LexRAMAKANT MAYEKAR ETC. ETC. versus SMT. CELINE D SILVA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
RAMAKANT MA YEKAR ETC. ETC.
v.
SMT. CELINE D' SILVA
DECEMBER 11, 1995
B
[J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]
c
D
Election Law :
Representation of the People Act, 1951 :
Sections 81(1) and 86-Election petition-To be filed within a period
of 45 days-Last date of limitation period a holiday-f'etition filed on the
reopening day-Held: Section JO of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applicable
and petition was filed within time.
Section 79(b )-Election-Conupt practice-Speeches made by a person
prior to the date of his becoming a candidate-Have to be excluded for
consideration.
Sections 98, 99 and 100( l)(b )-Election Trial-Naming other persons
who could be found guilty of comtpt practice-Notice-Issuance of-Held :
E Court cannot first decide the election petition declaring the election of the
retumed candidate void and then proceed to issue notices.
Sections 81 and 83-£lection Petition-Pleadings-Conupt practice--
Documents to be annexetf-Photographs of wall paintings-Contents or fomz
of the wall paintings not pleaded-Neither annexed nor copy fumishetf-Video
F cassettes or its transcript-Neither produced nor copy fumished-Held: plead-
ings wholly deficient to constitute conupt practice, are insufficient to raise a
triable issue and was liable to be struck out-Any evidence adduced later
would be irrelevant and inadntissible.
G
Sections 99 and JOO (l)(b)-Election petition-Conupt practice-Ap-
peal on ground of religion-Issuance of notice-Election meeting-Speeches
by other persons-Retumed candidate's presence not provetf-Held : elemem
of candidate's consent which is a constituent part of the conupt practice not
proved and issuance of notice did not arise.
H
Sections 83, lOO(l)(b), 123(3) and 123(3-A)-Electioa petition-Cor-
492
•
,
' •
RAMAKANT MA YEKAR v. CELINE D' S!LV A
493
rupt practice-Pleadings-Vicarious liability of candidate for an act of other A
persons-Must be pleaded and proved-Speeches made by other per-
sons-Consent of the candidate-Cannot be assumed merely from the fact
that he belonged to the same political pany--Roving inquiry into the affairs
of a political party not permissible.
Sections IOO(l)(b), 123(3) and (3-A)-<:orrupt practic~Appeal on
ground of religion-Mention of "Hindutva" in election speeches, wall paintings
and video cassettes-Did not amount to appeal for votes on the ground of
Hindu Religioir-''Hindutva''-Use made of-Depended upon the context and
the composition of the audience-Mere mention of religion in election cam-
paign not a corrupt practice.
General Clauses Act, 1897 :
Section 1{}-Applicable to election petition under Representation of
People Act, 1951.
Words and Phrases : "Hindutva'LMeaning of
The appellant's election to the State Legislative Assembly was
declared void by the High Court under Section lOO(l)(b) of the Repre-
sentation of the People Act, 1951 for commission of corrupt practices
under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act. Simultaneously notices
under Section 99 of the R.P. Act. have been issued to five persons on the
basis of speeches alleged to have been made by them on 29.1.1990 and
24.2.1990, wall paintings and video cassettes under Sections 123(3) and
123(3A) of the R.P. Act. Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment the
appellants preferred the present appeal.
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the election peti-
tion was not filed within time and was liable to be dismissed under Section
86 of the R.P. Act; that issuance of notices under Section 99 of the R.P. Act
B
c
D
E
F
on the basis of speeches made after deciding the election petition was
illegal; and that the mention of "Hindutva" in speeches, wall paintings and G
video cassettes did no~ amount to appeal for votes on the ground of Hindu
Religion.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. Acceptance of the nominations of the candidates was on H
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A 8.2.1990, the date of poll was 27.2.1990 and the result of election was
declared on 13.1990 at which the appellant was declared elected. The elec-
tion petition was filed on 16.4.1990. Admittedly the last date for filing the
election petition according to the prescribed period of 45 days was
14.4.1990, but the High Court and its office were closed for holidays on 14th
and 15th April, 1990 and reopened only on 16.4.1990. If Section 10 of the
B General Clauses Act applies, then the election petition filed on 16.4.1990
was wiExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.