Judgment

SARKAR, J. - (For himself, S. K. Das, Gajendragadkar and Hidayatullah JJ.) : In the General Elections of 1957, the appellant was returned to the Bihar Legislative Assembly for the Manoharpur constituency in the district of Singhbhum. He is an Adibasi belonging to the Ho community. The electors for that constituency largely belonged to the Adibasi communities of Hos, Mundas and Oraons. There are also people from Madhya Pradesh and other people belonging to communities other than Adibasis, there. The Hos and Oraons speak their own respective languages and the non-Adibasi population is largely Hindi speaking. It may be that some members of the Adibasi communities speak Hindi also.

2. The appellant had been set up as a candidate by the Jharkhand party and was supported by that party in the election. The object of the party is to have a separate administrative unit for what it calls the Jharkhand area. This is an area consisting of parts of Bihar, Orissa, Bengal and Madhya Pradesh and is inhabited largely by Adibasis. It is not the object of the Jharkhand party to have a separate State for the Adibasis alone but its object is to include in Jharkhand all people of whatever community, living in that area and the membership of the party is open both to Adibasis and non-Adibasis.

3. The symbol chosen by the party for the election was a cock. This symbol was recognised by the Election Commission.

4. Besides the appellant, there were five other candidates contesting the election from the Manoharpur constituency. Among them was respondent No. 1, Ram Narain Prasad Yadab who is a Hindu and does not belong to any Adibasi community. He is the only contesting respondent in this appeal and may hereinafter be conveniently referred to as the respondent.

5. After the results of the election were declared, the respondent filed an election petition for an order declaring the election of the appellant void on the grounds mentioned in it and made all the contesting candidates parties to it. The petition was dismissed by the Election Tribunal. An appeal by the respondent to the High Court at Patna from the decision of the Tribunal succeeded. The appellant has now come up to this Court in further appeal.

6. Only one of the grounds on which the election petition was based has been canvassed before us. We shall therefore concern ourselves in this judgment with that ground alone. It is said that the appellant published and distributed among the electors of the constituency two leaflets, being exhibits I and II in this case, containing appeals for votes on grounds of religion and thereby committed the corrupt practice of systematic appeal on grounds of religion under S. 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It is also said that the appellant himself and through his agents solicited votes by reading over and explaining the contents of the leaflets and by making speeches appealing to religious sentiments and thereby committed the aforesaid corrupt practice. If these corrupt practices are proved, the election of the appellant has to be set aside.

7. The Tribunal held that the Jharkhand party had got the leaflet printed and that Ex. I contained an appeal for votes to the electorate on grounds of religion but Ex. II did not. The Tribunal however held that the onus of proving that the leaflets were distributed and the speeches made, was on the respondent and this onus he had failed to discharge. In this view of the matter the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

8. The High Court held that both the leaflets contained appeals on religious grounds. It agreed with the Tribunal that the Jharkhand party had got the leaflets printed. In the High Court s view the Tribunal was wrong in holding that the respondent had not proved that the leaflets were distributed and the speeches made. The High Court having considered the evidence for itself came to the conclusion that it was sufficient to prove that the leaflets had been distributed and the speeches made