Back
Allahbad High Court
B.N.LOKUR
Brahma Dutt - Appellant
Versus
Paripurna Nand Family - Respondent
Decided On : 02/14/1972
ELECTION LAW - CORRUPT PRACTICE - PUBLICATION OF ARTICLES IN NEWSPAPER - WHETHER CONSTITUTES CORRUPT PRACTICE - REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951 - SECTIONS 123(3), 123(3A) AND 123(4).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the election of respondent No.1 on the grounds of corrupt practices under Sections 123(3), 123(3A) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner alleged that respondent No.1, who was the proprietor and publisher of a newspaper called 'Himani', had published three articles in the newspaper which contained an appeal to the Rajput voters of the constituency to refrain from voting for respondent No.2 on the ground of his caste and community, and that these articles promoted or attempted to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between the Rajput community to which respondent No.2 belonged and the Rajputs in general. The petitioner also alleged that respondent No.1 had published a news item in the newspaper stating that one of the contesting candidates had withdrawn from the contest, which was false and was reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the three articles published in the newspaper did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) or Section 123(3A) of the Act, as they did not contain an appeal to vote for respondent No.1 or refrain from voting for respondent No.2 on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language, and did not promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language. The court also held that the publication of the news item stating that one of the contesting candidates had withdrawn from the contest did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act, as the statement was not false and was not reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
Issues: 1. Whether the publication of the three articles in the newspaper constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) or Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? 2. Whether the publication of the news item stating that one of the contesting candidates had withdrawn from the contest constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the three articles published in the newspaper did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) or Section 123(3A) of the Act, as they did not contain an appeal to vote for respondent No.1 or refrain from voting for respondent No.2 on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language, and did not promote or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the grounds of religion, race, caste, community or language. 2. The court held that the publication of the news item stating that one of the contesting candidates had withdrawn from the contest did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act, as the statement was not false and was not reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and held that the petitioner was not entitled to any of the declarations sought.
2. It may be mentioned that respondent No.1 is the proprietor of the newspaper Himani, published at Dehra Dun, which is outside the Constituency, and respondent No.2 is the Ruler of Tehri.
3. The petition is resisted by respondent No.1, while respondent No.2 as supported the petition. Respondents Nos.3 to 6 remained absent though duly served and were proceeded against ex parte.
4. The calendar of election for the Constituency was as follows:-
3rd February, 1971 : Last date of nominations.
5th February, 1971 : Date of scrutiny of nominations.
6th February, 1971 : Date of withdrawal of nominations.
1st March and 5th March, 1971 : Dates of poll.
10th and 11th March, 1971 : Dates of counting of votes.
11th March, 1971 : Date of declaration of results.
5. Respondent No.1 has opposed the petition on several grounds and on the pleadings the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the petitioner was an elector in the Tehri-Garhwal Parliamentary Constituency for the general election to the Lok Sabha held in February-March, 1971?
2. Whether Rajmata Kamalendumati Shah and Lokendra Dutt Saklani, who had filed valid nomination papers, are necessary' parties to this petition even though they had withdrawn their candidature?
3. Whether the deposit of the sum of Rs.2000/- as security for costs of the petition has not been made by the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 117(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
4. (i) Whether respondent No.1 was a representative correspondent of the All India Radio under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting of the Government of India, posted at Dehradun and drawing a remuneration in that capacity, on the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers (5th February, 1971) and/or on the date of his election (11th March, 1971)?
(ii) If so, whether on either of the said two dates, respondent No.1 was holding an office of profit under the Government of India and was on that ground disqualified to be chosen as a member of the Lok Sabha?
(iii) Having regard to the findings on (i) and (ii) above, whether the nomination of respondent No.1 was improperly accepted and the result of the election, in so far as it concerns him, was materially affected by the improper acceptance of his nomination?
(iv) Having regard to the findings on (i), (ii) and (iii) above, whether the election of respondent No.1 is void under Section 100(1)(a) and/or Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
5. (i) Whether all or any of the advertisements appearing in the issues of respondent No.1's newspaper 'Himani', referred to in paragraphs 14 to 16 of the Petition, copies whereof are at Annexures-3 to 7 to the petition, were published under contracts entered into by respondent No.1 with the Government of India?
(ii) Whether the said contracts or any of them were for the execution of any works undertaken by the Government of India within the meaning of Section 9-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951?
(iii) Whether the said contracts or any of them were subsisting on the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers (5th February, 1971) and/or on the date of respondent No.1's election (11th March, 1971)?
(iv) Having regard to the findings on (i), (ii) and (iii) above, whether respondent No.1 was disqualified to be chosen as a member of the Lok Sabha on either of the aforesaid
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
