Election Vitiated if Candidates Presence in Prohibited Areas Violates Principle of Secrecy of Ballot

The Petitioner Society and its Managing Committee challenged an order passed by the Delhi Co-operative Tribunal (DCT) on May 12, 2026.

The DCT had upheld an Arbitrator's award dated January 12, 2026, which set aside the Society’s elections conducted in June 2024.

The Arbitrator found several irregularities, including voting by a defaulter, canvassing at the venue, lack of complete videography, and candidates interfering with the secrecy of the ballot.

These findings were affirmed by the DCT, which noted from photographs that candidates were overlooking the marking of ballots and unauthorized persons had access to prohibited areas.

1. Whether the findings of the Arbitrator and the DCT regarding the vitiation of the election process due to procedural irregularities were perverse or legally unsustainable?

2. Whether the High Court should interfere with concurrent factual findings of sub-ordinate authorities in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227?

The court primarily applied the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 2003, and the Delhi Co-operative Societies Rules, 2007, specifically Rule 53 and Clauses 12 and 15 of Schedule II.

These rules prohibit canvassing at the election venue and mandate that polling booths must ensure the secrecy of the ballot.

The court applied the restrictive standard of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which limits interference in concurrent factual findings unless they are "perverse, arbitrary, or suffering from manifest illegality".

The Court reviewed the concurrent findings of the Arbitrator and the DCT, as well as the photographic evidence, and confirmed that candidates were present while members were voting.

It noted that the presence of family members or domestic staff accompanying fit voters violated the principle of confidentiality of the vote.

The Court observed that Rule 53 of the DCS Rules, 2007, which requires a separate compartment for secret voting and prohibits canvassing, was patently violated.

Since the issues—such as the adequacy of videography and the influence of candidates—were essentially factual in nature and had been examined in detail by two forums below, the Court held there was no ground to interfere under writ jurisdiction.

It held that the election process was totally vitiated by the presence of candidates in the voting arena.

The Court directed that fresh elections be held by the already appointed Returning Officer in accordance with the DCS Act and Rules.

The Petitioner was ordered to cooperate in conducting free and fair elections, noting that the current committee had already served over two years of its three-year term.