Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
17th February, 1956.
VIVIAN BOSE, B. JAGANNADHA DAS, B.P. SINHA, S. JAFER IMAM AND N. CHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1955.*
Bhagwan Datta Shastri, Appellant
Versus
Ram Ratanji Gupta and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 205 of 1955.*
Bhagwan Datta Shastri, Appellant
Versus.
Badri Narayan Singh and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeals Nos. 204 and 205 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. N. C. Chatterjee, Sr. Advocate, (Mr. R. Patnaik, Mr. A. N. Sinha and Mr. A. D. Mathur, Advocates with him), for Appellant in both the appeals; Mr. K. B. Asthana and Mr. C. P. Lal, Advocates for Respondent No. 9 in C. A. No. 204/55 and Respondent No. 1 in C. A. No. 205/55.
ELECTION LAW - Election petition - Corrupt practices - Distribution of pamphlets containing matter of caste and race appeal - Conveyance of voters to polling station in motor vehicles - Rejection of nomination papers - Material effect on result of election - Setting aside of election.
Fact of the Case:
Two election petitions were filed challenging the validity of the election of Bhagwan Datt Shastri to the House of People (Lok Sabha) from Shahdol-Sidhi constituency of Vindhya Pradesh. The petitions alleged various grounds of corrupt practices and wrongful rejection of nomination papers. The Election Tribunal found the appellant guilty of major corrupt practices under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and a minor corrupt practice under S. 124(5) of the Act. It also found that the rejection of the nominations of three candidates was erroneous and that the rejection materially affected the result of the election. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the appellant's election.
Finding of the Court:
The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Election Tribunal. It held that the distribution of pamphlets containing matter of caste and race appeal, the conveyance of voters to the polling station in motor vehicles, and the wrongful rejection of nomination papers constituted corrupt practices under the Act. The Court found that these corrupt practices materially affected the result of the election and justified the setting aside of the appellant's election.
Issues: 1. Whether the distribution of pamphlets containing matter of caste and race appeal constituted a corrupt practice under S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 2. Whether the conveyance of voters to the polling station in motor vehicles constituted a corrupt practice under S. 123(6) of the Act? 3. Whether the wrongful rejection of nomination papers materially affected the result of the election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the distribution of pamphlets containing matter of caste and race appeal constituted a major corrupt practice under S. 123(2) of the Act. It found that the pamphlets were widely distributed in the constituency by workers of the Socialist Party, who were virtually in the position of agents of the appellant. The Court held that the appellant was guilty of this corrupt practice as he was directly responsible for the distribution of the pamphlets. 2. The Court held that the conveyance of voters to the polling station in motor vehicles constituted a major corrupt practice under S. 123(6) of the Act. It found that the motor trucks used to convey the voters belonged to Achutanand, a Socialist Party candidate for the local Assembly seat of the same constituency. The Court held that the appellant was guilty of this corrupt practice as the use of the trucks was with his knowledge and connivance. 3. The Court held that the wrongful rejection of nomination papers materially affected the result of the election. It found that the nominations of three candidates were wrongly rejected and that these candidates had a good chance of winning the election. The Court held that the rejection of their nominations had a substantial impact on the outcome of the election.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant and upheld the order of the Election Tribunal setting aside the appellant's election.
Judgment
JAGANNADHADAS, J. : These are two appeals by special leave against two orders of the Election Tribunal, Vindhya Pradesh at Rewa, dated 26-4-1954 and 31-5-1954, which arise out of the election to the House of People (Lok Sabha) from Shahdol-Sidhi constituency of Vindhya Pradesh. It is a double member constituency, one being a general seat and other being a reserved seat for a member of the scheduled tribes of Vindhya Pradesh. Twelve nominations were filed for the general seat and three for the reserved seat. The Returning Officer, after scrutiny, held only five out of the twelve nominations to the general seat to be valid and rejected the rest. Out of the three for the reserved seat, he declared only one, namely, that of one Randaman Singh, to be valid and rejected the rest. As a result thereof the said Randaman Singh was declared elected without contest to the reserved seat. Out of the five candidates whose nominations for the general seat were held valid, two subsequently withdrew in time. Accordingly the polling was held for the remaining three candidates in the various polling stations of the constituency on dates between the 11th and 19th January, 1952. These three candidates obtained votes as follows :
Bhagwan Datt Sastri ... ... 71,589
Ram Ratan Gupta ... ... 56,585
Puranmal ... ... ... 34,990
Consequently Bhagwan Datt Shastri (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was declared elected, and the same was published in the Gazette dated the 14th February, 1952. Thereupon two election petitions were filed, both on the 24th April, 1952, contesting the validity of the election. The first (Election Petition No. 185 of 1952) was filed by four voters of the constituency. The relief asked for was the setting aside of the election of the appellant on various grounds set out therein and the declaration of Ram Ratan Gupta as the validly elected candidate. The second petition (Election Petition No. 187 of 1952) was filed by three other voters of the same constituency and also prayed that the election of the appellant should be set aside. It asked also for a further relief, viz., that the election of Randaman Singh the candidate returned unopposed for the reserved seat should also be set aside. In this petition the grounds alleged against the appellant s election were partly the same as those which were set out in the earlier petition. But there was added another substantial ground. This was that out of the nominations for the general seat which were rejected as being invalid on scrutiny by the Returning Officer, the rejections of the nominations of three candidates, viz., Baboo Lal Udaniya, Deep Narain and Rajkishore Shukla, were erroneous in fact and in law and that as a result thereof the election - it was alleged - was materially affected. It was on the basis of this allegation that the relief asked for in this petition was not merely to set aside the election of the appellant but also for the setting aside of the entire election which would result in the unseating even of the reserved-seat candidate who was declared elected unopposed.
2. Common evidence was taken by consent of parties in both these petitions. Quite a large number of issues were raised in each of the petitions, some of which were common. A good many out of those issues were found in favour of the appellant. But only three of the issues in the first petition relating, respectively, to (1) undue influence, (2) use of vehicles for carrying voters to the polling station, and (3) appeal to voters on grounds of caste, race, community or religion, were found against the appellant. In the other petition, in addition to the findings against the appellant in respect of issues corresponding to these three, a further issue relating to the wrongful rejection of nomination papers and the election being materially affected thereby, was found against the appellant. As a result of all these findings, the election of the appellant was set aside. The additional relief asked
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
