ANANGA UDAY SINGH DEO versus RANGA NATH MISHRA AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 88 · Decided: 12-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
ANANGA UDAY SINGH DEO 
v. 
RANGA NATH MISHRA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2001 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, C.J., R.C. LAHOTI AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
Election Law : 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 : 
Section 123-Election Petition-Corrupt practice-Charge of-Manner 
of proof-Held : Charge of a corrupt practice is in the nature of a criminal 
charge-Manner of proof is the same as for an .offence in a criminal case. 
D 
Section 83-Election Petition-Trial of-Pleadings-lssues-'-Framing 
E 
F 
of-Permissible evidence-Held.: No issue can beframed on the basis of vague 
and incomplete pleadings-Evidence can only be permitted to be led on a plea 
properly raised and issue framed-Irrelevant, impermissible and inadmissible 
evidence should not be brought on record. 
Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 : Rules 79, 80 and 81. 
Transfer of surplus votes-P:-ocedure of-Election to Rajya Sabha-
Proportional representation by single transferable vote-Four candidates in 
the fray-Two candidates declared elected in the first round on their having 
reached their quota-Surplus votes of these candidates transferred to a third 
candidate as the second preference was in his favour-By such transfer third 
candidate crossed the requisite quota-Third candidate was, therefore, declared 
elected under R. 79-Correctness of-Held : Once the third candidate was 
declared elected after following the procedure under r. 79, the reference to 
G 
rr. 80 and 81 unnecessary-Hence returning officer followed the correct 
procedure in counting the votes and declaring the third candidate as elected, 
he having polled the requisite quota of value votes. 
The appellant and respondents 1 to 3 were candidates for election to 
H 
the Rajya Sabha by the elected members of the State Legislative Assembly. 
88 
-
... 
ANANGA UDA Y SINGH DEO v. R.N. MISHRA 
89 
As respondents 1 and 2 got more than the required number of votes, called 
the 'quota', they were declared elected in the first round. The Returning 
Officer transferred the excess votes polled by respondents 1 and 2 as per the 
second preference in favour of respondent No. 3. After such transfer, the 
value of the votes polled by respondent No. 3 exceeded the 'quota' and, 
therefore, he was declared elected. The appellant could not get any more 
votes in the second round. As the value of the votes polled by the appellant 
was less than the 'quota' he could not be elected. 
Being aggrieved the appellant filed an election petition before the High 
Court under Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 
challenging the election of respondents 1 and 3 on the grounds of corrup~ 
practice and of adopting wrong procedure in the counting of votes. The High 
Court dismissed the petition. Hence this appeal. 
A 
B 
c 
On behalf of the appellant it was conten4ed that. after declaring 
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 elected, they having secured more votes than the 
minimum quota required, only two candidates having been left in the arena, 
D 
further counting should have been done under Rule 81(2) of the Conduct of 
Election Rules, .1961 and not under Rule 79. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended tliat the charge of corrupt 
practice in an election petition was to be proved like a criminal charge aml 
the standard of proof required was beyond reasonable doubt; and that the 
High Court had erred in taking evidence on which there were no proper 
pleadings. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1.' In a petition based on the allegation of corrupt practices 
the cause of action cannot be equated with the cause of action as is normally 
understood becuase of the consequences that follow in a petition based on 
the allegations of corrupt practices. The charge of a corrupt practice is in the 
I 
nature of a criminal charge, which if proved, entails a very heavy penalty in 
the form of disqualification. It is for the party who sets up the plea ot 
'corrupt practice' to prove it to the hilt beyond reasonable doubt and the 
manner of proof should be the same as for an offence in a criminal case. 
[103-B-C; 101-D; E~ 
Ram Sharan Yadav v. Thakur M uneshwar Nath Singh, [1984] 4 SCC 649, 
E 
F 
G 
H 
90 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001) SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Quamarul Islam v. S.K. Kanta, [1994] Supp. 3 SCC 5 and V. Narayanaswamy 
v. C.P. Thirunavukkarasu, [2000] 2 sec 294, relied on. 
Atma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Punia, [1988] 4 SCC 284 and 
Administrator, Municipal Corporation v. Dattatraya Dahankar, [1992] 1 SCC 
B 
361, held i

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.