Judgment

B. P. SINHA J.: When the hearing of the appeal had been concluded on March 18, 1959, we had informed the parties, as also the counsel for the Election Commission of India, that the appeal is dismissed with costs, and that the reasons would follow. We now proceed to give our reasons.

2. This is an appeal on a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab at Chandigarh, against the judgment and order dated November 25, 1958, of that Court dismissing an appeal against the order of the Election Tribunal, Hissar, dated September 14, 1958, setting aside the appellant s election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly. The appellant was the successful candidate from the general seat which was a double-member constituency of Sirsa, the other successful candidate being a Harijan candidate-respondent No. 2 in this Court. The first respondent contested the general seat. The Election Commission of India was added as the third respondent by an order of this Court, dated February 27, 1959, when this Court was moved in the stay matter. This Court directed the case itself to be heard before the date fixed for the fresh election as a result of the order of the Election Tribunal.

3. It appears that for the double-member constituency of Sirsa, there were a large number of candidates. One of the two seats was reserved for members of the scheduled castes. After the usual withdrawals, sixteen candidates were left in the field to contest the two seats, eight candidates being for the general seat, and the other eight, for the reserved seat. We are not here concerned with the seat reserved for members of the scheduled castes. In respect of the general constituency, the appellant secured 27, 272 votes, whereas the first respondent secured 23, 329, as a result of the election which took place on March 12 and 14, 1957. The result of the election was declared on March 17, 1957.

4. The first respondent filed an election petition on April 28, 1957, challenging the election of the appellant. The election was challenged on a large number of grounds - practically exhausting all available grounds under the election law-but as a result of the findings of the Election Tribunal and of the High Court, we are only concerned with the allegations relating to "corrupt practices", contained in sub-paras. 1 to 3 of para. 13B of the election petition, which formed the basis for issue No. 4. The relevant allegations may be stated in extenso in the words of the election petition, as under:

"(B): That respondent No. 1 himself, his agents and other persons with the consent of the respondent No. 1 and his agents have committed the corrupt practice of undue influence by interfering directly or indirectly with the free exercise of the electoral right of the electors of this constituency. The known details of these corrupt practices are given in the various clauses under the sub-para:-

(i) Sat Guru Maharaj Pratap Singh of Jiwan Nagar, the religious head of Namdharis sect of the Sikhs had some personal grievances against Shri Devi Lal of Chautala a prominent Congress Leader of the constituency and the chief supporter of the petitioner at this election. Respondent No. 1 fully knowing of this grievance of the Sat Guru approached him and through him also approached Maharaj Charan Singh of Sikanderpur the religious head of the Radha Swami Samaj and got issued Farmans (orders) by both these religious heads to their followers in this constituency to the effect that their Dharma required them to whole-heartedly support respondent No. 1 and to oppose the candidature of the petitioner and that if any of the followers dared to act against their Farmans, the wrath of the aforementioned Gurus would fall upon him and he would be the object of Divine displeasure. These Farmans of the two Gurus were orally conveyed, through the Subas of Namdharis, Shri Bir Singh the son of Sat Guru Partap Singh and Naginder Singh and Shri Parshotam Singh followers of Guru