Back
1995 Supreme(MP) 710
1996 JLJ 158
A.K. Mathur, Election Judge
Narain Singh v. Sundarlal Patwa
E. Petn. No. 12 of 1994; Decided on 2.8.1995.
S.S. Jha for petitioner; N.C. Jain for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Representation of the People Act, 1950 -- Ss. 33 (4) and 36 (J) -- neither candidate himself nor his representative present at the time of scrutiny of nomination paper -- defect in nomination paper cannot be supposed to be cured by Returning Officer -- rejection of defective nomination paper is proper.
The candidate who is serious about contest in the election, is required to be prsesent at the time of scrutiny of the nomination papers so as to make necessary correction, if there is any. It is ‘not the intention to leave entire burden on the Returning Officer to make a fishing enquiry from the electoral roll that whether the candidate‘s serial number, part number or his proposer"s serial number and part number has been correctly mentioned in the nomination form or not. It will be too much to cast this duty on the Returning Officer when the law has provided a facility to a contesting candidate either to present himself or to present through his authorised representative to cure all possible defects which may appear in the nomination paper or if any objection is raised from any other candidate. If the candidate does not avail this facility provided under the law, it is wrong to say that the Returning Officer rejected the nomination improperly or otherwise. AIR 1985 SC 847, AIR 1985 SC 1073 and AIR 1990 SC 2274 followed. [Paras 16 to 18]
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.6 R. 2 -- fact not pleaded in election petition n no evidence on such fact can be permitted to be led. AIR 1979 SC 882 followed. [Para 19]
(3) Representation of People Act, 1950 -- Ss. 36 and 100 (1) (c) (d) (i) -- enquiry regarding nomination paper by Returning Officer under S. 36 -- is a summary enquiry -- additional material can be placed before the Court trying election petition. AIR 1959 SC 422 and AIR 1988 SC 1796 followed. [Para 24]
(4) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 35 -- entry as to date of birth in school register -- not conclusive -- either parents should be examined or the person on whose information entry was made should be examined. AIR 1988 SC 1796 followed. [Para 24]
(5) Age -- entry of birth date of student in school register not conclusive -either parents or person on whose information such entry was made should be examined. AIR 1988 SC 1796 followed. [Para 24]
(6) Representation of the People Act, 1950 -- Ss. 173 (b) and 36 -- age of candidate shown below 25 years in voters list filed alongwith the nomination paper n neither he nor his agent present at the time of scrutiny -- rejection of nomination paper by Returning Officer not bad. [Para 26]
(7) Representation of the People Act, 1950 -- S. 81 -- election petition under -- Court cannot remain a mock spectator -- can see the bonafides of the election petitioner to judge whether petition has been filed on behalf of some other person. [Para 26]
(8) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O.13 R. 2 -- document notified on record -- may still be put in cross examination of a witness. [Para 38]
(9) Representation of the People Act, 1950 -- S.83 -- names of persons who heard speeches of returned candidate not mentioned and verified in petition -- such defect is of a formal character -- on this ground petition cannot be dismissed -- respondent may pray for supply of better particulars. AIR 1974 SC 1957 distinguished. AIR 1991 SC 1557 followed. [Para 40]
(10) Representation of the People Act, 1950 -- Ss. 123 (3) and 123 (3A) -corrupt practice -- cannot be proved by news items -- it is hearsay evidence only -- corrupt practice should be proved as a criminal charge.
A care has to be taken to see while construing these news items to construe a corrupt practice because of hearsay nature of evidence. There is every likelihood of injustice being caused. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in various decisions, have emphasised time and again that setting aside the election on the basis of corrupt practice involves a grave consequences on the future political career of the candidate; therefore, such allegation should be as that of a criminal law and it should not be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Construing the evidence of these press cuttings of all the correspondents, it will not be safe to find the respondentd`returned candidate guilty of the corrupt practice. 1995 AIR (SCW) 2865, AIR 1994 SC 1733 followed. [Para 42]
(11) Representation of the People Act, 1950 -- Ss.123, 123 (3) and 123 (3A) -- issue having religious overtone becoming a political issue -- religious utterances on such issue not corrupt practice -- votes not sought on the religion of returned candidate or religion of opposite candidate -- corrupt practice not committed.
All these utterances cannot be said to be seeking a vote in the name of religion. They were political issues and it may have a religious overtone but they were primarily political issues and not only Sunderlal Patwa but all over country this issue was debated and still it is a moot point. To charactcrise these utterances to be a religious utterance so as to fall under the definition of corrupt practice under section 123 (3) of the Act would amount to convert these political utterance to be a religious, is not warranted under the law. The 1993 election was fought on this political issue whether to construct a temple or Masjid at Ayodhya, though it has a religious overtone but it was converted into a issue and it cannot be stigmatized as a religious issue only, More so, what is to constitute the corrupt practice, the vote should be sought on ‘his religion‘ or on the basis of religion of opposite candidate and votes in these speeches were not sought on the basis of ‘his religion‘, i.e. ‘Jainism‘. The respondentd`returned candidate has said that he is not a Hindu but he is a ‘Jain‘, AIR 1969 SC 851, AIR 1965 SC 141 and C.A. No. 3169191 followed. [Para 45]
(12) Hindu Law -- Hinduism -- is way of life and not religion. AIR 1963 SC 1638, AIR 1965 SC 669 and AIR 1995 SC 605 followed. [Para 49]
¼1½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1950 & /kkjk 33 ¼4½ rFkk 36 ¼1½ & ukefunsZ’ku i= dh laoh{kk ds le; u vH;FkhZ Lo;a mifLFkr u mldk çfrfuf/k & ukefunsZ’ku i= esa =qfV fjVfu±x vkQhlj }kjk nwj fd, tkus dk vuqeku ugha fd;k tk ldrk & =qfV;qDr ukefunsZ’ku i= dh [kkfjth mfpr gSA
fuokZpu yM+us ds ckjs esa xaHkhj vH;FkhZ dk ukefunsZ’ku i=ksa dh laoh{kk ds le; mifLFkr gksuk visf{kr gSa rkfd vko";d la"kks/ku] ;fn dksbZ gksa] fd, tk ldsaA fuokZpd ukekoyh ls ;g tk¡p djus dk laiw.kZ Hkkj fjVfu±x vkQhlj ij Mkyuk vk’kf;r ugha gS fd vH;FkhZ dk la[;kd] Hkkxkad vFkok mlds çLFkkid dk la[;kd rFkk Hkkxkad ukekadu ç:i esa lgh mfYyf[kr gS vFkok ughaA fjVfu±x vkQhlj ij ;g drZO; Mkyuk vR;f/kd gksxk tcfd fof/k }kjk fuokZpu yM+us okys vH;FkhZ dks Lo;a mifLFkr jgus vFkok vius çkf/kÑr çfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls mifLFkr jgus dh lqfo/kk nh xbZ gS rkfd ukefunZs"ku i= esa vkus okyh lc laHkkO; =qfV;k¡ vFkok fdlh vU; vH;FkhZ }kjk fd, x, vk{ksi nwj fd, fd, tk ldsaA ;fn vH;FkhZ fof/k ds v/khu miyH; bl lqfo/kk dk Qk;nk ugha mBkrk rc ;g dguk xyr gksxk fd fjVfu±x vkQhlj us ukekadu vuqfpr :i ls vFkok vU;Fkk [kkfjt fd;kA , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 847] , vkb vkj 1985 ,l lh 1073 rFkk , vkb vkj 1990 ,l lh 2274 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 16 ls 18
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-6 fu-2 &fuokZpu ;kfpdk esa vfHkokd~ ugha fd;k x;k rF; & ,sls rF; ij dksbZ Hkh lk{; is"k djus dh eatwjh ugha nh tk ldrhA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 882 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 19
¼3½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1950 & /kkjk 36 rFkk 100 ¼1½ ¼x½ ¼?k½ ¼i½ & /kkjk 36 ds v/khu ukefunsZ’ku i= ds ckjs esa fjVfu±x vkQhlj }kjk tk¡p & laf{kIr tk¡p gSa & fuokZpu ;kfpdk dk fopkj.k djus okys U;k;ky; ds le{k vfrfjDr lkexzh ykbZ tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1959 ,l lh 422 rFkk , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 1796 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 24
¼4½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 35 & fo|ky; ds jftLVj esa tUefnukad ds ckjs esa çfof"V & fu’pk;d ugha & ekrk&firk dh ijh{kk dh tkuk pkfg, vFkok ml O;fDr dh ijh{kk dh tkuk pkfg, ftldh bfÙkyk ij çfof"V dh xbZA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 1796 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 24
¼5½ vk;q & fo|ky; ds jftLVj esa fo|kFkhZ ds tUefnukad dh çfof"V fu’pk;d ugha & ekrk&firk dh vFkok ftl O;fDr dh bfÙkyk ij ,slh çfof"V dh xbZ mldh ijh{kk dh tkuk pkfg,A , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 1796 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 24
¼6½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 173 ¼[k½ rFkk 36 & ukefunsZ’ku i= ds lkFk Qkby dh xbZ ernkrk lwph esa vH;FkhZ dh vk;q 25 o"kZ ls de naf"kZr & laoh{kk ds le; u og mifLFkr u mldk vfHkdrkZ & fjVfu±x vkQhlj }kjk ukefunsZ’ku i= dh [kkfjth nks"kiw.kZ ughaA ¿iSjk 26
¼7½ yksd çfrfuf/k vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 81 & fuokZpu ;kfpdk & U;k;ky; fn[kkoVh n"kZd ugha cuk jg ldrk & ;g vk¡dus ds fy, fd ;kfpdk fdlh vU; O;fDr dh vksj ls Qkby dh xbZ gS] mlds }kjk fuokZpu ;kph dh ln~Hkkouk ns[kh tk ldrh gSA ¿iSjk 26
¼8½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-13 fu-2 & vfHkys[k ij Qkby ugha fd;k x;k nLrkost & lk{kh dh çfrijh{kk esa fQj Hkh j[kk tk ldrk gSA ¿iSjk 38
¼9½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 83 & fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ ds Hkk"k.kksa dks lquus okys O;fDr;ksa ds uke ;kfpdk esa mfYyf[kr rFkk lR;kfir ugha & ,slh =qfV çk:fid Lo:i dh gS& bl vk/kkj ij ;kfpdk [kkfjt ugha dh tk ldrh & çR;FkhZ csgrj fof’kf"V;ksa ds çnk; dk vuqjks/k dj ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1957 çHksfnrA , vkb vkj vkj 1991 ,l lh 1557 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 40
¼10½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 123 ¼3½ rFkk 123 ¼3d½ & Hkz"V vkpj.k & lekpkj i=ksa }kjk lkfcr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & ;g ek= vuqJqr lk{; gS & Hkz"V vkpj.k nkafMd vkjksi dh rjg lkfcr gksuk pkfg,A
lk{; ds vuqJqr Lo:i ds dkj.k] Hkz"V vkpj.k fu"df"kZr djus ds fy, bu lekpkj i=ksa dk vFkZ yxkus ds nkSjku lko/kkuh cjruk gksxhA vU;k; dkfjr gksus dh iwjh laHkkouk gSA fofHkUu fofu"p;ksa esa mPpre U;k;ky; ds ekuuh; U;k;k/kh’kx.k us ckj&ckj bl ckr ij cy fn;k gS fd Hkz"V vkpj.k ds vk/kkj ij fuokZpu dh vikfLr esa vH;FkhZ dh jktuSfrd o`fÙk ds Hkfo"; ij xaHkhj çHkko varxZLr gksrk gS( vr% ,sls vfHkdFku vfrfu;efu"Br% lkfcr gksuk pkfg, rFkk lcwr dk Lrj nkafMd fof/k tSlk gksuk pkfg, rFkk mldk fofu"p; vf/klaHkkoukvksa dh çcyrk ds vk/kkj ij ugha gksuk pkfg,A leLr laoknnkrkvksa dh bu lekpkj i= drjuksa ds lk{; dk vFkZ yxkdj çR;FkhZ&fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ dks Hkz"V vkpj.k dk nks"kh fu"df"kZr djuk fujkin ugha gksxkA 1995 , vkb vkj ¼,l lh MCy;w½ 2865 rFkk , vkb vkj 1994 ,l lh 1733 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 42
¼11½ yksd çfrfuf/kRo vf/kfu;e] 1951 & /kkjk 123] 123 ¼3½ rFkk 123 ¼3d½ & /kkfeZd O;atuk okyk fook|d jktuhfrd ç’u cu x;k & ,sls fook|d ij /kkfeZd mPpkj.k Hkz"V vkpj.k ugha & fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ ds /keZ vFkok fojks/kh vH;FkhZ ds /keZ ij er bZfIlr ugha & Hkz"V vkpj.k ugha fd;k x;kA
bu lc mPpkj.kksa ds ckjs esa ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd /keZ ds uke ij er dh bZIlk dh xbZA og jktuhfrd ç’u Fks rFkk mudk vf/kLoj /kkfeZd gks ldrk gS ijarq çkFkfedr% og jktuhfrd ç’u Fks rFkk u dsoy lqanjyky iVok vfirq lkjs ns"k esa bl ij okn&fookn fd;k x;k rFkk ;g vc Hkh fookn dk fo"k; gSA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 123 ¼3½ ds v/khu Hkz"V vkpj.k dh ifjHkk"kk ds v/khu ykus ds fy, bu mPpkj.kksa dk /kkfeZd mPpkj.kksa ds :i esa fu:i.k dguk bu jktuhfrd mPpkj.kksa dks /kkfeZd esa laifjofrZr djus ds leku gksxk tks fof/k ds v/khu okaNuh; ugha gSaA lu~ 1993 dk fuokZpu bl ç’u ij yM+k x;k Fkk fd v;ks/;k esa eafnj dk fuekZ.k gks vFkok efLtn dkA ;|fi bldk vf/kLoj /kkfeZd gS rFkk og ç’u ds :i esa laifjofrZr gks x;k Fkk rFkk ek= /kkfeZd ç’u ds :i esa mldh fuank ugha dh tk ldrhA blds vfrfjDr] Hkz"V vkpj.k rc curk gS tc er dh bZIlk ^^mlds /keZ** vFkok fojks/kh vH;FkhZ ds /keZ ds vk/kkj ij dh xbZ gks rFkk bu Hkk"k.kksa esa erksa dh bZIlk ^^mlds /keZ**] vFkkZr tSu /keZ ds vk/kkj ij ugha dh xbZ FkhA çR;FkhZ&fuokZfpr vH;FkhZ us dgk gS fd og fganw ugha gSa vfirq ^^tSu gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 851] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 141 rFkk flfoy vihy Ø-3169@91 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 45
¼12½ fganw fof/k & fganqRo & thou ‘kSyh gSa] /keZ ughaA , vkb vkj 1963 ,l lh 1638] , vkb vkj 1965 ,l lh 669 rFkk , vkb vkj 1995 ,l lh 605 vuqlfjrA ¿iSjk 49
A.K. Mathur, J.--1. This is an election petition under section 81 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 filed against the respondent-returned candidate Shri Sunderlal Patwa from Bhojpur Constituency No. 245 of the Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner is a voter of this Constituency and his name has been recorded in Part No. 34 at Serial No. 676 of the Electoral Roll of Ward No.7 of Obedullahganj. (He was not contesting candidate).
2. The elections of the State Legislative Assembly were announced in 1993. The election programme was notified by the Collector, Raisen on 23.10.1993. The nomination was to be filed before 30.10.93 and scrutiny was to take place in the office of the Returning Officer on 1.11.1993 at 11 a.m. The date of withdrawal of nomination was 3.11.1993 and the poll was scheduled on 24.11.1993 and the count ling was fixed on 30.11.1993. The election took place on the scheduled date and the result was announced on 1.12.1993. In that, the Bhartiya Janta Party candidate-Shri Sunderlal Patwa, respondent, was declared elected with the margin of 62,216 votes defeating his nearest rival Ajay Singh of Indian Nation Congress, who secured 33048 votes. In that election, Ramesh Chandra s/o Shri Ratanlal also filed four nomination papers which were received by the Returning Officer and they were registered at Serial Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 on 27.10.1993. All these four nomination papers were rejected by the Returning Officers on the ground that the name of the candidate Ramesh Chandra was not recorded at Serial No. 95 in Part No. 37. The name of Ramesh Chandra s/o Ratanlal was in fact recorded at Serial No. 485 instead of serial No. 95. Therefore, the Returning Officer who examined these four nomination papers, did not find them in order and rejected all these nomination papers of Ramesh Chandra. It is alleged that this was due to inadvertence of his Advocate-Shaligram Shrivastava who filled his nomination papers and wrongly described his serial number. It is alleged that Shaligram Shrivastva was duly instructed and authorised by Ramesh Chandra. Therefore, the rejection of nominations of Rameshchandra was improper and the election of respondent is liable to be declared void under section 100 (1)(c) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act of 1951').
3. The another candidate-Sarfaraz Khan son of Sahab Khan filed two nomination papers which were registered at Serial Nos. 30 and 31. Sarfaraz Khan was an elector of 239 Bhopal South Constituency. Along with his nominations, he filed certified copy of his entry in the electoral roll of 239 Bhopal South Constituency. But his nominations were rejected on the ground that his age was 24 years according to the copy of the voter list filed by him. The petitioner submitted that as per his information, the age of Sarfaraz Khan was 25 years on the date of filing nominations and his nominations were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer; therefore, the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void under section 100 (1) (c) of the Act of 1951.
4. The petitioner has also challenged the election on the ground of corrupt practice that the respondent-returned candidate has made a systematic appeal on the ground of religion and this amount to corrupt practice under section 123 (3) of the Act. It is alleged that the respondent appealed to the voters to vote for construction of Ram Temple at the birth place of God Ram and to vote for Ram on lotus symbol. It is also alleged that the respondent-returned candidate toured villages like Semrikalan, Majuskala, udadmau, Intkhedi & Sultanpur. In all these villages, a systema tic appeal was made in the name of religion and he emphasised in his speeches relating to demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya and construction of temple of God Ram there. It is alleged that he delivered speech at about 12 noon in village Semrikalan and at about 2 p.m. at Majuskala there also, he talked about demolition of Babri Ma
