LexGADAKH YASHWANTRAO KANKARRAO versus E.V. ALIAS BALASAHEB VIKHE PATIL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GADAKH Y ASHWANTRAO KANKARRAO A v. E.V. ALIAS BALASAHEB VIKHE PATIL AND ORS. NOVEMBER 19, 1993 [J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B Representation of the People Act, 1951-Sec: 123(4)-Conupt Prac· tice-R.equirements of-Expression 'statement off act'-Meanin~nus of proof Appreciation of evidenct-Standard of proof of a quasi-criminal charge -Proof required as in a criminal charge-Strictness of pleadings-Liberal construction not the proper approach-Election to be contested on positive vote-Purity of elections-Duty of Courts.. · c Offending statement of fact which is falsely published by any other D person-Consent of candidatt-Standard of proof Statements relating to payment by candidate to a political party's fund-- Contribution prior to becoming a candidate whether amounts to corrupt practice u/s 123 (4)-Held, No. Allegation of payment to a candidate for shifting to another constituen- cy-Statement of fact proved to be f alse-l'ub/ication in newspaper-Wltether amounts to corrupt practice-Held, yes. E Statement of a proposal to distribute bicycles to participants in a rally-- Statement of likelihood of distribution of sarees, dhoties, liquor and cash in F constituency-Expression of appreltension-Wltether constitutes corrupt prac- tice-Held, No. Hiring of workers for election campaign-Not an offending statement of fact u/s 123 ( 4). G Statement that a candidate was likely to give money for repair of Cltawdies and renovation of temples-Not a disparaging act relating to per- sonal character or conduct. Statement made advising voters to accept whatever was offered by a H 731 732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A candidate-Statement to cast vote uninfluenced by extraneous consideration-- Whether constitute conupt practice-Held, No. General Statements made by Chief Minister projecting his plllty's can- didate as upholder of morality and honesty-Exho1tation made to people to vote for his pa1ty's candidate-Cannot constitute statements off act relating to B character and conauct of opposite candidate-Not a conupt practice. Section 123(6}-<:eiling on expenditure-Prescription on ceiling fixed only in respect of expenditure by candidate-Expenditure incurred by party outside the net of legal sanction-Lacuna in law-l'arliament to fill. C Section 101 (b )-Election-Invalidation to election of returned can- D didate void for commission of corrupt practice-Candidate securing next highest number of vote~Whether can be declared elected. Section 116-A-Appeaf-Scope of. ELECTIONS-Election campaign-Trend of-Duty of political par- ties-Election to be contested on positive vote-Shift in election campaign in positive direction emphasised. For the Lok Sabha seat from Ahemdnagar Parliamentary Con· E stituency, the returned candidate, the appellant was declared elected against his nearest rival, the election petitioner. The election petitioner filed an election petition praying that the election of the appellant be declared as void and the election petitioner be declared to have been duly elected from that constituency. The validity of F the election was challenged on the grounds that the appellant had com· mitted the corrupt practice u/s 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act; that the appellant had made certain false statements in his speeches relating to the personal character and conduct of the election petitioner attributing the use of corrupt methods by him, with a view to prejudice the G prospects of his election which was published in the daily newspaper; that in the public meetings, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra had made similar statements relating to the personal character of the election petitioner, in the presence of and along with the appellant; that these statements amounted to corrupt practice u/s 123(4) of the Act on 'lccount of which the appellant's election was void and the then Chief Minister was H liable to be named in accordance with Section 99 of the Act. KANKARRAOv. B.V.PATIL 733 After the evidence was recorded and the appellant had also been A examined, the High Court issued a notice u/s 99 to the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra to show cause why he should not be so named. The then Chief Minister challenged the issuance of this notice by a Special Leave Petition, but the same was dismissed requiring him to raise his objections in the first instance at the trial of the election petition in the High Court B
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.