MANOHAR JOSHI ETC. versus DAMODAR TATYABA @ DADASAHEB RUPWATE AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 759 · Decided: 11-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MANOHAR JOSHI ETC. 
v . 
.. _---..,. 
DAMODARTATYABA@DADASAHEBRUPWATEANDORS. 
--
MARCH 11, 1991 
[K.N. SINGH, KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 99, 123(2), (3) 
and 3(A)-Corrupt practice-Allegations of-Person summoned 
_ __,..i..,___ should know precise charge to be met-Notice to such person to spell 
out precise corrupt practice and portions of documentary evidence 
relied upon to sustain such. 
In the 1989 elections to the Lok Sabha, respondent No. 2 was 
declared elected from the Bombay South Central Constituency. One of 
the defeated candidates (respondent no. 1) f"Iled an election petition 
challenging the validity of the election of respondent no. 2 inter alia on 
the ground of corrupt practices under sub-section (2), (3) and (3A) of 
section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
The High Court having reached the stage in the trial when it was 
p rima f acie of the opinion that the charges alleged in the petition, of 
corrupt practices falling under sections 123(3) and 123(3A) had been 
proved to have been committed, it proceeded under section 99 to name 
l 
~ - the collaborators in such corrupt practices. The High Court accord-
ingly directed issuance of notices to three persons. Aggrieved by this 
order, two of the person named therein approached this Court by way 
of two separate appeals. 
Before this Court, it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that (i) the consequences of namiilg a person on his being found guilty 
pursuant to such notices were grave; (ii) the proviso to sub-section (1-) of 
~ 
· section 99 of the Act enjoined upon the Court to state precisely the 
· 
charges and the evidence which the person summoned was called upon 
to meet; and (iii) the notices to the appellants to answer allegations of 
corrupt practices allegedly committed by them were vague. 
Allowing the appe~ls and directing the High Court to issue proper 
~~\..- notices to the appellants in the light of the law, this Court, 
-
• 
I 
I 
HELD: (1) It is clear from the provisions of sub-clauses (i) and (ii) 
of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 99, that at the time of deciding 
759 
A. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H. 
760 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
{ 1991] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
the election petition the Court has to record a finding that a corrupt 
· y-
practice is proved to have been committed and that it has been commit-
B 
c 
D 
E 
ted by a particular person. The Court has not only to name the person 
but also the nature of the corrupt practice committed by him. {766F-G] 
(2) If the person is a party to the petition, it is not necessary to 
hear him separately before recording such fmding. However, when he 
is not a party to the petition, before such serious fmding is recorded 
against him, he· must have the same opportunity as the ·party to the· ~ 
petition, to meet the allegations against him. In that respect, he 
stands on the same footing as the party to the petition against whom 
such a fmding is to be recorded. He cannot be discriminated against 
·,.---1 
and made to stiifer any disadvantage because he is not a party to the 
petitfon. [766H-767A] 
(3) Where a corrupt practice is alleged, the trial of an election 
petition on such charges is of a quasi-criminal nature, and a heavy 
burden rests on the person alleging the corrupt practice to prove strictly 
all the ingredients of the charge. This is as it should be since the naming 
of a person as having committed a corrupt practice has a serious conse-
quence of disqualifying him from being chosen as or from being 
member of any House ()f Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or 
Council ofa State for a period upto 6 years. [7698-C] 
D.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narain Sharma & Ors., f1971] 3 S.C.R. 
257 and Rashim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors., [1975] l S.C.R. 643, 
ref.erred to. 
· 
( 4) When the· legislature requires that the election petition shall 
contain full particulars of each and every alleged corrupt practice 
F 
including as fuller a statement as possible of the names of the parties 
and !he date and place of the commission of such practice, it would be ~ 
contrary to the object of the said provisions to hold that when a notice is 
issued under Section 99 against a person who is not a party to the 
election petition for holding him guilty of any corrupt practice, the 
notice should not apprise him of the precise charge against him and give 
G 
him the full particulars thereof: [769D-E] 
_/ . 
(5) The impu~ed o

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