EBRAHIM SULAIMAN SAIT versus M. C. MUHAMMAD AND ANR.

Citation: [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1148 · Decided: 07-11-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA, P.S. KAILASAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

l l 48 
EBRAHIM SULAIMAN SAIT 
v. 
M. C. MUHAMMAD AND ANR. 
November 7, 1979 
B 
[A.. C. GUPTA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J 
Corrupt practice-Full text of the alleged speech of the returned candidate 
to sho'H.' that his election speech was an attempt to promote feelings of enmity 
between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion not. reported 
by the PJ'ess, but admitted by him in evidence that "the reporter's version of 
the speech do_es more or less tally"-Reliability in evidence regarding corrupt 
·C 
practice within the 1neaning of Section 123(3A). of the Representation of the 
People Act 1951. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3A) scope and appli· 
cation of-Provisions of Section 125 are not relevant to ascertain the scope and 
application of Section 123(3A) of the Act . 
. 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3A), whether violative 
of Article 19(1)(a) of the Co1131itution. 
' · 
The election of the appellant to Lok Sabha from the Manjeri Parliamen-
tary Col)Stituency i.n Kerala was declared void by the High Court of Kerala 
on an election petition presen!ed on May 3, 1977 by the first respondent. who 
was an elector in that Constituency on the ground that the returned candidate 
was guilty of Corrupt practice mentioned in sub-section (3A) of Section .J23 
of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allegation was that during 
the election dampaign the appellant made a speech in English 
at a 
place 
called ·Pullickal within the said constituency and a- 1eport of this speech trans-
lated into Malayalam appeared in the local daily CHANDRIKA in its issue 
of March 17, 1977 which, fell within the mischief of Section 123(3A) of the 
Act. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : 1. Even though the full text of the alleged· speech of the returned 
candidate to show that his election speech was an attempt to promote feelings 
of enmity between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion 
was not reported by the Press, the press report could be relied On when there 
was not even a distant suggestion ,that for want of production of the entire 
~peech such report should . D.ot be r~lied on and more particularly when, as in 
the instant case, the appellant himself admits that it wa's not possible for him 
at "this distance of time to recall what exactly he had stated in speech" and 
that reporter's version of the speech "does more or less tally". 
[1151B-c] 
2. The provisions of Section 125 are not relevant .to ascertain the scope 
and application of Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act. 
It is true that the act that is called Q com1pt practice in Section l23(3A) 
is also what constitutes an electoral offence under section 125, but to attract 
section 123 (3A) the act must be done by the candidate or his agent or any 
r 
E. s. SAIT v. M. c. MUHAMMAD (Gupta, J.) 
1149 
other person with the consent of the candidate or his agent and for the furthe;-
A 
ance of the election of that can4idate or for prejudicially affecting the election 
of any candidate, but under section 125 any person is punishable who 
is 
guilty of such an act and the motive behind the act is not stated to be on 
ingredient of the offence. Section 123(3A) and section 125 need not be read 
together to ascertain the scope aud effect of' Section 123(3A). [11520-F] 
Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, [1962] Suppl. 2 SCR 769, distinguish-
B 
ed. 
3. Section 123(3A) of, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is ~ot 
violative of Article 19(l)(t>) of the Constitution. [1153AJ 
Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Ors. v. !Achhi Ram and Ors., [1955] l' SCR 
· 608; relied on. 
4. A speech, though .its immediate target is a political party, may yet be such 
as to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of citizens . 
. It is the likely effect of the speech on the voters that !ms to be considered.[l 153H, 
1154A] 
5. To come under the purview of the provisions of Secti~23 (3A), 
fact that the election -petitioner and the returned candidate belon~d to 
same religion is immaterial. 
[1154A-BJ 
''---
Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh, [1964] 7 SCR 790 applied. 
the 
the 
6. Truth is no.t an answer to a charge of corrupt practice under 
section 
123(3A); what is relevant is \Vhether the speech promoted or sought to pro-
mote feelings of enmity or hatred as mentioned in that provision. If it is 
found that it was so, then it is immaterial whether what was said
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.