Booth Capturing

Posted on by user

Introduction
Booth capturing is a distinctly electoral malady: the forcible appropriation of a polling station so that votes are cast by persons other than the bona fide electors. In India, booth capturing undermines both the integrity of an individual vote and the legitimacy of the entire electoral outcome. For practitioners, the term is not merely descriptive — it triggers a set of criminal offences, election‑law remedies, immediate administrative powers of the Election Commission and a specialised litigation strategy that combines urgent investigative action, criminal prosecution and election petitions.

Core Legal Framework
– Constitution: Article 324 — vests the Election Commission with superintendence, direction and control of elections and the power to take urgent remedial steps (including ordering repolling) where the fairness of the process is jeopardised.
– Indian Penal Code, 1860 (select provisions commonly invoked in booth‑capturing cases):
– Section 143 (unlawful assembly), Section 146 (rioting), Section 147 (rioting), Section 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), Section 149 (liability of each member of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of common object).
– Section 341 (wrongful restraint), Section 342 (wrongful confinement).
– Section 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), Section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty), Sections 332/333 (causing hurt to deter public servant).
– Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) and Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention).
– Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act):
– Section 123 — definition of “corrupt practice” (bribery, undue influence, personation, etc.). Booth capturing will often amount to corrupt practice(s) as defined and thus attracts electoral consequences.
– Section 100 — grounds for declaring an election void (including where “the result of the election has been materially affected” by illegal practices, undue influence, or improper reception/rejection of votes).
– (Practitioners should note that other provisions of the RP Act regulate election petitions, declarations of void elections, and penalties connected with corrupt practices.)
– Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
– Section 154 (recording of an FIR), Section 173 (police report / charge‑sheet), Section 156(3) (power of police to investigate on Magistrate’s order), and Section 482 (inherent powers of High Court to quash mala fide or frivolous proceedings that prejudice the electoral process).
– Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 and Election Commission instructions: polling station procedures, sealing and custody of EVMs, appointment of observers and micro‑observers, reporting formats (presiding officer’s reports and observer reports) are crucial practical sources.

Practical Application and Nuances
How booth capturing is litigated and investigated in practice — a stepwise, practical guide

  1. Immediate administrative remedies and on‑the‑spot acts
  2. Role of Election Commission (Article 324): Observers/micro‑observers report capture to the ECI. The ECI has the power to order immediate suspension of polling at the station and order repolling in the affected booth(s) or entire constituency when fairness is compromised.

  3. Police action: A cognizable offence should be registered under appropriate IPC sections (e.g., 353, 332, 186, rioting provisions) on the basis of FIR under Section 154 CrPC. Early registration is critical — delay undermines evidence collection and subsequent prosecution.

  4. Evidence that proves booth capturing

  5. Presiding officer’s contemporaneous written report (the first and often decisive document).
  6. Observer / micro‑observer reports: these independent official reports carry high probative value.
  7. FIR and charge‑sheet: showing the criminal conspiracy and acts of intimidation/force.
  8. Witness statements / affidavits of polling agents and voters: detailed, signed affidavits noting time, persons involved, sequences and demands are essential.
  9. Physical evidence: memos of seizure, photographs/videos, torn seals, EVM seals, witness photographs of perpetrators at the booth, seized weapons, torn or destroyed ballot papers (where applicable).
  10. EVM/VVPAT data and sealing records: EVM control unit logs, VVPAT slips (where retained), correct custody records and seal certificates. Preservation of chain of custody is crucial — the defence will vigorously attack any lapse.
  11. Material showing personation: duplicate electoral rolls, impersonator signatures, mobility evidence (vehicles, buses used to bring in bogus voters).

  12. Medical records where polling staff or voters were injured.

  13. Criminal law strategy

  14. Drafting the FIR with precise offences: identify the leader(s) and the group acting with common intention (invoke Sections 120B/34/149 where appropriate), offences against public servants (353/332), wrongful confinement (342), rioting (147/148), and obstruction (186).
  15. Early applications for investigative measures: magistrate orders under Section 156(3) CrPC to expedite investigation; preservation requests for EVMs, VVPATs and CCTV footage (seek sealing and custody by court/ECI).

  16. Forensic and technical steps: request preservation of EVMs and logs, avoid tampering, move for technical inspection by certified agency if necessary (record chain of custody in court).

