RAM SHARAN YADAV versus THAKUR MUNESHWAR NATH SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 1089 · Decided: 30-10-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

tos~ 
RAM SHARAN YADAV 
v. 
THAKUR MUNESHWAR NATH SINGH AND ORS. 
October 30, 1984 
[S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJ!, JJ.) 
Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123 (2)-Corrupt 
Practice a.,d undue influence in election law. standard of proof required-
lnterference by Supreme Court under Article J 36 of the Constitutioni in election 
cave, when permissible and wh·:n benefit of doubt can be given. 
Ram Sharan Yadav, the appellant and a candidate sp()nsored by the 
Commuaist Party of ladia, w.ts declared olected on 16.6.1977, to the 
Bihar LegislatiTe Assembly from 241-Goh Assembly constituency, after 
polling 28,783 votes as against 16,458 votes polled by respondent No. 1 
~ bakur l\.1uneshwar Nath Singh. 
An election petition was filed by the 
respondent No. 1 in the High Coort for setting aside the election of the 
appellant o:i tbe ground that b" had indulged in corrupt practices as 
envisaged io sec. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act. 1951. 
It was alleged that che appellant through his agents, supporters and other 
people, duly instructed by him made an attempt to set at naught the 
electoral process by putting the voters in serious fear as they were threa. 
teaed, assaulted and even firing was resorted to. The High Court found 1hat 
the said acts which undoubtedly amount to undue influence bad been corn-
mitted not only- at the instance but in the presence of the appellant and 
therefore allowed the petition and set aside the election of the people. 
Hence the appeal by Special Leave of the Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1 :1. 
A charge of corrupt practice bas to be proved by 
c~nvincing evjdence and not' merely by preponderance of probabilities. 
As the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature or a criminal charge it is 
for the party who sets up the plea of undue influence to prove it to the 
hilt beyond reasonable doubt and the manner of proof should be the same 
as for an offence in a criminal case. 
This is more so because once it is 
proved to the satisfaction of a Court that a candidate has been guilty of 
undue infiuence then be is likely to be disqualified for a period of 6 years 
or such other period as the authority concernr.d under section SA of the 
Act may think fit. 
Therefore, as the charge, if proved, entails a very 
heavy penalty in the form of disqualification the Supreme Court has beld 
that a very cautious approach must be made in order to prove the charge 
of undue influence levelled b1 the defeated candidate. [1092C-E) 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
I : 2. 
Another well settled principle is that before the allegation 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
1090 
SUPREME couRt RBPORtS 
f!985} 1 S.C.R. 
of undue influence can be proved, it must be shown that undue influence 
proceeds either from the candidate himself or through his agent or by any 
other person either with bis consent or with the consent of his elction agent 
so as to prevent or cloud the very exercise of any electoral right. L1092F] 
I : 3. 
Where a11egations of fraud or undue 
influence are made 
while insisting on standard of strict proof, the Court should not extend or 
stretch the doctrine to such an extent to make it well-nigh impossible to 
prove an allegation of corrupt practice. 
Such an approach would defeat 
and frustrate the very ,laudable and sacrosanct object of the Act ia main-
taining purity of the electoral process. [l093F] 
1 : 4. 
By and large, the Court io such cases while appreciating or 
analysing the evidence must be ~uided by 1the following considerations:[l093G] 
(1) the nature, character, 
respectability and credibility of tbe 
evidence; [1093H) 
(2) the surrounding circumstances and the improbablities appearing 
in the case ; [1093H) 
(3) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact 
arrived at by the trial court who had the initial advantage of 
observin1 the behavior. character and derneanor of the witnesses 
appearing before it, and [l094A) 
(4) the totality of the effect of the entire evidence which leaves 
a lasting impression regarding the corrupt practices aUeged. 
[1094B) 
1:5. 
There is no ritualistic formula 
nor a cut-and-dried test to 
lay down as to how a charge of undue influence can be proved but if all 
the circumstances taken together lead to the irresistible inference that the 
voters were pressurised, threatened or assaulted at the instance of either 
the candidate or his supporters or agents with his consent or with his 
F 
agents c

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