Application to set aside election on the ground of illegal acceptance of nomination paper.

This appeal arises out of a petition filed by the appellant before us, before the Election Commission of India in connection with the election of two members to the Madras Legislative Assembly from the Kallakurichi Constituency. Of the two seats one was a general seat and the other a seat reserved for the scheduled castes. There were seven candidates out of whom the first respondent who had stood for the general seat was declared elected to it, having obtained the largest number of votes. The second respondent who stood for the reserved seat got the highest number of votes among the candidates who competed for the reserved seat and was also declared elected. The appellant obtained less votes than the first respondent. He stood for the general seat and the only ground with which we are now concerned in the appeal which seeks to set aside the election of the first respondent to that seat is that he was guilty of a corrupt practice which is set out in paragraph 12 of the petition to the Election Commission. The petitioner appellant before us attacked the validity of the election of the second respondent to the reserved seat on the ground that he was not a member of one of the scheduled castes, and, in any event, because, his nomination paper was improperly accepted though it did not comply with the requirements of the concerned rules. The specific requirement relied upon was that the candidate should declare himself as belonging to one of the castes included in the list of scheduled castes as promulgated by the President under Article 341 of the Constitution. The appellant alleged that there was no valid declaration by the second respondent that he belonged to one of such scheduled castes as he only described himself to be a Hindu Harijan. He therefore prayed that the election of respondents 1 and 2 be declared void, and that, he the appellant, may be declared elected to fill the general seat and the third respondent elected to fill the seat reserved for scheduled castes.

The Election Tribunal, namely, the District Judge of East Tanjore, held that the corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner-appellant to have been committed by the first respondent had not been proved. As that was the only ground on which the election of the first respondent was challenged the petition was dismissed so far as the first respondent was concerned. The Tribunal held that though there was a defect in the declaration made by the second respondent as to his caste, it was only a technical defect and not one of a substantial character, entitling the rejection of the nomination paper. On these findings the Tribunal dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal.

K.S. Champakesa Ayyangar, learned counsel for the appellant, once more pressed upon us both these grounds in respect of respondents 1 and 2. Taking first the case of the first respondent, the only question is whether the appellant can be said to have conclusively proved that the first respondent was guilty of the corrupt practice alleged in the petition. The evidence adduced by the appellant to prove the charges made against the first respondent was entirely oral. Several witnesses were examined who deposed that refreshments were given to voters either by the first respondent or by those who were working for him. The Tribunal has carefully examined the evidence of these witnesses. He had the advantage of watching them when they were giving evidence. It is very easy to procure evidence of the sort that was relied upon by the appellant without any certain means of testing its veracity. As the tribunal has pointed out, all the witnesses for the petitioner-appellant were not wholly disinterested witnesses. We have been taken through their evidence and we agree with the Tribunal that there is an artificiality about it. They all give more or less an identical version which, by its very uniformity, gives room for the suspicion that the witnesses were all deposing to a set story which they were