High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : M.C.JAIN
MOHAN - Appellant
Versus
BHAIRON SINGH SHEKHAWAT - Respondent
S. B. ELECTION PETN. 2 Of 1994
Decided On : 05/25/1994
ELECTION LAW - CORRUPT PRACTICES - INDUCEMENT BY DIVINE DISPLEASURE - APPEAL TO VOTERS ON GROUND OF RELIGION AND COMMUNITY - USE OF RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS - PROMOTING FEELINGS OF HATRED BETWEEN DIFFERENT CLASSES OF CITIZENS - MATERIAL FACTS AND PARTICULARS - AFFIDAVIT - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an election petition seeking to declare the election of the respondent as a Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly as void on the ground of corrupt practices. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had committed corrupt practices of inducement by direct interference with the free exercise of electoral rights, inducing the electors to believe that they would become the object of divine displeasure, by making appeal to the voters to vote on the ground of their religion and community and also used of and appeal to religious symbols which is a corrupt practice defined in Section 123 (3) of the Act and by promoting feelings of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community for the furtherance of the prospects of his election (respondent) or for prejudicially affecting the election of Shri Mitha Lai Jain, who was the main contesting candidate set up by the Indian National Congress, as defined in Sec. 123 (3a) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election petition did not disclose cause of action and it had been filed without a valid affidavit. The court held that the material facts and particulars of the alleged corrupt practices were not furnished and the petition did not disclose a cause of action which the returned candidate could under law be called upon to answer.
Issues: 1. Whether the election petition disclosed cause of action? 2. Whether the affidavit filed along with the election petition was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the election petition did not disclose cause of action as the material facts and particulars of the alleged corrupt practices were not furnished. 2. The court held that the affidavit filed along with the election petition was not valid as it did not comply with the mandatory requirements of Rule 25a and Form 25.
Final Decision: The election petition was rejected with costs.
M. C. JAIN, J.
( 1 ) THIS election petition has been filed by the petitioner (an elector) for declaring the election of the respondent (returned candidate) as a Member of the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from Bali constituency as void on the ground of corrupt practices. Paras Nos. 7 and 8 of the election petition contain averments regarding them.
( 2 ) PARA No. 7 runs as under:-"7. That the respondent Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat has committed corrupt practices of inducement by direct interference with the free exercise of their electoral rights inducing the electors to believe that they will become the object of divine displeasure within the meaning of Sec. 123 (2) of the Act, by making appeal to the voters to vote on the ground of their religion and community and also used of and appeal to religious symbols which is a corrupt practice defined in Section 123 (3) of the Act and by promoting feelings of hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion and community for the furtherance of the prospects of his election (respondent) or for prejudicially affecting the election of Shri Mitha Lai Jain, who was the main contesting candidate set up by the Indian National Congress, as defined in Sec. 123 (3a) of the Act. "
( 3 ) THE relevant portions of para No. 8 run as under: - "8. That the material facts and the particulars in support thereof and the grounds in respect of the corrupt practices mentioned in the foregoing para are set out in the ensuing paragraphs:- (a ). That Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat addressed several election meetings on 27-10-1993 from the forenoon up to the midnight while starting tile election campaign in the Constituency in question as detailed hereunder: in the aforesaid meetings the respondent on a public address system made an appeal in the name of Lord Ram, the main theme of which was the seeking votes in the name of Ram and also referred to the demolition of the structure of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya, for promoting hatred between different classes of India on the ground of religion and community for furtherance of the prospects of his lection. He also appealed to the voters by using religious symbol of Goddess Laxmi and also made an appeal to the voters to put their seal on Kamal because on the date of polling there was dhan Teras and Laxmi had originated from Kamal. xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx (d) In the Falna Speech, he incited the Hindus in the background of demolition of structure of Babri Masjid on 6-12-92 as also construction of the Ram Temple. The highlights and features of the aforesaid speech are quoted hereunder :-
( 4 ) THE relevant portion of the news-item referred to in the abovequoted sub-para (c) runs as under:-
( 5 ) IT has further been averred in the election petition that the speech of respondent containing the abovequoted offending part was recorded on a tape by Babu Lal son of Pukh Raj resident of Bali, and he procured the original tape from him (Babulal ). The original cassette and three extra copies have been filed along with the election petition. One copy has been given to the respondent along with a copy of the election petition.
( 6 ) ON 4/03/1994, the learned Counsel for the respondent moved an application under Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 7, Rule 11, C. P. C. read with Sections 83, 86 and 87, Representation of the People Act, 195-1 (hereinafter to be called the RP Act) praying that the averments contained in paras Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the election petition be struck out and the election petition be rejected and dismissed with costs. In support. of the. application, an affidavit of the respondent has been filed. In this application it has been averred in short, as follows. The election petition including Annexure 1 and the accompanying affidavit do not disclose any cause of action as it neither contains concise statement of material facts nor full particulars of 0the corrupt practices. The affidavit accompanying the election petition also does not
Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao v. E.V. alias Bala Saheb Vikhe Patil
Mohan Rawle v. Damodar Tatyaba
Narain Chand Paashar v. Prem Kumar Dhumal
Laxmi Narain Nayak v. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi
M. J. Zakharia v. T. M. Mohammed
U. S. Sasidharan v. K. Karunakaran
S.Harcharan Singh v. S. Sajjan Singh
Roop Lal Sethi v. Nachhattar Singh
Ebrahim Sulaiman Seth v. M. C. Mohammed
M. Kamalam v. Dr. V. A. Syed Mohammed
N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez
Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Pratap Singh Daulta
Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dhabi Ajit Kumar
Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh
Shubnath Deogam v. Ram Narain Prasad
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.