LexABHIRAM SINGH versus C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2017] I S.C.R. 158 ABHIRAM SINGH v. C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 37of1992) JANUARY 02, 2017 [T. S. THAKUR, C.J.l., MADAN B. LOKUR, S. A. BOBDE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, UDAY UMESH LALIT, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.) Representation of the People Act, 1951: s. 123 (3) (as amended in 1961) - Interpretation of - Held: Majority View: The Act being a statute that enables to cherish and strengthen democratic ideals should be interpreted in a manner that assists the elector or 1he electorate and not that assists the candidates - Keeping in view the social context in which sub-section (3) of s.123 was enacted and today's social and technological context, ii is absolutely necesswy to give a broad and purposive interpretation rather than a literal or strict interpretation - The provisions under sub-section (3) are required to be read and appreciated in the context of simultaneous and contemporaneous amendmellls inserting sub-section (3Aj in s. 12 3 and inserting s. 153A in !PC - Therefore sub-section (3) of s. 123 is to be interpreted in such a way so as to bring within sweep of 'corrupt practice', any appeal on the ground of the religion, race, caste, community or language of (i) any candidate or (ii) his agent, or (iii) any other person making appeal with the consent of the candidate, or (iv) the elector - The bar uls. 123 (3) to making an appeal on the ground of religion must not be confined to the religion of the candidale or that of his rival candidates - The word 'his' occurring in the Section refers not only lo the candidate or his agent, but is also intended to refer to the vol er or elector - Determination of the facts whether an appeal, at all, has been made to the elector and whether appeal made, is in violation of s. 123(3), would be a matter of evidence - Minority view: Election petitions alleging corrupt practices have a quasi-criminal character wherein standard of proof is close to that which guides a criminal trial - Therefore, s.123(3) must be interpreted in literal sense - The expression 'his' ins. 123(3) 158 ABHIRAM SINGH v. C.D. COMMACHEN (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. used in conjunction with religion, race, caste, co111111unity or language is in reference to the religion, race, caste, community or language of the candidate (in whose favour the appeal to caste a vote is made) or tho( of a rival candidate (when an appeal is made to refrain from voting for another) - Sub-section (3) cannot be construed as referring to the religion, race, caste, commu/1ity or language of the voter, even if the provision is given a purposive interpretation - Discussion, debate or dialogue, of matters relating to religion, race, caste, community or language of the voters is not an appeal on those grounds, and the sa111e is protected being an intrinsic part of freedom of speech. s.123(3) - Long-standing interpretation of given by the courts - Unsettling of - Permissibility - Held: Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: The interpretation given to s.123(3) was not well recognized ani there was uncertainty about correct interpretatio11 thereof. the court can unsettle the long-standing interpretation - Per: Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud, J.: A change in the legal position, 11'hich has held the field through judicial precedent over a length of time can be considered only in exceptional and compelling circumstances - In the preselll cases no case has been made out to take a viell' at variance with the settled legal position that the expression 'his' in s. · 123 (3) must mean the religion, race, community or language of the candidate - Precedent. Interpretation of Statutes: [,iteral interpretation vis-a-vis purposive interpretation - Per Madan B. Lokur, J.: While imerpreting a statute or a provision in a statute, not only the text of the law; but also the co11text in which it was enacted and the social context, should be considered - However, in statutes having penal consequence, affecting liberty of an individual or imposing financial burden on a person, the rule of literal interpretation would still hold good - Per T.S. Thakur, C.J.I.: While interpreting an enactment, the courts should remain cognizant of constitutional goals and the purpose of the Act and interpret the provisions accordingly - Per S.A. Bobde, J.: A literal interpretation does not exclude a purposive interpretation - While construing a statute both the rules of i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.