DEV KANTA BAROOAH versus GOLOK CHANDRA BARUAH & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 12-02-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

R. C. COOPER v. UNION (Ray,/.) 
661 
A 
1969 is invalid and the action taken or deemed to be taken in 
exercise of the powers under the Act is declared unauthorised. 
Petition No. 222 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. 
in these three petitions. 
K.B.N. 
662 
DEV KANTA BAROOAH 
v. 
GOLOK CHANDRA BARUAH & ORS. 
February 12, 1970 
(S. M. SIKRI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act (34 of 1951), s. 123(4)-Statements 
in leaflet-Com1nent on educational 
qualificaiions of candidate-State-
n1ent of facts and expression of opinion on the political position of candi-
date-If amounts ro corrupt. practice. 
A 
B 
The first respondent studied for his intermediate examination in two 
colleges one after the other, but never s.at for the examination. He en-
C 
tered government service as a clerk. 
Some. time after 1943 he resigned 
from service and joined the military contract business which was being 
carried on by his brothers. 
Jn 1952, though he was a member of the 
Congress party, he. stood for election against the Congress candidate after 
promising not to do so. Thereafter, he became Chairman of a Munici-
pality and during his tenure as such,- several thousand rupees were taken 
away from the Treasury on signatures re5embling the first respondenfs 
signature. and Some persons were prosecuted. Also, while be was Chair-
I) 
man, he issued an order to the effe.ct that salarie~ of sv.·eepers were to be 
paid by the head clerk. In November 1964, the first respondent resigned 
his chairmanship. The head clerk, instead of paying the sweepers. in Decem-
ber, misappropriated the money. When the misapprQpriation was discove'red 
by the Vice-Chairman, the head clerk committed suicide in 
December 
1964. 
In the 1967 election, the first respondent again Mood for election. 
to the State Legislature against the Congress candidate, once again break-
ing his written promise not to do so. 
Hoy,;ever, the appellant was dee-
E 
Jared elected. The first respondent challenged the election of the appel-. 
Iant. 
One of the. grounds in the election petition was that the following 
false statements as to the personal 
character of the first 
respondent, 
reasonably calculated to prejudice his prospects of election. had been pub-
lished in. a leaflet with the con&ent of the appellant : 
(I) That the first respondent 'after rolling from several colleges failed 
to pass the intermediate examination;' 
F 
(2) that during the first respondent's tenure as Chairman there were 
instances of corruption and chaos; and that the criminal case in connection 
with the taking of money from the treasury was pending hearing at the 
time of the publication of the leaflet; 
(3) that 'at that tin1e' the head clerk committed suicide; and 
( 4) that by taking military contracts he helped the British Goverrunent 
in India during the 1942-movement and by his standing for election against 
Congress candidates he was guilty of 'treachery' Desadrohita) and 'b~ach 
of faith' (Vishll'asghatakta). 
On the question whether statements constituted corrupt practice under 
s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, 
G 
HELD : (1) In an election it is open to a candidate to show that hi> 
H 
rival candidate is lacking in knowledge and education and that he is not 
capable of managing the affairs in a public body. The statement in the 
leaflet only stated that he failed to pass the examination and not that he 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
·F 
G 
H 
D. K, BAROOAH v. G. c. BARUAH (Bhargava, 1.) 
663 
failed at the examination. There was a slight exaggeration when the leaflet 
referred to several colleges, but it could not be held to be a false statement 
affecting the personal character, or conduct of the first respondent. 
[668 B-E] 
(2) The imputation was as to the mismanagement of the affairs of 
the Municipality by the first respondent, indicating that he was not a 
good administrator and not, that be was himself corrupt. · That part of 
the statement that the criminal case was then pending, though incorrect, 
did not cast any as person on the conduct or character of the first res-
pondent. [669 H; 670 A-Bl 
( 3) The expression 'at that time' interpreted literally would mean that 
the suicide was committed while the first respondent was the Chairman, 
which was not true, because, be had resigned earlier. But since the op-
portµnity for the bead clerk to misappropriate the money occurred while 
the first respondent was the Chairman, it must be held t

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