GURUJI SHRIHAR BALIRAM JIVATODE versus VITHALRAO & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 2 S.C.R. 766 · Decided: 19-11-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.K. MITTER · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'· 
GURUn SHRIHAR BALIRAM nv ATODE 
v. 
VITHALRAO & ORS. 
November 19, 1968 
[G. K. MITTER AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] . 
· Representation of the People Act, (43 of 1951) s. 123(4)--0b/ect of 
section-Corrupt practice aso defined in sec~ion, ingredients of. 
. 
The appellant was the returned candidate from the Rajilra constituency 
<If Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly in the general election held ill 
February 1967. The first respondent who was one of the defeated can-
didates challenged the appellant's election in an election petition. 
The 
High Court held that the appellant had made false statements about the 
personal character and conduct of the first respondent and was guilty of 
corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 ( 4) of the Representation 
of the People Act, 1951. On this view the High Court allowed the elec-
tion petition and set aside the election of the appellant who appealed to 
thi• Court. 
HELD: (i) The election law in this country as in England guarantees 
!freedom of criticism of political nature at the time of election. The free-
dom of criticism may sometimes be misused,· but the advantage gained 
from free criticism-though sometimes it may turn out to be irresponsible 
-in the long run outweighs the disadvantages. It is in the interests of 
democracy that such criticism should be allowed. 
However democracy 
will be a farce if interested persons are allowed to freely indulge in 
character assassination during election. A political 
party may not be 
affected by passing winds but a campaign of slander against an individual 
is likely to create prejudiee in the mind of the people against him. Section 
123(4) is designed to achieve the dual purpose df protecting freedom of 
speech and prevention of malicious attack on the personal character and 
conduct of rivals. [769 CJ 
(b) The ingredients of the corrupt practice mentioned in s. 123 ( 4) 
are ( 1) the publication by a candidate or his election agent or by "llY 
other person with the consent of that candidate or his election agent of 
"llY statement of fact; (2) which statement is false and which was believ-
.ed by the candidate to be false or at any rate was not believed by him to 
.be true; (3) the said statement relates to the personal character or con-
duct of a candidate or is in relation to bis candidature or withdrawal; and 
( 4) the same being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the 
prospects of that candidate's election. The burden of proving every one 
of the ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged is on him who alleges it. 
[7 68 G; 771 B-:-CJ 
· (c) Every false allegation does not come 
within 
the mischief of 
s. 123(4). The language of the section is 'any statement of fact which 
is f;)!se' and that language must be used in contrast to a false statement of 
Opiriioi:t. · The statement in question must be in relation to the personal 
character of candidate. It is when the false allegation pierces the politi-
cian and tquches the person o'f the candidate tl)at s. 123(4) is contraven-
ed. 
Further one of the ingredients of the corrupt practice under the 
section is that the statement complained df must be one reasonably calcu-
lated to prejudice the prospects of the election of the person against whom 
it is made. 'Calculated' means designed : it denotes more than "mere 
,. -
• 
B 
~ . . 
\~ 
c 
• 
D 
E 
F 
G 
.. 
• 
< 
• 
H 
. -
A 
B 
·C 
D 
G. s. BALIRAM v. VITHALRAO (Hegde, /.) 
767 
likelihood and imports a design to affect voters. The emphasis in the last 
limb of the section is not so much on the intention of the publisher but 
on the proooble effect on the election of the candidate against whom 
those statements are directed. [769 F-G; 770 El 
(ii) In the present case the statements alle~ed t~ have been m~de by 
the appellant did not amount to corrupt practice w1thlll the meanmg of 
s. 123 ( 4) as they amounted either to fair political criticism or were mere 
expressions of opinion. The complaint that the appellant had stated that 
the respondent had a share in the profits earned by a contractor is neither 
alleged in the election petition nor satisfactorily proved. [777 D, F] 
Sheopat Singh v. Ram Pratap, [1965] I S.C.R. 175, T. K. Gangi Reddy 
v. M. C. Anjaneya Reddy & Ors., XXII E.L.R. p. 266 and Dattatraya 
Narayan Patil v. Dattatraya Krishnaji Khenvikar & Ors. 
A.LR. 
1964 
Born. 244, relied on. 
Cumberland 
(Cockermouth 
Division) 
Case, 
(1901) 
5 O'M&H. 
p. 155, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURIS

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