Judgment

Bose, J. : The proceedings that have given rise to this appeal arise out of an election petition before the Election Tribunal, Delhi.

2. The appellant Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani together with the contesting respondent Shrimati Manmohini Sahgal and others were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Parliamentary Constituency of New Delhi. The polling took place on 14-1-1952 and when the votes were counted on 18-l-l952 it was found that the appellant had secured the largest number of votes and that the contesting respondent Manmohini came next. The appellant was accordingly notified as the returned candidate on 24-1-1952.

3. On 6-3-1952, the appellant filed her return of election expenses. This was found to be defective and on 17-4 -1952, the Election Commission published a notification in the Gazette of India disqualifying the appellant under R. l14 (5) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951 on the ground that she had

"failed to lodge the return of election expenses in the manner required" and that she had thereby

"incurred the disqualifications under Cl. (c) of S. 7 and S. 143 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951."

4. In view of this the appellant submitted a fresh return with an explanation under R.114 (6) on 30-4-1952. This was accepted by the Commission and on 7-5-1952, it published a notification in the Gazettee of India under R. l14 (7) stating that the disqualifications had been removed.

5. In the meanwhile, on 7-4-1952, the contesting respondent Manmohini filed an election petition praying that the appellants election be declared void and that she (the petitioner) be declared to have been duly elected. It will be noticed that this was before 17-4-1952, the date an which the Election Commission disqualified the appellant. The vaildity of the election was attacked on many grounds. A number of major corrupt practices were alleged that the return which the appellant had filed on 6-3-1952, of her election expenses was challenged as a minor corrupt practice on two grounds :

(1) that the return was false in material particulars, and (2) that it was not in accordance with the rules and so was no return at all in the eye of the law. Particulars of the instances in which the return was challenged as false were then set out.

6. The appellant filed her written statement in reply on 7-10-1952. It will be noticed that this was after she had put in her second return and after the Election Commission had removed the disqualification due to the first return. Her reply was as follows :

(l) That as the disqualification with respect to the return other election expenses had been removed by the Election Commission under S. 144 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, this question could not be reopened;

(2) That a minor corrupt practice which cannot vitiate an election and which is not capable of materially affecting an election is wholly outside the scope of a proper election petition and so no congnisance of it can be taken by the Election Tribunal:

(3) That only such matters can be put in issue as are necessary to decide whether the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside within the meaning of S. 100 (2) of the Act.

7. The contesting respondent Manmohini filed a replication on 15-10-1952. In it she said :

(1) that the Election Commission did not and could not decide whether the return was or was not false in material particulars and so the question was still open. (This had reference to the first return dated 6th March, 1952);

(2) that in any event

"even the revised return is false in material particulars and the objections with regard to the original return also apply exactly with regard to the revised return."

8. The broad propositions of law raised by points (2) and (3) in the appellant s written statement were also denied. Then followed an item by item reply to the allegations made by the appellant in the list which she