Kalyan Kumar Gogoi v. Ashutosh Agnihotri (AIR 2011 SC 760)

The case asks a simple question: did polling confusion at a wrong venue materially affect the election result? The margin was 175 votes.

The Supreme Court said the appellant relied on hearsay. Such evidence is generally inadmissible. Non-compliance with some rules was noted, but there was no clear proof that the result changed. The appeal failed.

1. Did polling at a non-notified place and curtailed time materially affect the result?
2. Was the evidence led by the appellant admissible, or was it hearsay?

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Hearsay is generally inadmissible because it cannot be tested by cross-examination.
• Representation of the People Act, 1951: To void an election, the irregularity must materially affect the result.
• Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961: Non-compliance is relevant, but its impact on the result must be proven with reliable and direct evidence.

• The Court noted that not all voters vote, and voting depends on many factors. Predicting exact swing is not possible.
• The appellant’s proof that large numbers left was vague and largely hearsay.
• Non-compliance with some provisions existed, but there was no clear link to the final margin.
• Appeal dismissed. High Court’s decision sustained.

Hearsay is inadmissible. To set aside an election, the petitioner must show with reliable, direct evidence that the irregularity materially affected the result. Mere assertions are not enough.

• Sets a high, but fair, bar for proof of impact in election disputes.
• Reaffirms the ban on hearsay in proving critical facts.
• Guides candidates: collect direct, verifiable evidence.

• Material effect must be proven, not presumed.
• Hearsay ≠ proof. Courts want first-hand accounts and records.
• Quick official correction of an error weakens claims of wide impact.

Mnemonic: “No HEAR, Show IMPACT.”

1. No HEAR: Hearsay stays out.
2. Show: Bring direct, tested proof.
3. IMPACT: Link irregularity to result.

Issue: Did the venue mistake and timing curtailment change the outcome?

Rule: Hearsay is inadmissible; election is void only if the result was materially affected.

Application: Numbers were vague; many statements were second-hand; officials corrected the error fast.

Conclusion: No proven material effect. Appeal dismissed.

Hearsay

A statement made outside court, offered to prove the truth of what it says. Generally inadmissible.

Material Effect

A real, outcome-changing impact on the final result.

Repoll

Fresh polling ordered in a constituency or booth due to serious irregularity.