JUMUNA PRASAD MUKHARIYA AND OTHERS versus LACHHI RAM AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 608 · Decided: 28-09-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

608 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
•9~4 
JUMUNA PRASAD MUKHARIYA AND OTHERS. 
Sept1mb<r 28. 
• 
ti. 
LACHHI RAM AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND 
MAHAJAN C. J., MuKHEllJEA, 
s. R. DAS, VIVIAN BosE and GHULAM HASAN JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Art. 19(1) (a)-Rep1·esentatio11 
of 
the 
People Act (XLI/l of 1951), ss. 123(5) and 124(5)-Whether ultr< 
vircs the Constitutiop. . 
Held, that sections 123(5) and 124(5) of the Representation 
of the People Act (XLllI of 1951) arc not ultra vi1·es article 19(1) 
(a) of the Constitution. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
Ju1tISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 156 of 1954. 
Appeals by Special Leave against the Judgment 
and Order dated the 24th December, 1953, of the Elec· 
tion Tribunal, Gwalior, :tl'ladhya Bharat, in Election 
Petition No. 263 of 1952. 
N. C. Chatterjee, (S. K. 'Kapur and Ganpat 
Rat~ 
with him) for tho;, appellants. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General 
for India (S. P. 
Varma, with him) for the respondents Nos. 1 and 5. 
C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General for India ( C. P. 
Lal, with him) for respondent No. 4. 
1954. September 28. The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
' 
BosE J .-This is an appeal from a· decision of 
the 
Election Tribunal of Gwalior in which the petitioner, 
an ekctor, sought to set aside the elections of the 
appellants (respondents 1 and 2 to the petition) who 
were the successful 
candidates. The constituency 
is 
Bhilsa, a double member 
constituency in Madhya 
Bharat. The petitioner seems 
to 
have been 
fighting 
on behalf of the 6th and 7th respondents to the petition 
because one of his prayers is that they be declared to 
have been 
duly 
elected in place of the appellants 
(respondents 1 and 2). The petitioner succeeded and 
the Tribunal d~clared the elections of the two appel-
lants to be void and further declared that the 6th and 
7th respondents had been duly elected. 
•• 
• 
-
.. 
... 
-_, 
)> 
• 
~.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
We will first consider that part of the decision which 
declares the election of the two appellants to be void. 
The Tribunal finds, among other things, that the 
appellant No. 1 (1st respondent) 
published 
certain 
l 
pamphlets which contain statements listed as (a), (b ), 
(c), (e), (£)and (g) by the Tribunal. The Tribunal holds 
that these statements are false and that the 1st appel-
lant (1st respondent) did not believe them to be true. 
It also holds that these statements reflect on the 
personal character and conduct of the 6th respondent 
and are reasonably calculated to prejudice his prospects 
in the election. These findings were contested and the 
learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 
attack was on the public and political character of the 
'!' 
' 6th respondent and was a legitimate 
attack. We do 
not intend to examine this as a Court of appeal because 
this is a special appeal and all we are concerned to see 
is whether a Tribunal of reasonable and unbiased men 
could judicially reach such a conclusion. We have had 
some of these pamphlets read out to us and we are of 
opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal is one 
which judicial 
minds 
could 
reasonably 
reach. 
We 
decline to examine the matter further in special appeal. 
Under the law the decision of the Tribunal is meant 
to be final. 
That does not take away our jurisdiction 
but we will only interfere when there is some glaring 
error which has resulted in a substantial miscarriage 
of justice. On those findings a major, corrupt practice 
on the part of the 1st respondent (1st appellant here) 
under section 123(5) of the Representation of the People 
> 
, Act, 19'il, is established. 
The next finding concerns the 2nd respondent (appel-
lant No. 2). The Tribunal finds that he made a syste-
matic appeal to Chamhar voters to vote for him on the 
basis of his caste. 
There is evidence to suppon this 
finding. The leaflets marked N and 0 
place . that 
beyond 
doubt. 
This constitutes 
a 
minor 
corrupt 
practice under section 124(5) of the Act. 
Both these provisions, namely sections 123(5) and 
124(5), were challenged as ultra vires article 19(1)(a) of 
the Constitution. It was contended that article 245(1) 
1954 
Jumna Prasci 
MukhariJa 
and oth11s 
•• 
Lachhi Ram 
and Othll's. 
111111. 
1954 
Ju.mun• Pr•s•d 
Mukhariy• 
11na Others 
... 
I.achhiRam 
llnd OJhtr.r. 
61se J. 
610 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
prohibits the making of laws which violate the Consti-
tution and that the impugned sections interfere with a 
citizen's fundam

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