LexBALDEV SINGH MANN versus SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 16 S.C.R. 540
~
A
BALDEV SINGH MANN
~·
v.
. ' SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN
(Civil Appeal No. 3700 of 2007)
B
NOVEMBER 21, 2008
[DALVEER BHANpARI AND HAR:JIT SINGH 'BEDI, JJ.]
t
Representation of People Act, 1951: s.123(7) - Charge
of corrup{practice - Burden to prove - Held: Is on the election
c petitioner - Mere preponderance of probabilities not enough
- Allegation of corrupt practice should be clear and precise
and charge should be proved to hilt as. criminal trial, by clear,
cogent and credible evidence - On facts, .election petitioner
·tailed to prove basic ingredients of corrupt practice ·under
D s.123(7) - Election petition ·rightly dismissed - Election laws
- Election of elected candidate - Interference with.
The appellant filed an election petition before the
-I-
High Court challenging the election of respondent on the
E ground that respondent had committed corrupt practices
under s.123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951
by obtaining and procuring assistance from ga~etted
officers in the service of government for the furtherance
of the prospects of his election.
F
The High C.ourt held that the appellant failed to prove
t-
"
the ingredients of corrupt practice contained in s.123(7)
of the Act; and that the evidence of cdrrupt practice was
not strong enough to upset the.people's verdict in favour
of the respondent. Hence the instant appeal.
G
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The appellant failed to prove the basic
•f J. .
inQredients of corrupt practices under s.123(7) of the
H
540
BALDEV SINGH MANN v. SURJIT SINGH DHIMAN
541
Representation of People Act, 1951. [Para 36] [599-8-C]
A
2.1. The law is well-settled that charge of a corrupt
practice in an election petition should be proved almost .
like the criminal charge. The standard of proof is high and ,
the burden of proof is on the election petitioner. Mere · 8
preponderance of probabilities is not enough, as may be
f
the case in a civil dispute. Allegations of corrupt practices
should be clear and precise and the charge should be ·
proved to the hilt as in a criminal trial by clear, cogent and
credible evidence. [Para 24] [554-G-H; 555-A]
· ·
c
Jeet Mohinder Singh v. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 ,
SCC 386; Jagan Nath v. Jaswant Singh & Ors. 1954 SCR
892, Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & Anr. v. Dattaji Raghobaji
Meghe & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 347; Quamarul Islam v. S.K.
Kanta & Ors. (1994) Supp (3) SCC 5 F.A. Sapa & Ors. v. o
Singora & Ors. (1991) 3 SCC 375, Manohar Joshi v. Damodar
Tatyaba & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 342;.Ram Singh & Ors. v. Col.
Ram Singh (1985) Supp SCC 611; Kripa Shankar Chatterjee
v. Gurudas Chatterjee & Ors. (1995) 5 SCC 1 and Ram Phal
Kundu v. Kamal Sharma (2004) 2 SCC 759, relied on.
2.2. Charge of corrupt practice, if substantiated leads
not only to the setting aside of the election of the
successful candidate, but also of his being disqualified
,E
to contest an election for a certain period. It may entail
extinction of a person's public life and political career. A f
trial of an election petition though within the realm of civil
law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. [Para 27) [555-G-
H] .
3. The candidate who narrowly lost ordinarily makes
all efforts and gather all kind of material against the G
elected candidate and level all kinds of allegations of
corrupt practices whether substantiated or not.- In the
instant case, this seemed to have happened. The
respondent won by less than 1000 votes out of nearly
70000 polled votes. (Para 32) (558-A-B]
H
542
SUPREME, COURT REPORTS
. [2008) 16 S.C.R.
A
4. The will of the people is paramount in a democratic
country an'd the election of elected candidate should not
be lightly interfered with. At the same time, it is also ithe
bounden ·duty and obligation of the court to ensure that
purity of election process is fully safeguarded and
s maintained. [Para 37] [559-C-D]
c
D
E
Case Law Reference:
(1999) 9 sec 386
1954 SCR 892
-<1995) 5 sec 347
relied on
r!i!lied on
relied on
(1994) Supp (3) sec 5 relied on
. (1991) 3 sec 375
· relied on
(1991) 2 sec 342
. relied on.
(1985) Supp sec 611 relied on
(1995) 5 sec 1
relied on
(2004) 2 sec 759
relied on
Para·25
.P~re1 .25
Para 25
Para 28
Para 28
Para 28
Para· 28
Para 28
Para 28
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3700 of 2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2006.of the
F
High Court of Punjab and HaryExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.