Bhanu Kumar Shastri vs Mohan Lal Sukhadia

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1971 Supreme(SC) 78

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.K. MITTER AND A.N. RAY, JJ.
Bhanu Kumar Shastri, Appellant
Versus
Mohanlal Sukhadia and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No, 1515 (E) of 1968, D/- 22-1-1971.
Advocates appeared
M/s. A. S. Bobde, Guman Lal Lodha, J. S. Rastogi, Jagdish Pandya, M. L. Vaidya, D. V. Dani, S. S. Parekh, S. S. Khanduja and N. K. Shejwalkar, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. S. Mohan Kumaramangalam, Sr. Advocate (M/s. I. L. Gobhil and K Baldev Mehta, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 1, Mr. M. B. L. Bhargava, Sr. Advocate, (M/s: S. N. Bhargava and Sobhag Mal Jain, Advocates with him), for Respondent No. 4.

Advocates:
A.S.Bobde, D.V.DANI, GUMANLAL LODHA, I.L.GOHIL, J.S.RASTOGI, JAGDISH PANDYA, K.B.MEHTA, M.B.L.BHARGAV, M.L.VAIDYA, N.K.SHEJVALKAR, S.MOHAN KUMARA MANGALAM, S.N.BHARGAVA, S.S.Khanduja, S.S.PARAKH

Headnote:ALLEGATIONS OF CORRUPT IS A CHARGE OF CRIMINAL NATURE PURITY OF ELECTION SIGNIFIED - a case neither based on pleadings nor raised before high Court — whether can be allowed to be raised before the supreme Court - Sanctity and purity of election — candidate and voters
       - the provisions of the Act are intended to preserve the purity of the election, but at the same time these provisions should not be subverted for the impure purposes of maligning candidates who happen to be in the Government on the eve of the election.
       – in a democracy such as ours, the purity and sanctity of elections, the sacrosanct and sacred nature of the electoral process must be preserved and maintained. The valuable verdict of the people at the polls must be given due respect and condour and should not be disregarded or set at naught on vague, indefinite, frivolous or fanciful allegations or on evidence which is of a shaky or prevaricating character. It is well settled that the onus lies heavily on the election petitioner to make out a strong case for setting aside an election. In our country election is a fairly costly and expensive venture and the Act has provided sufficient safeguard to make the elections fair and free. It is all the necessary to protect the purity and sobriety of the elections by secure valuable votes to the people by undue influence, fraud, communal propaganda. Bribery or other corrupt practices as laid down in the Act. As held in Bhanu Kumar v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1971 SC 2025 = 1971(1) SCC 370, the Act is intended to preserve the purity of the election, but at the same time these provisions should not be subverted for the impure purposes of maligning candidates. The Court is always vigilant to watch not only the conduct of the candidates and to protect their character from being defamed but also to see the character and conduct of the public is not corroded by corrupt motive or evil purposes of candidates. The genuine and bonafide aims and aspirations of candidates have to be protected on the one hand and malafide abuse and arrogance or power will have to be censured on the other. As held in Rahim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed, AIR 1975 SC 290 = 1974 (4) SCC 660, an election is a politically sacred public Act, not of one person or of one official, but of the collective will of the whole constituency. Also held in Abdul Hussain Mir v. Shamsul Huda, AIR 1975 SC 1612 = 1975(4) SCC 533, the basic legal guidelines cannot be lost sight of while adjudging an election dispute. The verdict at the polls wears a protective mantle in a democratic policy.

