LexDAULAT RAM CHAUHAN versus ANAND SHARMA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
'
-
..
DAULAT RAM CHAUHAN
v.
ANAND SHARMA
January 16, 1984
(S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND RANGANATH MISRA, JJ.]
419
Represemation of the reople Act 1951 (43 o/1951) Sections 82(h), 86and123(2).
Election Petition-allegations of corrupt practices against two candidates-Candidates
not impleaded as parties to elettion petition-Elecaon petition whether liable to be
dis1nissed.
Corrupt Practices-Allegations of-To be proved like a crin1ina/ charge without
A
B
c
_'f
ad1nitting of any doubt.
-,.{
·,_
-~,
• •.
\.
Practice & Procedure :
Pleadings in Election PetUions-Allegations of corrupt practice-Necessity to
-he clear and specific.
·
The respondent filed an Election Petition challenging the election of,the ap-
pellant who was declared cl~cted to the State Assembly on the ground that the
appellant, his. election agent and other persons along with two other candidates
made libelous slogans at a rally and displayed pamphlets to alienate the voters
from the respondent and this constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning
of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Upholding the
. respondent's contention the High Court set <1.Side the eleCtion.
Tn the appeal to this Court, a preliminary objection was· raised on behalf of
the appellant .that since the two candidates who \Vere alleged to have coriimited
corrupt practices had not been made parties to the Election Petition, the petition
should haye been disn1issed in lbnine for non cbn1pliance with the requirements
of section 82(b) read with section 86 of the Act.
Over·ruling the preliminary objection :
HELD: 1. The combined effect of section 82(b) and· section 86 of the Act is that
once allegations of corrupt practice are made against a candidate it is incumbent
on the ~lec.tio11 petitioner t? join h!~ as a party a~d failure to do so woul~ lead
to the d1sn11Ssal of the Electron Petition i.:inder section 86. But before section 82(b)
or section 86 could come into play it must be proved that the allegations of corrupt
practice made agai1.1st the candidate amounted to corrupt practices as contemplated
by the provisions of section 123. [423 F-G]
D
E
F
G
2.
Section 82(b) co11.tains the salutary provision of audi a/teram parrem and
ff
requires that an allegation m,ust be proved to the hilt in the presence of the Person
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1984] 2 S.C.R.
alfected, failing which the election petition will stand dismissed. [ 426 E·F]
.
3.
Tn orde~ that ~n act of the cand.idate may amount to a corrupt practice,
It must be committed either by the candidate himself, his agent or by any other
person wfth./he consent of the candidate or his election agent. An allegation of
corrupt practice must be proved like a criminal charge without admitting of any
doubt.. [424 CJ
·
.4. The Election Petition must contain the followi.ng ·pleadings: (1) Direct
an~ detailed n~ture of corrupt practices as defined in the Act, (2) details of every
important particularly tex. the tin1e, place, names of persons, use of words and
expressi6n_s, etc. (3) that the. corrupt practices were indulged in by the candidate
himself, or his authorised agent or any other person with his express or implied
.consent. {428 E-FJ
·
•
5.
A person may, due to sympathy or on his own, support the candidature
of a particular candidate. but unless a close and direct nexus is proved between
tJ1e act of the person and the consent given to him by the candidate or his election
agent, the same would not amount to a pleading of corrupt practice as contemplated
by law. It cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the court to draw an
inference by adopting an it'l.volved process o~ reasoning. The aliegation must be
clear and specific that the inference of corrupt practice will admit of no doubt or
qualm. [ 428 G-H]
In the instant case, it was shown that the hvo candidates who participated
in the rally mighr have shouted libelous slogans. But there is nothing to show
that they were election agents or workers of the appellant or that they participated
or shouted slogan with· the express and implied consent of the appellant. Whenever,
there is a rally, crowd or a gathering a nun1ber of persons participate.
That by
itself would not give rise to ·an inference that their participation or presence was
at -the instance of the person in whose favour the cro\VS gathered or the rally was
organised. [429 C·Df
Udhav
SingExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.