LexPROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC. versus HARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC.
v.
HARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC.
DECEMBER 11, 1995
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
Represe11tation of the People Act 1951-Sections 99(1) Proviso,
100(1)(b), 123(3), 123(3A}-De11ial of opportunity to noticee to plead a11d
prove constituent parts of co1rnpt practic~Whether noticee could be held
guilty of commission of corrupt practic1'-lfeld, noticee has i11depende11t 1ight
to show that co11stitue11t pa1ts of corrupt practice are not made out and that
conuptpractice alleged is not proveli-Noticee cannot be refused this oppor-
tzmity at the threshold eve11 if ca11didate omits to deny existence of a11y con-
stituent part of com1pt practice-Order 11ami11g noticee for commission of
conupt practice, held, vitiated-Section 116A-Election-<:orrupt Practice
Civil Procedure Code 1908--0rder VIII Rule 5(1}-Repi~sentation nf
A
B
c
D
the People Act 1951-Sections 100(1)(b), 123(3), 123(3A}-Consent of
retwned candidate to offe11ding speeches alleged-Implied admission of aver-
1nents by non-traverse in written statement, whether made out-Held, when
alleged consent qenied to have been given either expressly or by implication,
E
and assertion of retwned candidate that he was in 110 way cp,!'nectrd 1".ith
any act of alleged agent or responsible for her actions, denial contemplated
Under Order VIII Rule 5, clearly made out-Refusal of permission to lead
evidence about personal absence on ground that specific denial not made in
written statement, held, contrary to /aw-Such evide11ce may be significant F
011/y to assess probative value but it cannot be shut out as i"elevant or
i11admissible--E/ection-Corrupt Practice--Pleadi11gs Evidence Act 1872, Sec-
tion 11
Representation of the People Act 1951-Sectio11s 123(3), 123(3A),
100(1 )(b ), 29A-Whether manifesto of political party could by itself constitute G
basis for finding of corrupt practic~Whether appeal for votes on ground of
religion made out-Held, manifesto of political party could not by itself form
basis for holding candidate guilty of com1pt practice where no part in its
draftin~ or use in campaign attributed to candidat1'-lield fu1ther, on facts,
appeal on ground of religion not established-No legal evidence to prove H
471
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A allegation of corrnpt practice-Election of returned candidate upheld-Elec-
tion-Corrnpt Practice-Secularism.
Election for the Lok Sabha from the Thane Parliamentary con-
stituency was held on 15 June 1991. The election of appellant, the BJP
candidate, was challenged in an election petition alleging corrupt practice.
B The allegation was based on three speeches made by Sadhvi Rithambra,
L.K. Advani and Pramod Mahajan.
The High Court, while rejecting the claim in the petition on the basis
of the speech of L.K. Advani, held the other two speeches to be corrupt
C practice under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A), Representation of the People
Act 1951 ('Act'). It held that both these speeches had been made in the
presence of the appellant which proved his consent. The High Court
disallowed, in the examination-in-chief, questions put to the appellant-
returned candidate indicating his personal absence from the meeting held
wherein one of the alleged speeches was made, on the ground that there
D was no specific denial of his presence at the meeting in his written
statement. An application for amendment of the written statement was also
rejected. An SLP to this Court against that order was dismissed. There-
after, the deposition of the appellant- candidate having concluded and the
evidence being closed, notices under Section 99 of the Act were given to the
E two noticees. The noticee's application for calling evidence to prove the
absence of the appellant-candidate from her meeting was rejected by the
High Court. The noticee's SLP to this court was dismissed. The High Court
thereafter allowed the election petition and declared the election of the
appellant to be void.
F
In appeal, this Court considered whether the noticee had an inde-
pendent right to plead and prove the want of any constituent part of the
corrupt practice alleged; whether any implied admission of the averments
in the election petition could be read in the written statements of the
returned candidate; whether the manifesto of a registered political party
G could form the basis for finding the candidate guilty of corrupt practice;
and whether there wasExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.