CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL versus SOHAN SINGH JODH SINGH KOHLI

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 522 · Decided: 11-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH, K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL 
v. 
SOHAN SINGH JODH SINGH KOHLI 
DECEMBER 11, 1995 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.J 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 : 
Ss.99, JOO( I)(b), 123(3) & (3-A}-Electio11--Comtpt practices-Appeal 
C made to voters 011 the grou11d of religiorr-Speeches made by the leader of the 
party-Held consent of candidate to be pleaded and proved-Role of agent 
discussed-Implied consent presumption of-Remand of the matteH!eld, 
uncalled for the circumstances of the case. 
Appellant was the candidate of the Bhartiya Janata Party and 
D respondent was the candidate of the Janata Dal for election to the 
Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from Matunga Constituency, the ap-
pellant was declared duly elected having secured 31.530 votes while the 
respondent had secured 28,021 votes and the Congress Candidate secured 
28, 426 votes. Respondent filed an election petition alleging commission of 
E corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act. These 
corrupt practices were alleged on the basis of certain speeches made on 
29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990 by leaders of the political alliance of BJ.P. and 
Shiv Sena which supported the candidature of the appellant. In addition, 
speeches of the appellant made on 8.2.1990 and 15.2.1990 were also relied 
on. It was alleged that these speeches amounted to appeal to the voters on 
F the ground of Hindu religion which is the religion of the appellant. The 
High Court rejected the claim made in the petition. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment of the High 
Court, this Court 
HELD : 1. There is nothing in the election speeches made by the 
appellant on 8.2.1990 and 15.2.1990 in her election campaign to doubt the 
correctness of the High Court's finding that both these speeches R_re 
innocuous and there is nothing in them to constitute any of the r~rrupt 
practices under sub- sections (3) and/or (3A) of Section 123 of toe Repre-
H sentation of the people Act 1951. (526-A). 
522 
CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL v. S.SJ.S. KOHLI 
523 
2. So far as the speeches of 29.1.1990 are concerned, there can be no A 
. doubt that the same have no relevance in the present context inasmuch as 
they were acts prior to the date on which the appellant became a candidate 
at the election. This being so, any speech made prior to the date on which 
she became a candidate at the election cannot form the basis of a corrupt 
practice by any candidate at that election since any act prior to the date of B 
candidature cannot be attributed to her as a candidate at the election. 
[526-C] 
3. The Judge has not even recorded a clear finding of the appellants 
consent to the speeches given by the other persons for which the returned 
candidate has been held to be guilty without the compliance of Section 99 
of the Act. When a candidate is held to be guilty of corrupt practice 
vicariously for an act done by any person other than his agent with his 
consent, then the ultimate finding to this effect has to be recorded only after 
notice under Section 99 to that other person and an inquiry held as con-
templated therein, naming the other person simultaneously for commission 
c 
of such corrupt practice. This order is to be made at the end of the trial D 
which is the effect of the combined reading of Sections 98 and 99 of the Act. 
For this reason, deciding the election petition and making an order under 
Section 98 against the returned candidate without complying with the re-
quirements of Section 99 when the corrupt practice against the returned 
candidate is held to be proved vicariously for the act of another person by 
itself vitiates the judgment. It is also clear that the court has no option in E 
this matter and it is incumbent to name such a person in the final verdict 
given in the election petition under Section 98 of the Act after making due 
compliance of Section 99. [527-H, 528·A·D] 
Manohar Joshi v. Nitin Bhau;ao Patil, [1995) Supp. 6 SCR, relied on. 
4. The Trial Judge acted contrary to law in ignoring the mandate of 
Section 99 and taking the view that there was an option to ignore the 
requirement of Section 99 to give notice to the makers of the speeches and 
F 
to name them as persons guilty of the corrupt practice even though those 
speeches made the foundation of the corrupt practice held to be proved G 
against the returned candidate. The judgment is obviously vitiated since no 
concluded finding on this question could have been reco

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