HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN versus RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 3 S.C.R. 952 · Decided: 28-04-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.C. LAHOTI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN 
v. 
RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI AND ORS. 
APRIL 28, 2005 
[R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND 
P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, JJ.] 
Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 123(3), 83(/)(a)-Appeal 
C made by Religious leaders to the public to vote in favour of their candidate-
Election petition alleging corrupt practice-Maintainability of-On facts held: 
Making of such appeal would not amount to corrupt practice within the meaning 
of Section 123(3) since appeal to vote not made on the ground of religion of 
their candidate nor appeal to refrain from voting made on the ground of 
religion of the opposing candidate-Election petition not disclosing a cause 
D of action-Hence not maintainable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder 
7, Rule JJ(a), Order 6, Rule 16. 
Words and Phrases- 'his '-Connotation of-Jn the context of Section 
123(3) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. 
E 
The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is 
whether an appeal made to the public by certain Religious leaders under 
their symbols to cast vote in favour of their candidate amounted to corrupt 
practice under Section 123(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD : 1.1. The religion forming the basis of the appeal to vote or 
refrain from voting for any person, must be of that candidate for whom 
the appeal to vote or refrain from voting is made. The word 'his' used in 
sub-Section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 
is significant and cannot be ignored or equated with the word 'any' to be 
G brought within the net of sub-Section (3). When the appeal is to vote on 
the ground of 'his' religion for the furtherance of the prospects of the 
election of that candidate, that appeal is made on the basis of the religion 
of the candidate for whom votes are solicited. On the other hand,, when 
the appeal is to refrain from voting for any person on the ground of 'his' 
religion for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, that 
II 
952 
--
,,,,. 
~· 
HARMOHJNDER SINGH PRADHAN v. RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI 
953 
appeal is based on the religion of the candidate whose election is sought A 
to be prejudicially affected. The first is a positive appeal and the second 
a negative appeal. (957-8-D-EI 
Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and Ors., 
(19961 1 SCC 130 and Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas 
Ranchhoddas Patel, 11969) 1 SCC 455, relied on. 
ij 
1.2. There is no averment made in the election petition that the said 
appeal was made in the name of the religion of respondent No. 1. It is not 
the case of the appellant that there was any negative appeal made at any 
time by respondent No. 1 or on his behalf, that is to say, an appeal to voters 
I 
to refrain from voting for the appellant on the ground of his religion. c 
[957-F-G] 
2. A distinction has to be drawn between an appeal simpliciter to 
vote or to refrain from voting made by religious leaders which may benefit 
any particular candidate and an appeal to vote or to refrain from voting 
on the ground of religion emanating from religious leaders and D 
attributable to the candidate within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the 
Act. The former is not vulnerable while the latter is. All that the election 
petition alleges is that certain religious leaders, held in r~verence by the 
voters, issued an appeal to vote in favour of respondent No. 1. The appeals 
forming the gravamen of the charge of corrupt practice do not carry in it E 
the element of an appeal to vote for any person on the ground of religion. 
I 
[957-H; 958-8) 
3. Necessary averment of facts constituting an appeal on the ground 
of 'his religion' to vote or to refrain from voting would be material facts 
within the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the F 
Act. If such material facts are missing, they cannot be supplied later on, 
after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the election petition and 
the plea being deficient, can be directed to be struck down under Order 
VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if such plea be the 
sole ground of filing an election petition, the petition itself can be rejected G 
as not disclosing a cause of action under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order 
VII C.P.C. (958-C-D) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8315 of200l. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.2003 of the Punjab and 
H; 
Haryan

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