  17. Election petition strategy

  18. Grounds: invoke Section 100 of the RP Act — argue that booth capturing resulted in the “improper reception or rejection of votes” or that corrupt practices materially affected result.
  19. Reliefs: declaration of void election, direction for re‑poll in selected booths/entire constituency, or if proof overwhelmingly in favour of another candidate, declaration of candidate A as elected (rare; usually courts order re‑poll).
  20. Evidentiary burden: Establish (i) occurrence of booth capture at specific booths, (ii) number of votes cast improperly (or qualitative impact on result), and (iii) causal link between the improper votes and the declared result. For narrow majorities, even capture of a few booths can be decisive.

  21. Interim reliefs: applications to preserve EVMs, restrain counting, seek recount/re‑poll orders and, if necessary, approach the High Court under Article 226 for urgent preservation/production orders.

  22. Practical examples (illustrative)

  23. Example A (small margin): Candidate X wins by 200 votes. Evidence shows two booths were captured, where polling agents were forced out and 350 votes were cast from impersonators. Election petition under Section 100 will seek voiding result for material affectation.
  24. Example B (mass capture): Several booths demonstrate physical violence and EVM tampering; ECI observer reports corroborate. Immediate ECI order for repoll is the likely remedy; criminal prosecution of perpetrators and party leaders follows.

Landmark Judgments
– Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405: This decision is frequently cited for the constitutional scope of the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324 and the limits of judicial review over administrative decisions taken in the superintendence of elections. The judgment establishes that the ECI has broad powers to act to ensure free and fair elections — a principle invoked when petitioning for re‑polls following booth capture.
– While there are numerous High Court decisions applying Section 100 and dealing with booth capture factual matrices, the operative principle across decisions is consistent: courts will scrutinise contemporaneous administrative reports (observer reports, presiding officer reports and police records) as primary reliable evidence and will act if the electoral process has been materially tainted. (Practitioners should consult recent constitution benches and High Court decisions in their jurisdiction for up‑to‑date jurisprudence on admissibility of EVM logs and VVPATs; the law and technical protocols evolve with ECI notifications.)

Strategic Considerations for Practitioners
– Act immediately and preserve evidence
– Time is of the essence. Ensure immediate FIR, obtain presiding officer/observer reports, secure EVMs (or compel ECI/police to preserve them), and collect signed affidavits from polling agents and affected voters.
– Multi‑pronged litigation
– Combine criminal complaints with urgent administrative representations to the ECI and, if required, simultaneous election petition for voiding the poll. Parallel tracks increase chances of effective relief.
– Chain of custody and technical proof
– Meticulously document every transfer of EVMs/VVPATs and any seals. Any gap will be exploited by defence. Obtain court directions, if necessary, for seal and preservation.
– Quantify the prejudice
– In an election petition, calculate the number of votes tainted by booth capturing; link that to the margin of victory to show material effect under Section 100. Where quantification is impossible, focus on qualitative material (systemic intimidation) and seek repoll on that basis.
– Witness management
– Protect and shelter presiding officers, polling agents and crucial witnesses. Injunctions against intimidation, anticipatory bail applications for witnesses where necessary, and prompt judicial protection can be decisive.
– Use observer reports strategically
– Observer reports and micro‑observer emails are often dispositive and admissible; seek early production. Cross‑examine defence if they challenge authenticity.
– Anticipate political and evidentiary pushback
– Booth capturing cases often involve politically powerful actors. Expect pressure on investigative agencies, attempts to manufacture exculpatory documents, late production of stampings on EVM logs, or claims of procedural compliance. Preempt by judicial preservation orders and forensic oversight.
– Avoid common pitfalls
– Delay in filing election petition (the statutory period is short); failure to preserve the EVM chain of custody; reliance on hearsay without corroboration; ignoring ECI internal remedies (which courts expect to be exhausted in some circumstances); and failure to quantify the effect of tainted votes in the election petition.
– Tactical use of Section 482 CrPC and writ jurisdiction
– Where police refuse to register FIR or fail to seize/preserve EVMs, immediate High Court intervention under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC may be required to compel investigation or to quash malicious proceedings that obstruct the collection of evidence.

Conclusion
Booth capturing is prosecuted at the confluence of criminal law, electoral statutes and constitutional administrative power. Successful practice requires urgency, forensic care in preserving technical evidence (EVMs/VVPATs and observer reports), a dual track of criminal and election litigation, and the tactical use of the Election Commission’s powers under Article 324. For counsel, the three constant priorities are: (1) immediate preservation of contemporaneous official records and physical evidence; (2) prompt criminal complaints and magistrate intervention to secure investigation; and (3) a focused election petition that quantifies or persuasively demonstrates material effect under Section 100 of the RP Act. The court’s willingness to annul or order repoll turns less on rhetoric and more on the quality — and timing — of the evidence presented.