Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, A. VARADARAJAN AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.**
Ram Singh and others, Appellants
Versus
Col. Ram Singh, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 6623 of 1983
Decided on 7-8-1985.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Gopi Chand, Mr. K. C. Sharma, Mr. R. Karanjawala, Mrs. M. Karanjawala, Miss, Neethu and Mrs. Madhu Tewatia, with him for Appellants; Mr. K. G. Bhagat, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. R. Venkataramani, Mr. Ranbir Singh Yadav, Mr. P. S. Pradhan, Mr. Chandrashekhar Panda and Mr. A. Mariaroutham Advocates with him, for Respondent.
-in the election petition it is alleged in relation to the incident at the Burthal Jat Polling Station that Anil Kumar and Satbir Singh are the relatives of the respondent. There is no denial much less any specific denial of this allegation in the written statement of the respondent though it is a material fact which ought to have been denied specifically if it was not admitted. Therefore under Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code, which applies to proceedings in election petitions it must be deemed to have been admitted by the respondent
– if two views are reasonably possible – one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him – Courts should not interfere with the electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the winning candidate would uphold his election giving him benefit of the doubt. This is more so when allegation of fraud or undue influence are made, as held in the case of Ram Singh v. Col Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3.
– as held in the case of Ram Singh v. Col Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3, the law does not recognise either political morality or personal loyalties so long as the candidate allows a fair game to be played without destroying the sanctity of the electoral process by indulging in undue influence or corrupt practices which must be proved satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the elected candidate cannot be blamed if he changed sides to suit the temper of times and this does not amount to corrupt practice.
– see decision in the case of Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3 Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez, AIR 1969 SC 1201.
Hiring or procuring of vehicle for carrying voters
– in the case of Shri Umed v. Raj Singh, AIR 1975 SC 43, which is riddled with suspect evidence, one has to be very careful in taking the truck drivers at their word because of truck driver actually working for some other candidate or at the instance of somebody else, may with least risk of exposure substitute a candidate’s name for the other, especially when no documentary evidence of hiring the truck is possible to expect in such a case. The charges of corrupt practice are quasi-criminal in nature and, therefore; the approach to the evidence of the truck drivers must be characterized by great caution. In this case it was proved that there was hiring of the truck for conveying electors free of charge.
– as held in the case of Ram Singh v. Col Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3, the law does not recognise either political morality or personal loyalities so long as the candidate allows a fair game to be played without destroying the sanctity of the electoral process by indulging in undue influence or corrupt practices which must be proved satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court held that the elected candidate cannot be blamed if he changed sides to suit the temper of times and this does not amount to corrupt practice.
– clear and specific allegations with facts and figures regarding the corrupt practices indulged in by the respondent, were found not to have been alleged in the first part of the election petition itself, as in the case of Ram Singh v. Col Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3. The allegations, however, have been detailed in the statement of particulars submitted by the appellants who are certainly entitled to do so, but it was expected that some definitive and specific allegations regarding the nature of the fraud or the corrupt practices committed by the respondent as briefly as possible in the main part of the petition itself. Therefore, this is doubtless a relevant factor in judging the truth of the particulars mentioned in the statement more particularly when the onus of proving the corrupt practice lies entirely on the election petition who must demonstrably prove the same.
– Where the supporters of the candidate or his polling agent indulge in a corrupt practice on their own without having been authorised by the candidate of his polling agent, the election of the returned candidate cannot be voided, as held in Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh, AIR 1986 SC 3.
JUDGMENT
FAZAL ALI, J. (Majority view): — The election process in our country has become an extremely complex and complicated system and indeed a very difficult and delicate affair. Sometimes, the election-petitioner, who has lost the election from a particular constituency, makes out on the surface such a probable feature and presents falsehood dexterously dressed in such a fashion as the truth being buried somewhere deep into the roots of the case so as to be invisible, looks like falsehood which is depicted in the garb of an attractive, imposing and charming dress as a result of which some courts are prone to fall into the trap and hold as true what is downright false. If, however, the lid is carefully opened, and the Veil is lifted, the face of falsehood disappears and truth comes out victorious.
2. In such cases the judicial process and the judicial approach has to be both pragmatic and progressive so that the deepest possible probe is made to get at the real truth out of a heap of dust and cloud. This is indeed a herculean task and unless the court is extremely careful and vigilant, the truth may be so completely camouflaged that falsehood may look like real truth.
3. Of course, the advocacy of the counsel for the parties does play a very important role in unveiling the truth and in borderline cases the courts have to undertake the onerous task of, "disengaging the truth from falsehood, to separate the chaff from the grain". In our opinion, all said and done, If two views are reasonably possible - one in favour of the elected candidate and the other against him - courts should not interfere with the expensive electoral process and instead of setting at naught the election of the winning candidate should uphold his election giving him benefit of the doubt. This is more so where allegations of fraud or undue influence are made.
4. These observations have been made by us in order to decide election cases with the greatest amount of , care and caution, consideration and circumspection because if one false step is taken, it may cause havoc to the person who loses.
5. It is not necessary for us to dwell on or narrate the facts of the case of the parties which have been detailed by the High Court in very clear and unambiguous terms. To repeat the same all over again might frustrate the very object of deciding election petitions with utmost expedition. Even so, it may be necessary for us to give a birds eye view and a grotesque picture of the important and dominant elements of the controversy between the parties in order to understand which of the two cases presented before us is true.
6. The evidence in the present case consists of -
a) oral evidence of the witnesses of the parties
b) the documentary evidence
c) the evidence consisting of the tape recorded statements of the conversation between the Deputy Commissioner and the respondent, Col. Ram Singh, corroborated by the respondent himself who was examined as a court witness by us in this Court and both sides were given full opportunity to cross-examine him.
d) important points of law arising out of the arguments presented before us, and
e) authorities of this Court or other courts cited before us.
7. For the purpose of understanding the truth and the spirit of the matter a scientific dichotomy of the case has to be made which may include the following factors:
a) Time and manner of voting
b) allegation of booth capturing,
c) role played by the electoral authorities who may have acted honestly yet the possibility of their falling an easy prey to the machinations of one side or the other cannot be safely eliminated which may lead to an error of judgment on their part. This should be fully guarded against as also the possibility of their being attracted by any false temptation,
d) where the proof of a corrupt practice is the very cornerstone and the bedrock of the case set against the successful candidate, the court should be doubly sure that it is not lured to fall in the labyrinth of chaos
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
