lots.
The apex court finally put to rest the litigation between Arikala Narasa Reddy and Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari and others on February 4 about the election to 18-Nizamabad Local Authority Constituency held on March 30, 2009.
Luck finally favoured Arikala Reddy who had been declared as successful candidate and had since then been a Member of Legislative Council (MLC).
Both the candidates contested each other's claims by way of election petition and recrimination petition at different times in the Andhara Pradesh High Court and the Supreme Court.

The matter had at last reached to the apex court after the High Court, on considering all ballot papers, delivered its judgement on July 20 2012 allowing the election petition of Venkata Ram Reddy Reddygari.
The High Court had held that certain votes cast in favour of Reddygari had wrongly been rejected and the vote which should have been declared as invalid had wrongly been counted in favour of Arikala Narasa Reddy as valid.

Thus, the High Court had declared Reddygari as successful candidate and elected him as MLC which was challenged in the apex court.
However, the apex court bench comprising justices B S Chauhan, J Chelameswar and M Y Eqbal after taking on record entire material and hearing the parties arrived at the conclusion that both the candidates received equal votes, 336 each and decided by draw of lot as to who will return as MLC.

The apex court said "In view of the above, after modification of the impugned judgment and order (of the High Court), the appellant (Narasa Reddy) and the respondent no.1 (Reddygari) get equal number of votes i.E. 336 votes each. Therefore, the judgment and order of the High Court insofar as it relates to allowing the election petition is modified to that extent."
"In view of the above, we reach the inescapable conclusion that even after deciding the Recrimination Petition, the appellant (Narasa Reddy) and the respondent no.1 (Reddygari) have received equal number of votes.
"In such a fact-situation the decision as to who will be the returned candidate is to be decided by the draw of lots by virtue of the provisions of Section 102 of the Representation of Peoples Act.

"In view of the above, in the presence of all the counsel for the parties, we have drawn the lots in the open court and by draw of lots, the appellant (Narsa Reddy) succeeds.
"The appeals stand disposed of accordingly in favour of appellant," the bench said.