Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shambhu Prasad Singh and Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha JJ.
Ambika Saran Singh
Versus
Election Commission Of India
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1995 of 1970 ;
Decided On : FEBRUARY 07, 1972
ELECTION LAW - DISQUALIFICATION - CORRUPT PRACTICES - CONSENT OF CANDIDATE - ORDER UNDER SECTION 99 OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - NECESSITY - PERIOD OF DISQUALIFICATION - COMMENCEMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner contested an assembly election and was declared elected. An election petition was filed challenging his election on various grounds, including commission of corrupt practices by the petitioner, his agents, and supporters. The High Court allowed the petition, declared the petitioner's election void, and accepted evidence of bribery to Harijan voters, caste appeal, and assistance from government servants. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal but did not go into the question of bribery or the petitioner's involvement in securing the services of a probationary Deputy Magistrate. The Election Commission issued a letter disqualifying the petitioner for six years from being chosen as a member of Parliament or a state legislature or from voting in any election under Sections 8A and 11A(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner filed a petition before the Election Commission for withdrawal and cancellation of the letter, which was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the Election Commission's order.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the petitioner was disqualified under Sections 8A and 11A(b) of the Act because there was an order under Section 99 of the Act recording a finding that he had committed a corrupt practice with his implied consent. The court rejected the petitioner's contention that a specific order under Section 99 expressly stating that he be disqualified was necessary in cases of implied consent. The court also held that the period of disqualification of six years should run from the date of the High Court's judgment, not from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment, as the order under Section 99 takes effect from the date it is passed by the High Court.
Issues: 1. Whether a specific order under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, expressly stating that the candidate be disqualified is necessary in cases where the corrupt practice is committed with the implied consent of the candidate. 2. Whether the period of disqualification under Sections 8A and 11A(b) of the Act should run from the date of the High Court's judgment or from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 99(1)(a)(i) of the Act requires the High Court to record a finding whether any corrupt practice has been proved to have been committed at the election and the nature of the corrupt practice. This includes a finding on whether the corrupt practice was committed by the candidate himself, his election agent, or by others with or without the consent of the candidate or his election agent. 2. Section 100(1)(b) of the Act provides that an election can be declared void if a corrupt practice is committed by any person with the consent of the candidate. 3. Therefore, if an election is set aside on the ground of corrupt practice committed with the implied consent of the candidate, that amounts to an order under Section 99 of the Act, and the consequences under Sections 8A and 11A(b) of the Act and Section 16 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, follow. 4. The period of disqualification under Sections 8A and 11A(b) of the Act starts running from the date of the order under Section 99, which is the date the High Court passes the order.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition in part, directing the Election Commission to correct the letter disqualifying the petitioner by substituting the words "High Court" for the words "Supreme Court." The court refused to cancel the entire letter or quash the Election Commission's order.
Shambhu Prasad Singh, J.
1. The petitioner contested the Barbara Assembly Constituency No. 213 of the Bihar State Legislative Assembly in the general Election held on the 15th February, 1967, and was declared elected. One of the candidates, Mahadevanand Girl, who was added as respondent No. 2 to the present application at his own instance (Vide order No. 7 dated the 9th of August, 1971), filed an election petition before this Court challenging the election of the petitioner on various grounds including commission of certain corrupt practices by the petitioner, his agents and supporters. The case was numbered as election petition 3 of 1967. It was allowed by judgment dated the 27th of June, 1968, and the election of the petitioner was declared illegal and void. This Court accepted the evidence led on behalf of Mahadevanand Giri (i) that the petitioner, his election agent as well as other agents bribed Harijan voters, (ii) that the petitioner and his agents secured votes on basis of caste appeal and (iii) that Bhu-pendra Narain Singh, Sheo Bachan Singh and R. S. Prasad of the State Commercial Taxes Department extended their helping hand to the petitioner and with his knowledge and consent canvassed for votes for him and tried to raise money for election fund and another Government servant Muni Lal, a probationary Deputy Magistrate, also assisted the petitioner at his (petitioners) instance. The petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. It was numbered as Civil Appeal 1516 of 1968 and was dismissed by judgment dated 2nd of February, 1969. The Supreme Court did not go into the question of bribery to the Harijan voters. It also did not accept the case of Mahadevanand Giri, that was the petitioner obtained or procured the services of Muni Lal in his election campaign. It accepted the finding of this Court in respect of Bhupendra Singh, Sheo Bachan Singh and R. S. Prasad. Dealing with the question of securing votes on the basis or caste appeal, it observed and found as follows:-
-
"But, even if we were to eliminate the witnesses who according to Mr. Verma would fall into his two categories they would number 84 and there would still remain 37 out of 71 witnesses, whose evidence would have to be considered untainted and unblemished and against which the appellant could not assign any reason for rejection. The evidence of those 37 witnesses can legitimately be said to corroborate the evidence of those 34 witnesses even if we were to treat them as interested witnesses. The result then is that if the High Court accepted that evidence as satisfactory and came to its finding, there would hardly be any justification for interfering with it. That evidence shows that the campaign on the basis of caste was carried on at numerous places, at some places by appellant himself and at some places by others in his presence and at others by several workers of the appellant including his election agent. It is impossible to think that the appellant was not aware of it and yet there was not even a whisper in his evidence or in that of any of his witnesses that he either disowned it or endeavoured to prevent it. The conclusion, therefore, is inevitable that it was done with his consent direct or implicit. The High Court consequently was right in its conclusion that the appellant was proved to have committed the corrupt practice falling under Sec.123 (3)."
2. After the judgment of the Supreme Court, the Election Commission of India, respondent No. 1 to the present application, on 3rd of March, 1969, issued letter Election Commission No. 116/Br/69 bringing to the notice of the Chief Electoral officers of all States and Union Territories that the petitioner had incurred disqualifications for being chosen as a Member of either Houses of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or legislative Council of a State and for voting at any election under Sections 8A and 11A (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter) referred to as "the Ac
AI
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
