KAKA JOGINDER SINGH ALIAS DHARTI PAKAD versus K.R. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 245 · Decided: 16-07-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

1 
KAKA JOGINDER SINGH ALIAS DHARTI PAKAD 
A 
v. 
K.R. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT OF INDIA 
JULY 16, 1993 
[J.S. VERMA, K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, G.N. RAY AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.] 
The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952-Section 
18( i }-Undue influence-Ground of-Essential ingredients-Deficiency in 
B 
pleadings-Effect of 
C 
The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952-Section 
SB-Object and requirement of-Nomination paper-Rejection of-When--
Defects not substantial-Effect of 
Election-Vice-Presidential Election-Undue influence .ground-Deft-
D 
ciency in pleadings-Defects in nomination paper not of substalllial na-
atre-Effect of 
The petitioner and the respondent filed their nominations for the 
election of the Vice-President of India.· 
At the time of scrutiny, the petitioner raised objections to the validity 
of the nomination papers filed by the respondent. The Returning Officer 
rejected the objections and found the nomination papers of both of them 
to be valid. 
In the polling held, the respondent was declared duly elected as the 
Vice-President of India. 
E 
F 
The petitioner challenged the election in the present election petition 
before this Court on two grounds, namely, (i) wrong acceptance of the 
nomination of the returned candidate, a ground under Section 18(1)(c) of G 
the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952; and (ii) com-
mission of the offence of undue inlluence at the election, a ground under 
Section 18(1) (a) of the Act, by issuance of a whip by the Congress(!) Party 
to vote for the respondent at the election. 
The petitioner also contended that there were substantial defects in H 
245 
246 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A the nomination papers of the returned candidate which required their 
rejected in accordance with Section 5E(3)(e) of the Act by the Returning 
Officer, al the time of scruth1y; that the certificate annexed to each nomina-
tion paper of the returned candidate did not satisfy the requirement of 
sub-section(~ of Section SB, as the Certificate showed that the returned 
B candidate Was registered as an elector in the electoral roll of '94 Palai 
Assembly Constituency' which was not in 'Ottapalam (SC)' Parliamentary 
Constituency mentioned in the nomination paper but in 'Muvattupuzha' 
arliamenia..Y Constituency; and that the certificate showed the 'Name of 
the Guardian' of the elector as 'Raman' whereas in the prescribed form 
the heading of the corresponding column was 'Name of the 
C Father/Mother/Guardian/Husband'. 
The respondent submitted that no triable issue relating to the 
ground of commission of the offence of undue influence contained in 
Section 18(1) (a) of the Act arose in the absence of the requisite pleadings 
for that purpose; that the objection taken in the election petition for. 
D raising the ground under section 18(1)(c) of the Act was not raised before 
the Returning Officer at the time of scrutiny; that the objection taken being 
merely of misdescription of the proposers and seconders, and not the 
returned candidate, in the nomination papers; and that the defect, if any, 
was not of a substantial character to permit rejection of the nomination 
· E papers on that ground. 
Dismissing the election petition, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Section 18(1)(a)of the Presidential and Vice- Presiden-
tial Elections Act, 1952 clearly shows, to constitute the ground, the essen-
F tial ingredients are: (1) Commission of the offence of undue influence at 
the election; and. (2) Its commission by the returned candidate or by any 
person with the consent of the returned candidate. Thus, the offence of 
undue influence at the election, as defined in Section 171-C contained in 
Chapter IX-A of the Indian Penal Code, must have been committed; and 
G that offence must have been committed either by the returned candidate 
himself or by any person with the consent of the returned candidate. 
Unless both these ingredients to constitute the ground under Section 
18(1)(a) are pleaded and proved, this ground for declaring the election to 
be void cannot be made out [254-D-E-F) 
H 
1.2. A bare perusal of the petition is sufficient to indicate that at least 
DHARTIPAKAD v. KR.NARAYANAN 
247 
one of the two essential ingredients of the ground is not even pleaded in A 
the election petition. Whether the issuance or a whip by a political party 
can amount to undue influence does not arise for decision in the presen

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