JAGDEV SINGH SIDHANTI versus PRATAP SINGH DAULTA

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 750 · Decided: 12-02-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
:Pebruary 11 
750 
SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS 
[1g64] 
JAGDEV SINGH SID.'IANTI 
v. 
PRATAP SINGH DAULTA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS 
GUPTA J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JI.) 
El1ctions-A.dvocating the cause of a certain lan~uage-lf amount. .. to 
a corrupt prar:tict-l 1f:ing 'Om Dhwaf'-ll 
amounts to a corrupt 
practice-Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act .tf3 of 1951), 
I. 123(3), 
The appellant was declared elected to the liou::;e of the 
l'eo::il~ 
from a parliamentary constituency. The respondent No. 1 i.:ha:Ienged 
the election of the appellant on the ground 
that the 
appellant, 
hi9 
election and other agents cominitted many corrupt practice; falling 
within s. 123 of the Represen.tation of the People Act, 1951. The 
main grievance of respondent No. l was thlt the appel1ant and his 
agents h:id made appeal! to t'.1e electorate to vote for hi1n or to refrain 
from voting for Daul ta ( Re~pondent No. l ) ''on t11e ground of his 
religion and language", and that the appeJlarit and his agents use l a 
religious symbol-a fi.:.g called "Om Dhwaj" in all 1he election iT'Ceiiags. 
The case cf the appeib.nt was th3t the flag was not a 1eligious symbol 
and denied that it was used on any O'.::ca~ior by him or hi<> age:i.ts and 
submitted that it 
\Y:t~ usr;d 
0;1iy ty o·;e 
}.".erson 
who was always 
accustomed to carry it on h:-; mctor c:-ir. 
The appellant 
ai.~o pleaded 
that an appeal to the eiector.:tle en the ground of languagf.': or rdigion 
did not amount to a corrupt practi.:-0 '"ithin the meaning cf s. 123 of 
the Act. 
The Tribunril di.c.mi".""'d the ele.:tion petition of re5pondent No. l 
but the High Court allo\ved the appeal and declared the election of 
the appellant void unJ.:r s. 
l~.J(l)(b) of the Act. 
I-fence the appeal. 
Held (i) Th~ use of or appe:il to 
the 
national or reiigions 
symbols to be a corrupt practice mus~ be rnade by the candidate or 
his electian agent, or by some other person with the consent of the can-
didate or his election 01gent, before it can be regarded as a £-round for 
declaring the election void. 
(ii) 'Om' is regarded by Hindus as having high spiritual or mystical 
-efficacy: it is used at the commencement cf the recit:-.tions of religious 
prayers. 
But the attribute of spiritual sigflificance will not necessarily 
impart to its use on a :flag the character of a n:ligious symbol within 
the meaning of s. 123. 
A symbol stands for or represents something· 
material or abstract. To be a religious symbol, there must be a visible 
representation of a thinJ?: of concept ~hich is religions. To •om• high 
'lpiritual or mystical e:f!cacy is undoubtedly ascribed, but its use on 
6 S.C.R. 
. SUPREME COURT Rl<:i'ORTS 
751 
a flag does not symbolise religion or anything 
religious. 
The High 
Court err~ in holding that the 'Om' flag \vas a relicious sytnbol and 
its use in an election comes within the purview of cl. (3) of 1. 123 
-Of. the Ac I. 
(iii) Clause (3) of •· 123 of the Act must be read in the light of 
the fund, mental right which is guaranteed by Art. 29(1) of tho 
.Constitutio.n; the clause "annot be read as tresyassing upon the fuoda~ 
mental right under Art. 29(1). 
Artic\e 29( I) of the Constitution has conferred the right, amona 
-others, to conse1ve their language upon the citiLCm of India. 
Right 
to conserve the language of the citizens ~nclndcs the right to agitate 
far protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of 
'the language of a section of the ciuzens cannot therefore he regarde4 
" a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(3) of the Act. 
lamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Ors. v. Lachhi Ram •nd Ors., [195S]1 
S.C.R. 608, distinguished. 
(iv) The corrupt practice d•flrted bx cl. (3) of s. 123 ii com1111tted 
when an appeal is made either' to vote or. refrain from· v0ting on tho 
*round ot a candidate's language! lt is the. appeal to ·ithe ~lectorate 
on a ground personal to the candi'date relating to his laneuage which 
.attracts tte b!tn of s. 100 read with s. 123("l). Therefore it is only 
when the electcrs are asked to vote or not to vote beca 11se of the 
particular language of the candidate that a corrupt practice may he 
deemed to be committed. Where, however, for con3ervation of language 
of the electorate appeals are made to the electorate and promises are 
:given thal steps \Vculd be taken to conserve that language, nlaking af 
such appeals or promises will not amount to a corrupt p

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