1974 Supreme(SC) 308

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. BHAGWATI AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Kanwar Lal Gupta, Appellant
Versus
Amarnath Chawla and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1549 of 1972, D/- 3 -10 - 1974.

Headnote:applicability of the provisions as contained in the explanation and section 77(1) - Chart of public meetings - authorisation may be express or implied - “Expenditure incurred or authorised by him” — arrangement of public meeting addressed by the prime minister - Printing charges - Expenses incurred by the political party sponsoring the candidate - Money is bound to play an important part in the successful prosecution of an election campaign - Object of the provision limiting the expenditure - Influence of political party in elections

       

       –It is quite possible that even if this public meeting was organised by the political party for the purpose of general party propaganda, the first respondent would make efforts to persuade persons within the area of his consituency to attend this public meeting as that would indirectly help in his election campaign. But on that account alone, as held in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amarnath Chawla, AIR 1975 SC 308, without any positive evidence pointing in that direction, no responsibility for incurring or authorising expenditure in connection with such public meeting could be fastened on the first respondent.

       

       –If one political party or individual has larger resources available to it than another individual or political party, the former would certainly, under the present system of conducting elections, have an advantage over the latter in the electoral process. The former would have a significantly greater opportunity for the propagation of its programme while the latter may not be able to make even an effective presentation of its views. The availability of disproportionately larger resources is also likely to lend itself to misuse or abuse for securing to the political party or individual possessed of such resources, undue advantage over other political parties or individuals. This produces anti-democratic effects in that a political party or individual backed by the affluent and wealthy would be able to secure a greater representation than a political party or individual who is without any links with affluence or wealth. This would result in serious discrimination between one political party or individual and another on the basis of money power and that in its turn would mean that some voters are denied an equal voice and some candidates are denied equal chance, as obsereved in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amarnath Chawla, AIR 1975 SC 308. In the case of Ram Dayal v. Brijraj Singh, AIR 1970 SC 110 = (1970) 1 SCR 530, the question arose as to whether certain expenditure incurred by the Maharaja of Gwalior and the Rajmata in connection with the election of the respondent, was liable to be included in his election expenses. It was held that in the absence of any connection between the canvassing activities carried on by the Maharaja and the Rajmata with the candidature of the respondent it is impossible to hold that any expenditure was incurred for the respondent which was liable to be included in his election expenses. In the case of Magraj Patodia v. R.K. Birla, AIR 1971 SC 1295 = 1971 2 SCR 118, it was held that the expenses incurred by a political party to advance the prospects of the candidates put up by it, without more, do not fall with Section 77. The same view was taken in B. Rajagopala Rao v. N.G. Ranga, AIR 1971 SC 267. The question, therefore, in cases of this kind always is whether there is something more which may legitimately give rise to an inference of implied authorisation by the candidate. What could be some thing more, though by its nature it is not possible to lay down the exhaustive enumeration of circumstances in which something more can be inferred, but this aspect was elaborately discussed in Kanwarlal Gupta’s case (supra). See also the decision in Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299, wherein the decision in AIR 1975 SC 308 (supra) was held to be no longer good law. As held in case of Mrs. Indira Nehru Gandhi, expenditure incurred by a political party is not a part of the election expenses of the candidate.

       

       –In the first place, it should be open to any individual or any political party, however, small to be able to contest an election on a footing of equality with any other individual or political party, howsoever rich and well financed it may be, and no individual or political party shall be able to secure an advantage over others by reason of its superior financial strength. The other objective is to eliminate, as far as possible the influence of bigmoney in the electoral process, as held in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amarnath Chawla, AIR 1971 SC 308.