New Delhi, May 17: The Supreme Court has held that neither the privilege against self-incrimination nor the secrecy of the election process takes away the right of courts to summon a voter as witness in an election dispute.

“The power of the court to summon a witness is one thing, the privilege of a witness not to answer a question put to him is another,” a bench comprising Justices S.B. Sinha and P.K. Balasubramanyan said, upholding an Andhra Pradesh High Court order.

The courts’ right to order a person to produce a document was not affected by Section 94 of the Representation of Peoples Act which provides that no person “shall be required to state for whom he has voted at an election”, the judges said.

Voters only enjoy a privilege under Section 94 and are at liberty to waive it and give evidence on their electoral preference, they added.

The high court had issued summons to witnesses on an election petition by a BJP candidate. The candidate, K. Laxman, had listed some witnesses to prove that he could not have secured zero votes at a particular polling booth in Musheerabad Assembly constituency in 2004.

Laxman had challenged the election of Telengana Rashtra Samiti MLA Nayini Narasimha Reddy alleging fault in the electronic voting machine.

Both Reddy and Laxman had polled not a single vote at the Musheerabad booth. Reddy won the election by a thin margin of 240 votes.

Reddy contended before the Supreme Court that no voter could be summoned to depose in an election petition and asked to disclose his choice.

Dismissing the appeal, the apex court said Section 94 does not provide for a total embargo on a party to an election petition to cite a voter as witness. “What is prohibited is that he cannot be required to state for whom he had voted at an election,” it said.

Courts cannot refuse to exercise their jurisdiction to summon witnesses merely because a question as to in whose favour they had voted was likely to be put up.

“Secrecy of ballots was necessary for ensuring free and fair elections but by reason thereof the concept of purity of election cannot be given a go-by,” the court said.