N. S. VARDACHARI versus G. VASANTHA PAI AND ANR.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 886 · Decided: 21-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

886 
N. S. VARDACHARI 
v. 
G. VASANTHA PAI AND ANR. 
August 21, 1972 
(K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ,J 
Representation of the People. Act (43 di 1951), s. 
123 (2) and 
( 4 )~Expression of opinion that candidate not qua/;fied~It amounts 
to undue influence under s. 123 ( 2) or corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4). 
Election 
to Legislative Council from Graduates' constituency-If 
non-oolitic a/. 
A 
B 
Constitulion of India, 1950, Art, 171(3) (a) (b) and (c)-lf Candi· . C 
date should be member of electoral College. 
Practice-Imposition of penal Costs. 
In 1967, the first respondent and S contested· for election for a seat 
in the Madras Legislative Council from the City Graduates' constituency, 
which fell vacant. 5 was declared elected and his election was challeng-
ed by the :first respondent on the grounds, inter a/ia, that, (aj in an elec-
D 
lion from graduates' constituencies political parties were not competent 
to sponsor candidates, and S, having been sponsored by the Swatantra 
Party, was not qualified to be a candidate; arid (b) that S was guilty of 
corrupt practices under s. 123 (5) of the Representation of the People 
Act, 1951. 
The High Court set aside the election of S on the second 
ground. 
On the first ground, while holding that there was no evidence 
that S was spousored by a political party, the High Court observed that 
E 
election to the Legislative Council· from the Graduates' constituency was 
a non-party election and that political parties should not nominate any 
candidate for that election. 
7
: 's Court, in appeal, confirmed the finding 
of the High Court that S was guilty of corrupt practices, but did not at 
all touch on the observations of the High Court. 
In 1970, the first and second respondents contested for election to 
the Legislative Council from the same constituency, which was a two 
member constituency, and they were both declared 
elected. 
The 
first 
respondent objected to the candidature of the second respondent before 
the Returning Officer. on the grounds, (I) that the High Court had de-
cided in the earlier election petition against S, that the constituency ·was 
a non·political one and that the second respondent, having been sponsor-
ed by the Swatantra Party, any votes giv.en to hin1 would 
amount 
to 
throwing away the votes: and (2) that the second respondent was not a 
grad'u:ite and hence, 'vas not 
qualified to be a candidate at the e'ection. 
The Returning Officer rejected the objections, cut the first respondent con-
tinued tbe propaganda against the second respondent by publishing leaf-
lets as well as appeals in ne\vspapcrs. 
After the t\vo respondents had 
been declared elected, the appellant, an elector in the constituency, filed 
an election petition challenging the election of the first respondent on the 
ground that by his propaganda he was guilty of cormpt practices under 
s. 123 (2) and (4). 
The High Court, disn1issed the petition with penal costs. 
Jn appeal to thh Court. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
N. s. VARDACHARI V. G. VASANTHA PAI (Hegde, J.) 
887 
HELD : ( 1) A debate whether a candidate was qualified to stand or 
whether a political party was competent to nominate candidates for a 
particular constituency cannot: be undue influence within the meaning of 
s. 123(2). [891G-H] 
(a) The first respondent placed his point of view before the e:ecto-
ratc and sought support for it from the judgment of the High Court and 
the second· respondent relied upon a press note issued by the Election 
Commission. 
Candidates in electi~ns are not only entitled to raise l)Oti-
tical issues but can also raise social, economic and legal issue:-. [892 A-Bl 
(b) The first respondent did not make anv attack on tbc character 
of the. secortd respondent. 
The mere fact that his contention was Ufr 
tenable did not convert it into undue influence. [892B, HJ 
S. K. Singh v. V. V. Giri. [1971] 2 S.C.R. 197, referred to. 
(2) The first respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practice under 
s. 123{4). [891G] 
(a) His propaganda that the second respondent was not qualified to 
be a cc.1didate was only an opinion expressed by him. 
He did not make 
any statement of fact and an opinion on a question of law could not 
be considered to be a ste.tement of fact., 
The fact that the Returning 
Officer held that the second respondent was qualified to be a candidato 
did not preclude the first respondent from debating the issue before the 
electorate. [891D-G] 

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