A Chairman may exercise a separate casting vote for each post tied in an election.

The plaintiffs challenged the validity of the Managing Committee elections of Baghbazar Sarbojanin Durgotsav and Exhibition held on 22 June 2025 and sought, inter alia, declarations, appointment of an Administrator, and restraint against certain office-bearers.

During the proceedings, the Trial Court appointed two Special Officers to supervise and conduct the Society’s Annual General Meeting.

At the AGM held on 30 August 2026, elections were conducted for the Honorary General Secretary, Honorary Treasurer, and twelve Managing Committee members.

Two candidates tied with 33 votes for the post of Honorary General Secretary, while six candidates tied with 32 votes for four Managing Committee posts.

The sixth defendant sought directions permitting the President to exercise a casting vote under Rule 37 of the Society’s Rules and Regulations.

The Trial Court directed the President to hold a meeting in accordance with Rule 37.

The plaintiffs challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, contending that Rule 37 permitted only one casting vote and that the President could not resolve ties in five posts.

Whether the President/Chairman, who was not a candidate for any of the posts in which there was a tie, could exercise a casting vote under Rule 37 of the Society’s Rules and Regulations.

Whether Rule 37 authorised the President to exercise a separate casting vote for each post in which there was an equality of votes, rather than only one casting vote for resolving the entire impasse.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in directing the President to hold a meeting under Rule 37.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and interpreted Rule 37 of the Society’s Rules, which provides that every member has one vote and that, in case of equality of votes, the Chairman has a casting vote in addition to the vote to which he may be entitled as a member.

Rule 53 was considered as prescribing eligibility for contesting Society elections.

The Court applied the principle that no person should be a judge in his own cause, but held that the principle was not violated where the Chairman was not a candidate for the posts affected by the tie.

The expression “casting vote” was understood as a deciding vote exercised by the chair when votes are equally divided.

The words “in addition to” were interpreted as permitting an additional vote for each post in which there was a tie.

Balwantrai Bhimbhai Desai v. Taluka Panchayat, Kamraj, AIR 1979 Guj 220, was distinguished because, in that case, the presiding officer had himself been a candidate and had used the casting vote to secure his own election.

The Court held that the President had already been elected to a different post and was not a contestant for the post of Honorary General Secretary or for any of the four Managing Committee posts affected by the tie.

Therefore, permitting him to exercise the casting vote did not make him a judge in his own cause, and no Society rule disqualified him from acting under Rule 37.

Interpreting Rule 37 in the context of elections to multiple posts, the Court reasoned that each member was entitled to one vote per post, and the Chairman was similarly entitled to one ordinary vote for each post.

Where votes were equal for a particular post, the Chairman could exercise an additional casting vote for that post.

A contrary interpretation allowing only one casting vote despite ties in several posts would frustrate Rule 37’s purpose of resolving electoral deadlocks and completing the election process.

Since the Trial Court’s order merely directed the President to convene a meeting in accordance with Rule 37 and did not predetermine the manner of exercising the power, the direction was found to be legally permissible.

It held that Rule 37 authorised the President to exercise one casting vote for the post of Honorary General Secretary and one casting vote for each of the four Managing Committee posts in which there was an equality of votes.

The President’s non-candidature for those posts removed any objection based on bias or the rule against being a judge in one’s own cause.

The Trial Court’s direction to hold a meeting under Rule 37 was upheld, and C.O. No. 3065 of 2026 was dismissed without any order as to costs.