RAM CHAND BHATIA versus HARDYAL

Citation: [1986] 1 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 29-01-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

177 
RAM CHAND BHATIA 
v. 
HARDYAL 
JANUARY 29, 1986 
[E.S, VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ,] 
Representation of the People Act, 1951 sections 79(b) 
and 82(b) - Impleadtng a candidate as a necessary party, when 
arises -
Corrupt practice - Ingredients of 
sections 123(3) 
and ( 4). -
Onus of proof lies on the election p-etitt.onet -
Distinction between the personal character or c::enduct of the 
candidate and his public or political character and conduct, 
explained. · 
In the 1982 Himachal Pradesh State Assembly elections 
,. 
the appellant Rsm Chand Bhatia sponsored by Bhartiya Janata 
,.. 
Party was declared elected defeating the next rival candidate 
Hardyal the respondent cwn election petitioner cwn official 
nominee of the Congress (I) Party by a margin of 3364 votes. 
Kanshi Rsm sponsored by Janata Party secured 1049 votes while 
Vidhi Chand official nominee of the Co1111111nist Party of India 
secured 1889 votes. The respondent filed an election petition 
challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that 
Kanshi Rsm, Janata Party candidate conspired with the appel-
lant and other persons to get printed posts like the one 
annexed to the petition (as Annexure PA later on exhibited as 
PI during Trial) containing false statement of facts assailing 
~
. 
the personal character of the election petitioner and to 
distrib.ute the same during the election pe~iod with. the.obje. ct. 
of prejudicially affecting the prospects of the election 
petitioner. The appellant contested the election petition 
denying the allegations made. 
The lMrned Judge held ·(i) that Kanshi Ram was not a 
necessary party to the election petition; and (ii) that the 
contents of Annexure PA pertain to the personal character and 
conduct of the election petitioner-respondent. He found that 
the appellant had distributed the offending poster, but 
refrained from giving any finding on the question whether his 
~- election agent or any other person with his . consent had 
~ 
distributed the said poster. As regards the printing of the 
~ offending poster, the learned Judge found that even if it was 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
·A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
178 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 1 s.c.R. 
not proved that the poster 
in question was printed at the 
instance of the appellant or his election agent, the offence 
of corrupt practice is established in view of his finding that 
the appellant himself had distributed the offending poster. On 
these findings the election petition was allowed declaring the 
election of the appellant as void. Hence the appeal by Special 
Leave. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : l. The impleadment of a candidate against whom a 
charge of corrupt practice has been made as a party is 
necessary, only when the charge of corrupt practice was made 
against a "Candidate" as defined in section 79(b) of the 
Representation of the People Act, that is after he was 
nominated as a candidate. [191 D-F] 
2.1 Section 123 of the Representation of People Act does 
not stop a man from speaking. It merely prescribes conditions 
which 1111St be observed if he wants to enter Assembly or 
Parliament. The right to stand as a candidate and contest an 
election is not a common law right. It is a special right 
created by Statute and can only be exercised on the condi-
tions laid down by, the statute. [185 C-D] 
,
2.2 In order to make out the charge of corrupt practice 
under sub-section 4 of section 123 of the Representation of 
People Act, the election petitioner has to show that (i) the 
impugned statement of facts was published by a candidate or 
his agent or by any other person with the consent of the 
candidate or his agent; (ii) that the statement was false and 
which the maker either believes to be false or does not 
believe to be ture; (iii) that the statement relates to the 4I 
personal character and not to the political character of a , 
candidate; and (iv) that the statement was 
reasonably calcu-
lated to prejudice the prospects of the other candidates' 
election. [186 E-F, 190 G-H, 191 A-BJ 
Adverse criticism however severe, however undignified, 
ill mannered, however regretable it might be, in the interest 
of purity and decency of public life, in relation to the 
political views, position, reputation or action of a candidate 
would not bring it within the mischief of the statute. What is l 
objectionable is a false statement of fact and not a false 
statement of opinion, however unfounded or unjustified. The 
RAM 

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