SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Raj) 246

High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : V.S. Kokje
Mohammad Yusuf - Appellant
Versus
Bhairon Singh Shekhawat - Respondent
Election Petition No. 1 of 1994
Decided On : 04/18/1995

Advocates Appeared:
M.C. Bhoot, M.S. Singhvi, Ranveer Singh and P.C. Sharma, for the Appellant
Mohd. Yusuf , L.R. Mehta and Arun Bhansali, for the Respondents

The election petition and the affidavit accompanying it must comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Headnote:

ELECTION PETITION - Striking out pleadings and rejection of petition - Non-compliance with provisions of Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Whether election petition discloses any cause of action - Whether affidavit accompanying the election petition contains full particulars in support of the allegations of corrupt practices - Whether affidavit is defective.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, Bhairon Singh Shekhawat, was elected to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Bali constituency in the 1993 elections. The original petitioner, Mitha Lal Jain, challenged the election on the grounds of corrupt practices under Sections 123(2), 123(3), and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent filed an application to strike out the pleadings and reject the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the election petition did not contain a concise statement of the material facts nor did it set forth full particulars of the corrupt practices alleged against the respondent. The court also found that the affidavit accompanying the election petition did not contain the full particulars in support of the allegations of the corrupt practices and was therefore defective.

Issues: 1. Whether the election petition discloses any cause of action? 2. Whether the affidavit accompanying the election petition contains full particulars in support of the allegations of corrupt practices? 3. Whether the affidavit is defective?

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mandatory provisions of Section 83(1)(a) and (b) of the Act were not complied with. The court also held that the affidavit accompanying the election petition did not contain the full particulars in support of the allegations of the corrupt practices and was therefore defective.

Final Decision: The court allowed the respondent's application and struck out the pleadings and rejected the election petition.

Judgment

V.S. Kokje, J.-This is the respondent’s application in an election petition for striking out pleadings and rejection of the petition for non-compliance with the provisions of Section 83(1)(a) & (b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short ‘the Act’ hereinafter). The application has been moved under Order Vi Rule 16 and Order VII Rule 11 of the code of civil Procedure read with Sections 83, 86 and 87 of the Act.

2. It would be necessary to state basic facts before dealing with the application.

3. Thepetition relates to the respondent’s election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Bali constituency (No. 166). October 19, 1993 was the last date for filing nominations, October 20, 1993 was the

date fixed for scrutiny of nominations, October 22, 1993 was the last date for withdrawal of candidature, November 11, 1993 was the date of polling and November 27, 1993 was the date on which the counting was to commence. The original petitioner Mitha Lal Jain was the candidate set up by the Indian National congress whereas the respondent was the candidate set up by the Bhartiya Janta Party. The respondent was declared elected at the election and Mitha Lal Jain, the original petitioner challenged the election by filing the election petition on January 12, 1994.

4. The election of the respondent was challenged on the grounds enumeraled in Section 100(i)(b) of the Act. To appreciate the controversy, it could be necessary to reproduce paragraph - 7 of the petition as also its verification PARA-7 (a) : that on 27th October, 1993 in a largely attended election meeting held in the afternoon in village Beda, which is situated in the constituency in question, the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat (on a public address system) made an appeal in the name of Lord Ram for seeking votes and also referred to the demolition of the structure of Babari Masjid and construction of the Ram Tample in the context of promotion of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community. The offending statement/appeal constitutes corrupt practice of undue influence within the meaning of Section 123(2), appeal on the ground of religion and caste and use of religious symbol under Section 123(3) and relating to promotion of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community under Section 123 (3A) of the Act:


(b) that in the latter part of this speech the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat made an appeal to the electors to cast their votes for the furtherance of the prospects of his election on the ground of his religion (Hindu religion) and also made an appeal to the religious symbol of Goddess Laxmi seated on a lotus (Kamal Ka Phool) who is worshipped by every Hindu and particularly on the eve of ‘Dhan Teras’ and the lotus being the symbol allotted to BJP which constitutes a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the Act. The aforesaid speech is quoted as under:

ÞlHkk ds v/;{k egksn;]

mifLFkfr HkkbZ;ksa vkSj cguksa]

vki yksxksa us lkQk cU/kkdj esjk lEeku fd;k gS lkQk rks eSus cka/k fy;k ysfdu esjs lkeus ;s leL;k gS fd bl lkQs dks eSa ysdj tkÅa ;k bl lkQs dks ;gha NksM+ tkÅa D;dh lkQk cU/kkus ls lEeku ugha gksrk ¼vLi"V½ lkQss ds lkFk gh vkidks ftl dke ds fy;s eSa vk;k g¡w mldk lEeku djuk gksxk vc vki QSlyk dj ys vks fd lEeku djuk pkgrs gks rc rks eSa bldksa ys tkÅa vkSj lEeku ugha djuk pkgrs gks rks eSa ;gha NksM tkm ¼ rkfy;kas dh vkokt½] rks ,d ckj lc gkFk mBkdj dgksa fd ge lcdk lEeku djsaxs vc ;s esjk lEeku ugha gS] ;s rks vki dksbZ HkS:flag dk lEeku lEeku djas dh ckr ugha gS] eSa ftl dke ds fy, fudyk g¡w oks dke D;k gS\ vHkh ukjk yxk jgs Fks t; Jh jke t; Jh jke ge dks ;kn gksxk fd vaxsztksa dk tc jkt Fkk vkSj fgUnwLrku esa egkRek xka/kh us ukjk yxk;k Fkk oUnsekrjeA oUnsekrjeA dk tc ukjk yxrk Fkk rks lnhZ esa HKh vxsztksa ds ilhus vkrs Fks vkSj oks oUns ekrje dk ukjk yxkrs yxkrs fgUnwLrku ls vaxsztks dks fudky fn;kA vkt f






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top