Judgment

GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I. :

The short question of law which arises in this appeal by special leave is whether by publishing and distributing a poster (Ext. P-10) in furtherance of his election, the appellant Kultar Singh has committed a corrupt practice under S. 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951) (hereinafter called the Act ). The Election Tribunal which tried the election petition filed by the respondent Mukhtiar Singh challenging the validity of the appellant s election, as well as the High Court of Punjab which heard the appellant s appeal against the decision of the Election Tribunal have answered this question against the appellant. Accordingly, the election of the appellant has been declared to be void. Mr. Setalvad for the appellant contends that the view taken by the Election Tribunal and the High Court is based on a misconstruction of the impugned pamphlet.

2. The appellant was elected to the Punjab Legislative Assembly from the Dharamkot Constituency and he defeated his nearest rival, the respondent, by a margin of nearly 8,000 votes. The appellant had stood for election on the Akali Dal ticket, while the respondent had been officially adopted by the Congress Party. After the election of the appellant was declared, the respondent filed an election petition alleging that the appellant s election was void inasmuch as for the purpose of securing votes, he had appealed to his religion and, had thereby committed a corrupt practice. It appears that the election petition had also alleged that the appellant had appealed to his language and community, but with that part of the case we are no longer concerned in the present appeal, because the petition has not succeeded in that behalf. According to the respondent, the appellant had addressed seven election meetings held in different places and on different dates and at those meetings, he and his supporters had made speeches asking the voters to vote for the appellant as he was the proper representative of the Sikh Panth, whereas the respondent represented the Hindu ridden Party, and so, the appellant would be able to protect the Sikh religion and the Sikh language. The petition further alleged that at five of the given election meetings organised by the appellant, the printed posters (Exts. P1 to P10) had been distributed by the appellant and these posters contained an appeal to the voters to vote for the appellant on the ground of his religion.

3. The appellant denied both these allegations. He admitted that election meetings were held on his behalf and were addressed by him and his supporters, but he disputed the respondent s case that at these meetings any appeal to religion was made. In regard to the posters, the appellant denied that he had anything to do with the said posters, except one Ext. P9 and he pleaded that the said poster was innocent and its publication and distribution would not attract the provisions of Section 123 (3) of the Act.

4. On these pleadings, two broad questions arose for decision. The first question was whether the speeches alleged to have been made by the appellant and his supporters at the election meetings included appeals to the voters to vote for the appellant on the ground of his religion; and the second was whether the impugned posters Exts. P-1 to P-10 were published or distributed by the appellant at the election meetings, and if yes, whether any one or more of them contained an appeal to the voters on the ground of appellant s religion. Both these questions were answered by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent. The High Court, however, has reversed, the conclusion of the Tribunal on the first question; it has held that the evidence led by the respondent in support of his case that at the election meetings an appeal was made to the voters to support the candidature of the appellant on the ground of his religion, did not establish the respondent s case. In regard to the posters, the High Court has