LexGHASI RAM versus DAL SINGH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
GHASIRAM v. DAL SINGH & OTHERS February 7, 1968 [M. HIDAYATULLAH AND K. S. Hl!GDE, JJ.) Representation of the People Act. 1951, s. 123(1), (2) .le (1)-Elecftd candidate being Minister b'!fore election using discretionary funds to remove publiC grl~vances-1/ co"upt practice.-Spending fu.nt/S· for general prtblic- good ·only jus, before election-Evil practice. - The first respondent was elected to the Haryana State Legislative Assem- My at the election· held on February· 19, 1967. The appellant challenged his election by an election pef..ition on the grounds, inter alia, that prior to his election, the respondent, who was a Minister in the State Govern- ment and had available to him certain discretionary funds, had used theae funds to bribe ·the v«..ecs; it was alleged that prior to the election he had visited several villages in his constituency and the voters had told l>.im that they would not vote for him as he had done nothin~ for their uplift: he had therefore ma~ various discretionary grants to Oram Pan .. chayats. given funds for the construction of a sacred tank in one village. for building public utility works, community centres and· for repairs of Harijan well in different villages. It was also alleged that he had used liis position as Minister 1to favour some of the villagers by providing certain irrigation facilities in some villages with a view to securing sup- port for his candidature. The High Court dismissed the election petition. On appeal to this Court. HELD : On the evidence before it, the High Court had rightly di!!· n1issed t'he petition. The law requires that a corrupt practice involving bribery must be fully ~stablished. The evidence must show clearly that the promise or gift directly or indirectly was made to an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an election. The position of a Minister is difficult. It io; obvious that he cannot cease to function when his election is due. He must of necessity attend to the grievances. otherwise he must fail. Hr n1ust imorove the image' of his administration before the public. If everv one of his official acts done bona fide is to be construed against him and an ulterior motive is spelled out of them, the administration must necc.s- sarily come to a stand-still. [109 F-G] In the present case the money was not distributed among the voters directly but was given to Panchayats and the public at large. It was t.o be used for th» good of those for and those against the cannidate. No doubt this had the effect of pushing forward the respondent's claims but that was inevitable even if no money was spent but good administra~ tion changed the people's condition. It could not therefore be held that there was any corrupt p'ractice. If there was good evidence that the Minister bargained directly or indirectly for votes. ~he result might have been different, but there was no such evidence. [110 B..C] Case Jaw referred to. Obiter · Election is something which must be conducted fairly. Tc arrange t._~ SRend money on the eve of elections in different constituencies~ A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H GHASI RAM v. DAL SlNGH (Hidayatullah, /.) I 03· :.ilthough for general public good is, when all is said, and do'ne, an evil practice, even if it may not be corrupt practice. The dividing· line bet- "''een an evil practice an.cl a corrupt practice .is a very thin one. It should te understood r.hat energy to do public good should be used not on. the eve of elections but much earlier and that even slight evidence might change this evil. practice into corrupt practice. Payments from discre- tionary grants on the eve of elections sho11ld be avoided. [110 D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 16~2 of 1967. Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 from the judgment and order dated September 12, 1967 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 24 of 1967. Naunit Lal and B. P. Singh, for the appellant. G. N. Dikshit and R. N. Dikshit, for respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hidayatullah, J. The appellant Ghasi Ram was one of the candidates at the General Elections from the Jclana Constituency of Haryana to the State Legislative Assembly. The respondents were other candidates. The election took place on February 19, 1967 and the results were declared two days later. The first respondent was declared elected having sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.