Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BHAGWATI, VENKATARAMA AYYAR, SINHA AND S.K. DAS, JJ.
Harish Chandra Bajpai and another, Appellants
Versus
Triloki Singh and another, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 333 of 1956.
21st December, 1956
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphatary, Solicitor-General of India and Mr. P. C. Gupta, Senior Advocate (Mr. J. S. Trivedi and Mr. S. S. Shukla, Advocates with them), for Appellants, Mr. K. S. Krishnaswamy Iyenger and Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocates, (Mr. R. Patnaik, Advocate, with them), for Respondent No. 1.
-Rule 13 applies to election petition under the Representation of People’s Act
-this rule applies to election petition under the Representation of the Peoples Act – Hari Singh v. Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444; Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh, AIR 1970 SC 110 = (1970) 1 SCR 530.
-can be filed as a matter of right and the Court has direction in accepting the same -
– in stating the material facts it will not do merely to quit the words of the section because of the efficacy of the words “material facts”. Material facts include facts relating to the holding of the election, the grounds on which it is sought to be set aside, the right of the petitioner to present the petition and the like,
– from the provisions as contained in Sections 83 and 86, it follows that if the allegations made regarding a corrupt practice do not disclose the constituent parts of the corrupt practice alleged, the same will not be allowed to be proved and further those allegations cannot be amended after the period of limitation for filing an election petition;but the Court may allow particulars of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified. The scope of these provisions has been considered in several decisions of the Supreme Court.
– if a corrupt practice is not previously alleged in the petition, an amendment which will have the effect of introducing particulars of such a corrupt practice will not be permitted after the period of limitation, because it would tantamount to making a fresh petition, as held in Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444 = 1957 SCR 370; Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201 = 1969(3) SCR 603. The same view was taken in Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh, AIR 1972 SC 515 = 1972(1) SCC 214. Form these decisions, it follows that facts stated in the petition relating to any corrupt practice must be sufficient to constitute a cause of action. In other words the facts must bring out all the ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged. If the facts stated fail to satisfied that requirement then they do not give rise to triabal issue. Such a defect cannot be cured by any amendment after the period of limitation for filing the election petition. But even if all the material facts are stated in the election petition for a proper trial better particulars may be required. If those particulars are not set out in the election petition they may be incorporated into the election petition with the permission of the Court even after the period of limitation. So long as the charge leveled is beyond doubt, Section 86(5) is satisfied; rest is mere refinement. They either pertain to the region of particulars or evidence, as held in Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, AIR 1972 SC 1302.
– the word trial occurring in Section 87(1) is used as meaning the entire proceedings before the High Court from the time the petition is received until the pronouncement of the order– Harish Chandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh, AIR 1957 SC 444.
Judgement
VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J. - This is an appeal by special leave against the order of the election Tribunal, Faizabad, declaring the election appellants to the legislative Assembly (Uttar Pradesh from the Lucknow Central Constituency, void under S. 100 (2) (b) of the Representation of the People Act No. XLIII of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The Constituency is a double-member constituency, one of the seats being reserved for a member of the Scheduled Castes. The polling took place on 31-1-1952 and the two appellants were declared elected, they having secured the largest number of votes. On 10th June 1952, the respondent herein filed a petition under S. 81 of the Act alleging that the appe1lants had committed a number of corrupt practices, and prayed that the election might be declared wholly void.
2. The appellants filed written statements denying these allegations, and on the pleadings, issues were framed on 17th January 1953. Then followed quite a spate of proceedings, consisting of applications for framing of fresh issues, for better particulars and for amendment of the election petition, to which a more detailed reference will presently be made. As a result of these proceedings, it was not until September 1954, that the hearing of the petition began. On 23rd March 1955, the Tribunal delivered its judgment and by a majority, it set aside the election on two grounds (1) that the appellants had obtained the assistance of four village officers, Mukhias in furtherance of their election prospects and had thereby contravened S. 123 (8) of the Act; and (2) that the first appellant had employed for payment in connection with his election two persons in addition to the number permitted by R. 118 read with schedule VI, namely, Ganga Prasad and Vishwanath Pande, and had thereby infringed S. 123 (7)of the Act. Before us, the appellants dispute the correctness of the conclusions on both these points.
3. As regards the first point, the main contention of the appellants is that the charge that they had employed four Mukhias in furtherance of their election prospects was not pleaded in the petition as originally presented, and that it came in only by an amendment dated 28th November 1953, that the Tribunal had no power to order that amendment, and that accordingly the finding thereon should be disregarded. It is necessary for a correct appreciation of the contentions on either side to state the facts leading to this amendment.
4. The material allegations in the petition as it was presented on 10th June 1952 are contained in para. 7(c), and are as follows:
"That the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 could in furtherance of their election enlist the support of certain Government Servants. The District Magistrate, Lucknow organised the opening of eye relief camps, and these functions were utilised for the election propaganda of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. An eye relief camp was proposed to be opened on 16th December 1951 at Kakori by Shri C. B. Gupta, Minister. Civil Supplies U. P., one of the chief organisers of the election of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2. An election meeting was advertised by the workers of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to be held within a short distance of the proposed eye relief camp on the same day. This meeting was amongst others addressed by Shri. G. B Pant Chief Minister U. P. Shri C. B. Gupta and respondent No. 1. It was also attended by the Patwaris and Qanungo of the Kakori Circle including the Tahsildar, Lucknow and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lucknow.
On 27th December 1951 an eye relief camp was similarly organised and opened at Kakori. The ceremony this time was performed by Mrs. Vijai Lakshmi Pandit and immediately thereafter from the same platform and at the same place election speeches were made and the audience exhorted to vote for Mrs. Vijai Lakshmi Pandit, a candidate for the House of the People from that area and respondents Nos. 1 and 2. This meeting was attended by the District Magistrate,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
