RAJ NARAIN versus SMT. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI AND ANR

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 841 · Decided: 15-03-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
c 
0 
E 
f 
G 
H 
841 
RAJ NARAIN 
v •. 
SMT. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI AND ANR •. 
March 15, 1972 
(K. S. HEGDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND K. K. MATHEW; JJ.J 
Representation of the People 
Act, 1951-Section 
86(5)-SCOP<-
Pleadings relming to corru.'1t .Dractice-Better particulars of charges ma\' 
he introduced by amendment of pl~adings. 
· 
Election Petition-Interrogatories-Code of Civil Procedure 
1908-
0rder XI r, 1-lnterroga:pries 1nust have reasonable close connecti'on with 
"any n1atters in question." 
While ·3 corrupt practice has got to be strictly proved it doe·s not 
follow that a pleading in an election petition should receive 
a strict 
construction. The object of section 86(5) of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951, is to see that a person ac~used of a corrupt practice 
must know p!'OCisely 
what he is accused of so that he- may have the 
opportunity to meet the allegations JM.de against him. If the accusation 
made is nebulous and is capable of being made use of for establishin~ 
more than one charge or if it does not make out a corrupt plractice at 
all then the charge fails at the threshold. 
So Jong as the charge level-
led is beyond doubt, s. 86(5) is satisfied; rest is mere refinement; they 
either pertain to the region of particulars or evidence. 
Under s. 86(5), 
if corrupt practice is alleged in the p~Otion, the particulars of such cor-
rupt practice may b~ amended or amplified for ensui'ing a fair and effec· 
tive trial that is, more and better particulars of the charge may be given 
later, even after the period ef limitation; but if a corrupt practice is not 
previously "lleged in the petition, an am!ndment which will have the 
effect of introducing particulars of such. a corrupt practi<',o will not be 
permitted, after the period of Jimimtion. because, it would tantamount to 
making a fresh petition. [847 GJ 
· 
The appellant, in his election petition, challenging the validity of tbe 
election of respondent No. I, alleged that the respondent obtained the 
assistance of K when he was still a Gazetted Officer in the Go""ruwmt 
of India for tbe furtherance <if the prospects of her election. and· that 
K organised the electioneering work for her during the 
entire period 
even before the filing of the nomination paper. The petition did not 
sct out specifically that when the respondent obtained tlr> a5si0 tancie of 
K, she was a "candidate", nor did it state the ·date on which X was 
entrusted with the electioneering work. 
The respondent filed an appli-
cation under 0. XI, Code of Civil Procedure, for sitting aside the inter-
rogatories served on her by th! appellant. The trial court set aside some 
of the interrogatories and struck out the isaue& relating to cor\"uot oractice 
on the basis that the facts stated in the petition did not discli>oe the 
corrupt practice which were the subject matter of the issues. Thi! Court 
also dismissed the "poellant's application for amending the election peti-
tion, on the ground that the appellant was seeking to add material facts 
and hence they could not be accepted after the period of limitation for filing 
the election. petition. 
· 
HELD : ( i) that the trial court was not juslified in strikin~ out the 
issues relating to corrupt practice. The allegations in the petition bring 
842 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1972] 3 S.C.R. 
out al! th.: ingredients ot the corrupt practic;e alleged though they are 
A 
lacking in better particulars such as the date on which 
the 
respondent 
hc.:-can1e a candidate and the date on which K w:is entrusted with the 
r<?~ponsibility of organising the clcction·:!cring 'W'Ork of the respondent. 
The- absence of these particulars does not per se invalidate 
the charge. 
IS49 Gj 
Harish Chandra Bajpui v. Triluki Singh, ~1957] S.C.R. 370; Sa111ar1t 
.\J. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernaridcz and ors. etc. [11969] 3 S.C.R. 
D 
60.l and Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal Singh. [1972] S.C.C. 214, referred to. 
l ii) that the question as to when K's ·resign"J.tion 
bcca.~nc effective 
h1.1~ to be examined \Vith rr.:ferencc to his c'onditions of service <ind this 
h~1\·ing not been done the conclusion of the trial judge in this regard had 
to he ignored. 1852 D-E] 
R11j K111ne1r v. Union of India, [19681 3 S.C.R. 857. referred 1o. 
Quaere : \Vhcth.::!r a government servant's resignation can he accept~d 
\'1.-ith effect from '3.n earlier date and whether such an acceptance has ·an,· 
1·alidity in con•·idering a corrupt practice under s. 123(7)

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