The publication of false statements of fact relating to the personal character or conduct of a candidate constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if the publication is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.

Headnote:
ELECTION LAW - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTION 123(4) - CORRUPT PRACTICE - PUBLICATION OF FALSE STATEMENTS RELATING TO PERSONAL CHARACTER OR CONDUCT OF CANDIDATE - INTERPRETATION OF "REASONABLY CALCULATED TO PREJUDICE THE PROSPECTS OF THAT CANDIDATE'S ELECTION" - RELEVANCE OF INTENTION OF PUBLISHER, CIRCUMSTANCES OF PUBLICATION, AND IMPACT ON VOTERS.
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a candidate in the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly Election, challenged the election of the first respondent, alleging corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant claimed that the first respondent, who was the publisher of a weekly newspaper, had published false statements of fact relating to the appellant's personal character and conduct during the election period, thereby committing corrupt practices. The Election Tribunal dismissed the appellant's petition, and the appellant appealed to the High Court.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the appellant had established that the first respondent had published two false statements of fact relating to the appellant's personal character and conduct. However, the Court held that the appellant had failed to prove that these false statements were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election. The Court considered the relevant circumstances, including the proximity of the date of publication to the date of election, the nature of the allegations, and the reaction of the appellant and his election agent to the publications. The Court found that there was a considerable lapse of time between the date of publication and the date of election, and that the appellant and his election agent had not published any contradictions or taken any steps to counter the publications. The Court concluded that it was unlikely that the publications had left any effect on the minds of the voters influencing them at the time when they went to the poll.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of false statements of fact relating to the personal character or conduct of a candidate constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 2. What is the meaning of "reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election" in Section 123(4) of the Act? 3. What factors are relevant in determining whether a publication is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of a candidate's election?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The publication of false statements of fact relating to the personal character or conduct of a candidate constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if the publication is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. 2. The meaning of "reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election" in Section 123(4) of the Act is that the publication must be such that its natural and probable consequences would be to prejudice the minds of the voters against the candidate relating to whose personal character or conduct the publication has been made. 3. The relevant factors in determining whether a publication is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of a candidate's election include the proximity of the date of publication to the date of election, the nature of the allegations, the reaction of the candidate and his election agent to the publications, and the impact of the publication on the minds of the voters at the time of casting their votes.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that the false statements published by the first respondent were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the appellant's election.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). In the Genera! Election of Members to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from the Alibag Constituency of the Kolaba District, the appellant-petitioner D. N. Patil, the first respondent, D. K Khanvilkar, and the second and third respondents were the contesting candidates. The appellant who belongs to the Peasants and Workers Parly was a candidate in the said Election on behalf of the Sarnyukta Maharash-tra Samiti; the first respondent was a candidate on behalf of the Congress Party; respondent No. 2 was a candidate put up by. the Praja Socialist Party, and the third respondent was a candidate put up by the Bharatiya Jan Singh. The candidature of the appellant and the Erst respondent was announced sometime in August 1961; the polling took place on 22nd February, 1962, and the results were declared on 28th February, 1962. The first respondent was declared elected at the Election as a result, of the counting of votes. The votes secured by the respective candidate were as follows;

1). Petitioner (Appellant) .. 13,494

2). Respondent No 1 .. 18,762

3) Respondent No. 2 .. 2,651

4). Respondent No. 3 .. 1,586.

After the declaration of the result, the result has been duly declared In the Maharashtra Govern ment Gazette.

2. On 4th July, 1962. the petitioner-appellant filed an Election Petition, challenging the election of the first tespondenl on various grounds, inter alia, on the ground that the first respondent, who was the Publisher Printer and Editor of 3 Weekly Newspaper "Nirdhar", had during the election period, published articles, editorials and news items containing false statements of fact relating to the personal character and conduct of the petitioner, and thereby committed corrupt practices within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Act, The particulars of the alleged false statements were given by the petitioner in Schedule A of the Election Petition. The relief claimed by the petitioner in the Election Petition was two-fold. Firstly, he prayed that the election of the first respondent be declared void and the second relief claimed by him was that the petitioner may be declared to have been elected. The petitioner having prayed that he be declared elected, the first respondent being entitled under the provisions of Section 97 of the Act to file recrimination had also filed recrimination against the petitioner, alleging therein various corrupt practices committed by the petitioner. The Election Tribunal held that the corrupt practices alleged either by the petitioner or by the first res-pondent were not proved. As regards the other allegations contained in the petition also the Tribunal held that they were not proved. In the result the Tribunal dismissed the Election Petition as welt as the Recrimination Application. The petitioner has appealed against the judgment of the Election Tribunal dismissing his election petition. The first respondent has also filed cross objections challenging the rejection of his Recrimination Application by the Tribunal.

3. Though various grounds have been raised in the appeal, Mr. Kamerkar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-petitioner to the Election Petition, has only pressed the appellants contentions in respect of the corrupt practices alleged to have been committed by the first respondent by certain publications. The other grounds have not been pressed by Mr. Kamerkar before us. Mr. Kotwal, learned counsel for the first respondent, has not pressed the cross-object ions filed by the first respondent. No arguments have been advance-ed before us by Counsel appearing for the second respondent. He has only stated that the second respondent supports the arguments of Mr. Kamer-kar. The third respondent did not put in appearance, In this appeal, we are concerned only with certain publications in the issues of "Nirdhar" of 29th September, 1961, 17

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis