LexABHIRAM SINGH versus C.D. COMMACHEN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B ABHIRAM SINGH v. C.D. COMMACHEN AND ORS. APRIL 16, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY, S.P. BHARUCHA AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN] Representation of People Act, 1951 : Section 99( 1)-Election Peti- tion-Show Cause Notice to person not party to the petition-Content and scope of-Decision by Supre111e Coiut in one case that the notice n1ust inter- C alia contain the portions of the petition written statement oral and documen- tary evidence, in support of the charges of c01rupt practice and prima facie finding thereon-1n a subsequent judgment Supreme Cowt held that the prag- matic question of deciding the question of compliance of requirements of the Section is that the noticee gets the same opportunity which he would get if he D were made party, hence the communication of mate1ial not required-Held, the two decisions are conflicting hence matter refe!Ted to larger bench of five Judges. Sections 123 (3) & (3A)-Conupt practice-Content and scope of--- Held, requires to be clear laid down authoritatively, hence refelTed to Con- E stitution Bench for deciding the issue. Co1TUpt practice in speeches delivered by collaborators-Consent to, by the candidate--ffe/d in one case by Supreme Court that it should be in- ferred-Held in other cases by Supreme Court that it should be proved-Held, the views are inconsistent-No specific law laid down as to when the case is F held proved-Authoritative decision required, hence refeired to Constitution Bench. The appellant, a BJP candidate, and the respondent a Congress party candidate contested a legislative assembly election. Appellant was duly elected. Respondent filed election petition before High Court alleging G corrupt practices by the collaborators of the candidate while delivering speeches on certain dates. Appellant was not made party to the petition. High Court on findingprima facie evidence of use of corrupt practice sent noticee to the appellant u/s. 99 of Representation of People Act, 1951, without communicating to .him, the pleadings of corrupt practices and H evidence - oral and documentary in proof thereof. 340 ABHIRAM SINGH v. C.D. COMMACHEN 341 Tl)e Supreme Court held in Manohar Joshi's case that the notice A required the extract of pleadings of corrupt practices, evidence, oral and documentary in proof thereof and the Judge is required to give his prima facie findings indicating the portions of speeches delivered by the speaker. In a later judgment, the Supreme Court held that the noticee gets the same opportunity which he would get if he were made party, hence communica· B lion of the material on record is not required. The appellant in appeal to this Court challenging the order of the High Court contended that the speeches by the collaborators were not made with his consent; therefore, corrupt practices have not been proved and that the impugned judgment has not complied with the mandatory C requirements of notice u/s 99 as held in Manohar Joshi's case 2 and that the findings u/s 123(3) and (3A) without compliance of requirements of notice and opportunity under Section 99 vitiate the declaration that the appellant's allegations are baseless. Refering the matter to the Constitution Bench, this Court HELD : 1.1. When and under what circumstances speeches of the leaders of the political party or the appeal or any other person with the consent by a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting D on the ground of religion, race, caste or community or language, etc. or E promotion or an attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens of India on the ground of religion, race, caste, community or language with the consent of the candidates or his election agent for the furtherance of prospects of the election of the candidate or prejudicially effect the election of any candidate, constitutes corrupt prac· lice under sub-sections (3) or (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of F People Act. Its content and scope also require to be clearly laid down authoritatively lest miscarriage of justice in interpretation of "corrupt practice" involved in every election petition would ensue. The purity of election process gets fouled and be fraught with deleterious effect in a democratic polity. (347-G-H; 348-A·B) G Suryakant Venkatarao Mahadik v. Smt. Saroj Sandesh Naik (Bhosa/e ), (1996) 1 SCC 384; Ramakant Mayekarv. Smt.· Celine D'Si/va, (1996) 1 SCC 399, (1996] 1 SCC 378; Prof Ramcha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.