RAVINDER SINGH versus JANMEJA SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 19-09-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RA VINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
JANMEJA SINGH AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 
[DR. A.S. ANAND, CJ. AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] 
B 
Election Laws : 
Representation of the People Act, 1951-Section 123(4)--Commission 
of corrupt practice under-Allegation of-Requirement of making a statement C 
to the effect that the publication was made by the returned candidate or his 
election agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or 
his election agent or any statement of fact which is false and which he either 
believes to be false or does not believe to be true in relation to the personal 
character or conduct of the candidate-Jn the present case, the election 
petition silent regarding any such averment-Effect of-Held, the requirement D 
of making such a statement is mandatory under Section 123(4)'and in the 
absence of any such statement, the charge could not be put to trial. 
Sections 83, 123(1)--Conduct of Election Rules-Form 25-Mandatory 
requirement that the election petition levelling a charge of corrupt practice E 
be supported by an affidavit in the prescribed form in which the election 
petitioner is obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the 
commission of that corrupt practice-Held, in the absence of proper affidavit 
in the prescribed form filed in support of the corrupt practice alleged, the 
allegation pertaining thereto could not be put to trial, the defect being of 
a fatal nature. 
F 
The appellant was defeated by respondent no. 1, the returned candidate 
in the Legislative Assembly elections. The appellant filed an election petition 
in the High Court seeking to declare the election of returned candidate void 
on various grounds and for a further declaration that the appellant be declared 
duly elected as Member of the Legislative Assembly after setting aside election G 
of the returned candidate. The High Court dismissed the said election petition 
at the threshold on sustaining preliminary objection that the election petition 
lacked in material facts and particulars, necessary to constitute complete 
e~mse of 11etion for setting aside of the election of respondent no. 1. Hence 
the present appeal. 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the election petition, two main corrupt practices were 
alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate - one falling under 
Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the 
other falling under Section 123( 4) of the Act. The requirement emanating 
B from Section 123( 4) of the Act for the alleged commission of corrupt practice, 
is making an averment to the effect, that the publication was made by the 
returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the 
consent of the candidate or his election agent or any statement of fact which 
is false and which he either believes to be false or does riot believe to be true 
C in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate. The election 
petition is singularly silent of any such averment. Though in the election 
petition, this requirement emanating from Section 123(4) has been mentioned 
there was no assertion that the returned candidate in this case.published the 
false statements knowing them to be false and/or not believing them to be 
true. The requirement, of making such a statement is mandatory and in the 
D absence of any such statement, the charge could not be put to trial. Thus, 
in the face of the pleadings, no charge could have been framed insofar as 
corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act is concerned. 
(334-F-H; 335-A-B] 
E 
1.2. As regards the charge of corrupt practice falling under Secti~n 
123(1) of the Act, those allegations could not be put to trial either. There 
is no affidavit filed in support of the allegations of corrupt practice of bribery. 
Section 83 of the Act is mandatory in character and requires not only a 
concise statement of material facts and full particulars of the alleged corrupt 
practice, so as to present a full and complete picture of the action to be 
F detailed in the election petition but under the proviso to Section 83(1) of the 
Act, the election petition levelling a chawe of corrupt practice is required, 
by law, to be supported by an affidavit in which the election petitioner is 
obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission 
of that corrupt practice. The reason for this insi

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