Judgement

KANIA, J. :- These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the election of respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency in the 8th General Election to the House of the People. The points raised in these appeals are common and so are the relevant facts; and, hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. We propose to take note of only the few facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the controversy before us.

2. The polling date for the said election along with other parliamentary elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh was December 27,1984 but in Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency the polling was countermanded and the date of polling was later fixed on January 28, 1985. In both the Election Petitions the election of respondent No. 1 was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri N. T. Rama Rao, the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as the President of the Telugu Desam Party as well as respondent No. 1 gave certain speeches and certain advertisements were got published by Shri N. T. Rama Rao through the Publicity Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are alleged to-amount to a corrupt practice within the" meaning of the said term in S. 123(l)(A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The main question canvassed before us is whether the statements contained in these aforesaid advertisements amount to a corrupt practice under S. 123(l)(A)(b) of the said Act. Section 123(l)(A)(b) of the said Act runs as follows:

123. Corrupt practices -

The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:

(1)Bribery, that is to say

(A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of inducing

(a) xx xx xx xx

(b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election, or as a reward to

(i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting."

3. The advertisements very shortly stated, refer to the auspicious gifts made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the. poor people on the eve of New Year and Sankranti. In the said advertisements, it is stated that the said Government which was formed by the Telugu Desam Party was giving to the poor people whose income was below Rs. 6,000 per year, a kilo of rice at Rs. 2 per Kg. and the said advertisements referred to a new scheme of selling sarees and dhoties at half prices to the poor people in the State of Andhra Pradesh having Green-cards. Green-cards were directed to be issued to all the persons whose annual income was below Rs. 6,000. The supply of the rice at subsidised rates as aforesaid was also to be made to the Green-card holders only. The scheme to sell sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates was to be operative from January 26, 1995 to March 31, 1985.

4. In considering the question whether the said advertisement and the said speeches amount to a corrupt practice, we are of the view that the provisions of S. 123 of the said Act which deal with corrupt practices have to be interpreted, keeping in mind that dictates of commonsense require that they never could have been intended to treat normal election promises made in election manifestoes or usual election speeches by members of various political parties aspiring to power and by different candidates aspiring to get elected to legislative bodies concerned as corrupt practices. We are of the view that these advertisements and speeches amount to nothing more than statements extolling the achievements of the Government of the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Telugu