Judgement Key Points

The judgment has been overruled. [judgement_act_referred]
Appeal against Rajasthan High Court judgment dismissing election petition challenging respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia's election to Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Udaipur City constituency. (!) [1000146490001]
Respondent (Congress, Chief Minister) won by 3431 votes (24272 vs 20841) in election on 15 Feb 1967, result declared 21 Feb 1967. [1000146490002]
Post-election developments: Congress minority, respondent resigned, President's Rule 13 Mar to 26 Apr 1967, respondent reappointed Chief Minister. [1000146490003][1000146490004]
Petition filed 7 Apr 1967; amendments and particulars provided per court orders; 74 allegations, 55 dropped at trial; 30 PW for appellant, 46 for respondent. [1000146490005][1000146490006]
High Court dismissed petition, decided issues in respondent's favor; appeal concerns issues 3(a), 4(a) on corrupt practices under Sections 123(1), (2), (4) RP Act. [1000146490007][1000146490008] (!) (!) (!) (!)
Allegations in paras 8-11, 12-15: bribery/undue influence via public works (Raigar Colony pattas, Tekri road, Baluchistan Nallah covering, water taps); false statement re appellant's character. [1000146490009]
Raigar Colony: No proof of 5 Feb 1967 meeting or bargain for votes at Re 1 pattas; policy from 1959/1962 implemented per Dec 1966 application; Ex 44 (10 Feb 1967) routine follow-up; witnesses unreliable; respondent's tour program precludes meeting. [1000146490011][1000146490012][1000146490013][1000146490014][1000146490015][1000146490016][1000146490018][1000146490019][1000146490020][1000146490021][1000146490022][1000146490023]
No remission of development charges alleged or proved; new case not pleaded. [1000146490024]
Tekri road: Long-standing project (1965-66) for bypass via Tekri village post police objection; piece-work agreements valid under rules; work within limits, no irregularity; no proof of respondent's 5 Feb 1967 meeting/bargain; witnesses disbelieved. [1000146490025][1000146490026][1000146490027][1000146490028][1000146490029][1000146490030][1000146490031][1000146490032][1000146490033][1000146490034]
Baluchistan Nallah: Scheme from Aug/Sep 1966 due to public safety/hygiene; urgency per municipal resolutions; work started in anticipation of sanction (Jan 1967); loan sanctioned Feb/Mar 1967; no proof of respondent's inducement; routine official noting. [1000146490035][1000146490036][1000146490037][1000146490038][1000146490039][1000146490040][1000146490041][1000146490042][1000146490043]
Water taps: No proof respondent influenced installation of 50 taps days before poll. [1000146490044]
Leaflet Ex 8-A: False statement on appellant's encroachment; not proved printed/distributed with respondent's/ agent's consent; separate Congress Committee activity; no oral defamation proved at alleged meetings. [1000146490045][1000146490046][1000146490047][1000146490048][1000146490049]
Respondent can support High Court decision on any ground, including adverse findings, per appeal procedure; court re-examined evidence. [1000146490050][1000146490051][1000146490052][1000146490053]
Heavy onus on petitioner for corrupt practice allegations (criminal nature); must prove strong case; no vague/frivolous grounds to set aside election. [1000146490054][1000146490055][1000146490056]
Bribery under Sec 123(1): Requires gift/offer/promise of gratification to induce vote; normal ministerial acts (e.g., grievance redressal per policy) not corrupt unless abuse of power for election bargain. [1000146490017][1000146490057]
No evidence of extraordinary acts or bargains; works addressed long-standing grievances via routine policy implementation, not to win votes. [1000146490058]
Appeal dismissed; parties bear own costs. [1000146490059] (!) (!)

Judgment

RAY, J. :- This appeal is against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court dated 10 May, 1968, dismissing the Election Petition filed by the appellant against the Respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia.

2. The election of Respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Udaipur City Assembly Constituency was challenged. The appellant contested the election on Jana Sangh ticket. The respondent contested on Congress ticket. The respondent was the Chief Minister of Rajasthan at the time of the election. Respondent No. 2 Mohan Lal also contested the election but obtained only 1262 votes. Respondents Narendra Singh Lakheri and Girdhari Lal Sharma Nos. 3 and 4 respectively submitted their nomination papers but withdrew them. For the purpose of this appeal we are concerned only with the respondent Mohan Lal Sukhadia.

3. The polling took place on 15 February,1967. The result was declared on 21 February, 1967. The respondent polled 24272 votes. The petitioner obtained 20841 votes. The respondent won by a margin of 3431 votes.

4. After the election the Congress Party was reduced to a minority. The respondent Sukhadia who was the Chief Minister tendered his resignation.

5. On 13 March, 1967, the President s Rule was declared in Rajasthan, which was withdrawn after a period of 44 days on 26 April, 1967. Thereafter the respondent Sukhadia again became the Chief Minister.

6. The election petition was filed on 7 April, 1967. The respondent Sukhadia filed an application praying that certain allegations in the petition were vague and lacking in particulars required by Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act and, therefore, the allegations should be struck off. The High Court ordered the Petitioner to file a detailed reply giving full particulars in respect of each matter. On 29 May, 1967, the appellant furnished particuliars. The High Court by orders dated 3/5/6 July, 1967 allowed the appellant to incorporate the said particulars in the amended petition and further allowed the appellant to furnish more particulars in respect of other allegations of corrupt practices. On 19 July, 1967, an amended Election Petition was filed incorporating the amendments allowed by the High Court. Thereafter written statements were filed and the parties filed applications under Rule 12 of the Election Rules for production of the documents. Issues were framed on 14 August, 1967. The appellant filed a finally amended petition on 13 November, 1967.

7. The appellant examined 30 witnesses and the respondent Sukhadia examined 46 witnesses.

8. The High Court decided all the issues in favour of the respondent Sukhadia and dismissed the Election Petition but left the respondent to bear his own cost.

9. In the present appeal we are concerned only with issues Nos. 3(a) and 4 (a). Issues Nos. 3 (a) and 4 (a) are as follows:-

3 (a) Are the allegations made in pragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Election Petition correct?

3 (b) If so, did the respondent No, 1 commit the corrupt practice specified in Section 123 (1) or Sec. 123 (2 ) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

4 (a) Are the allegations mentioned in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Election Petition correct?

4 (b) If so, did the Respondent No. 1 commit corrupt practice specified in Section 123 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

10. As to issue No. 3 based on Paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Election Petition, allegations of corrupt practice of bribery and undue influence concerned with the construction of certain works of general public utility to the inhabitants of Udaipur like the covering of Baluchistan Colony Nallah, construction of road at Tekri, installation of water-taps in Udaipur City and the grant of Pattas to the inhabitants of the Raigar Colony.

11. In the petition the appellant made 74 allegations. At the trial 55 allegations were given up. In the present appeal the appellant pressed allegations first about Pattas in Raigar colony; secondly about roads in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1971 Supreme(SC) 78

Cases Referred (3)