1. Election petition challenging election validity on grounds of corrupt practices under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 — issuance of notices under Section 99. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1991 Supreme(SC) 144
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N.Singh : Kuldip Singh : P.B.Sawant
Manohar Joshi: Chhagan Bhujbal
Versus
Damodar Tatyaba Alias Dadasaheb Rupwate
Case No. : 1044 of 1991
Date of Decision : 3/11/91
A notice under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, issued to a non-party, must specify the precise corrupt practice and the specific evidence relied upon, as the proceedings are quasi-criminal and can lead to serious disqualifications.
Headnote:(A) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Sections 82, 83, 97, 98, 99, 107, 123(3) and 123(3-A) - Constitution of India - Article 103 - Election Petition - Corrupt Practices - Notice under Section 99 - Requirement of specificity - A notice issued to a person who is not a party to an election petition, requiring them to show cause why they should not be named as having committed a corrupt practice, must be specific. It must apprise the person of the precise charge and the specific evidence relied upon. Merely citing the section numbers is insufficient as the sections enumerate various distinct corrupt practices. (Paras 13, 18, 21, 24)
(B) Nature of Proceedings - Proceedings pursuant to a notice under Section 99 of the Act are of a quasi-criminal nature, as the consequence of being named as guilty of a corrupt practice is serious, potentially leading to disqualification from being a member of Parliament or a State Legislature for up to six years. (Paras 20, 21)
(C) Equality of Opportunity - A person not party to the petition must be placed on the same footing as a party to the petition to ensure they have an adequate opportunity to meet the allegations. (Paras 13, 25)
Facts of the case:
An election petition was filed challenging the validity of an election to the House of the People on the grounds of corrupt practices. During the trial, the High Court issued notices to certain individuals who were not parties to the petition, directing them to show cause why they should not be named as collaborators in corrupt practices under the relevant sections of the Act. The notices were omnibus in nature, citing only the section numbers and annexing general records without specifying the particular charges or the evidence supporting those charges against each individual.
Findings of Court:
The impugned order and the notices issued pursuant to it were found to be vague and defective. The court held that the notices failed to spell out the precise corrupt practice each person was called upon to meet and did not indicate which portions of the evidence were being relied upon to sustain the charges.
Issues: Whether a notice issued under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, to a person not party to the petition, is legally valid if it merely cites the section numbers of the alleged corrupt practices without specifying the precise charges and the evidence relied upon.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that since the trial of an election petition on charges of corrupt practices is quasi-criminal and carries severe consequences, including disqualification, the person summoned must be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves. This requires a notice that specifies the exact corrupt practice and the precise oral or documentary evidence used against them, mirroring the detailed requirements for the election petition itself under Section 83.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to notices issued under Section 99 for being vague and failing to specify precise charges and supporting evidence. (Para 4 )
3. Proceedings under Section 99 are quasi-criminal due to disqualification consequences, requiring strict proof and precise notice of charges and evidence to ensure a fair defense. (Para 13 , 18 , 20 , 21 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Notices issued under Section 99 to non-parties must specify the precise corrupt practice alleged and the specific evidence relied upon to satisfy natural justice. (Para 21 , 24 )
5. Impugned order set aside; High Court directed to issue proper, specific notices to the appellants in accordance with the law. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. What is the legal nature of proceedings pursuant to a notice issued under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Such proceedings are of a quasi-criminal nature because a finding of guilt in a corrupt practice can lead to serious consequences, including disqualification from being a member of Parliament or a State Legislature for up to six years. (Para 19 , 20 )
7. What are the requirements for a notice issued under the proviso to Section 99(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
The notice must apprise the person of the precise charge and provide full particulars of the alleged corrupt practice, including the specific oral or documentary evidence relied upon, ensuring they have an adequate opportunity to meet the allegations. (Para 13 , 21 , 24 )
8. Is merely citing the section numbers of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, sufficient in a notice alleging corrupt practices?
No, because sections like 123(3) and 123(3-A) enumerate various distinct corrupt practices. A notice must specify which particular practice is alleged against the person to avoid being vague and defective. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 23 )
JUDGMENT
P.B.SAWANT, J.
(1) THESE two petitions arise out of a common order dated 29/10/1990 passed by the Bombay High court in Election Petition No. 5 of 1990 and raise a common question of law. Hence they are disposed of by this judgment.
(2) LEAVE is granted in both the petitions.
(3) THE election petition in which the impugned order is passed was filed by a defeated candidate (respondent 1 against the elected candidate (respondent 2 and other contesting candidates challenging the validity of the election of respondent 2 to the Lok Sabha from the Bombay South central Constituency in the election held on 24/11/1989. The election of respondent 2 is challenged in the petition, among other things, on the ground of corrupt practices under Ss. (2, (3 and (3-A) of S. 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It appears from the impugned order that the High court has reached a stage in the trial of the election petition where examination-in-chief and cross-examination of about 14 witnesses has been completed and various documents have been brought on record. It is at this stage that the impugned order has been made, the operative part of which reads as follows:
"IN this election petition, the petitioner seeks to set aside the election of respondent 1 on the ground of corrupt practice under S. 123(3 and 123(3-A) of the said Act. The petitioner has led documentary and oral evidence. Respondent 1 has tendered documents but has led no oral evidence. The other respondents have remained absent even though served. Petitioner and respondent 1 have argued their respective cases. The learned Advocate General has also drawn my attention to S. 99 of the said Act which requires this court, whilst giving a finding that corrupt practice has been proved, to name all persons who have been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice and the nature of that practice. This however must be after having given to such person/s notice to appear and show cause why he/they should not be so named.
AT this stage, I am of the prima facie opinion that the charges alleged in the petition of corrupt practices under S. 123(3 and 123(3-A) of the said Act have been proved to have been committed and that Mr Bal Thackeray, Mr Chhagan Bhujbal and Mr Manohar Joshi are (to use the words of Supreme court) collaborators in such corrupt practice.
ACCORDINGLY, 1 direct that notices under S. 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, shall be given to Mr Bal Thackeray, Mr Chhagan Bhujbal and Mr Manohar Joshi to appear before me on 3/12/1990, to show cause why they should not be so named in the order on the election petition.
EACH notice shall state that the person named in the notice shall have an opportunity of cross-examining all witnesses who have given evidence against him and that he shall have a right of calling evidence and of being heard.
I direct that to all the notices shall be annexed photo copies of:
(A) the petition, the written statement of respondent I, and the issues.
(B) the oral depositions of the petitioners witnesses.
(C) all exhibits, except Exs. RR, SS to YY, AAA, AAA1, AAAA, BBBB, BBBB1 and Exs. 1 to 8.
(D) this order.
I also direct that along with all the notices shall be sent audio cassettes containing copies of Exs. SS to YY."
Aggrieved by this order, two of the persons named therein, viz., Manohar Joshi and Chhagan Bhujbal have approached this court by way of these two separate appeals by special leave.
(4) THE order is assailed on the ground that although it directs the issuance of notice to the appellants to answer allegations of corrupt practices allegedly committed by them, it is vague and does not indicate which of the corrupt practices they are alleged to have committed and which evidence on record supports them. In the absence of the specific charge/s and the evidence in support of it/them indicated in th
