SH. DHARMVIR versus AMAR SINGH

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 06-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
A 
SH. DHARMVIR 
-
v. 
AMAR SINGH 
FEBRUARY 6, 1996 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, CJ. AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, J.] 
-
The Representation of People Act, 1951: 
Section 100 (l)(d)-Election-Counting process-Ballot papers-In 
c favour of rival candidate-Found double marked, defaced and muti-
lated-Thousands of votes cancelled and rendered invalid-Returned 
---.
candidate's abetment, connivance and consent proved-Benefit of wrongful 
-
rejection of votes derived by returned candidate alone--Retumed candidate's 
election-Materially affected by improper rejection of votes obtained by rival 
candidate-Returned candidate's election declared void. 
D 
Section 64-A-Not applicable as it deals with a situation where the 
counting of votes is not complete-Sections 123(2) and (7)-Not ap-
plicable-As it deals· with comtpt practices indulged at a stage prior to the 
casting of the votes-Applicable only to pre- voting stage and not post-voting 
E stage. 
Sections 123(8) and 135-A(d)-Not applicable-As these were inserted 
long after elections and counting were over and have no retrospective ef-
feet-Hence reliance placed on Section JOO(l)(b) read with Sections 123(2), 
(7) or (8) and 135-A(d) misplaced. 
F 
Section 8-A-Disqualification---High Court not competent to order dis-
qualification of a candidate for a period of six years. 
Election Petition-Trial of-Findings of fact-Based on appreciation of 
oral evidence-challenge of-Appellate Cowt should not nonnally inteif ere 
G with it. 
Election-Inspection and sc1utiny of ballot papers-Prayer f Ol'-votes 
cast-In favour of 1ival candidate-found do~ble marked, def~ced or mu ti-
___... 
lated-Held : High Cowt rightly declined to grant the prayer. 
H 
Section 101-Declaration of rival candidate as elected-No evidence to 
156 
-
DHARMVIR v. AMAR SINGH 
157 
enter finding that he received majority of valid votes-Held : such declaration A 
could not be granted. 
The appellant's election to the State legislative Assembly was 
declared void and set aside by the High Court. The appellant was further 
disqualified for a period of six years from seeking election. Aggrieved by B 
the High Court's judgment the appellant preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the various acts of 
hooliganism and nefarious activities at the time of counting of the votes 
were not true and had not been proved : that the statutory provisions of 
Sections 100, 123(2) and 123(7) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 
did not apply; that only Section 64-A of the Act was applicable; that the 
High Court was totally in error in disqualifying the appellant for a period 
of six years from seeking election; and that under the Statute, the power 
was vested with the President to determine the question as to whether any 
person should be disqualified and if so, for what period. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that there was abun-
dant material in the case to show that the hooliganism and goondaism 
preyailed during the counting of votes at the instance of the appellant; that 
the nefarious and illegal activities stood amply proved by the evidence in 
c 
D 
the case; that Sections 123(2) and 123(7) read with Section 100(1) and E 
135-A(d) of the Act amply brought out the various corrupt practices 
indulged in by the appellant; that it was true that in view of Section 8-A of 
the Act the question regarding determination of disqualification was left 
to the President and the High Court was not justified in pronouncing on 
the matter; and that the rival candidate be declared as elected. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Under the Statute, the High Court is incompetent to 
order disqualification. Section 8-A of the Representation of People Act, 
1951 concludes the matter. On this ground the finding of the High Court G 
that the appellant is disqualified from contesting election for a period of 
six years is set aside. [169-E] 
1.2. The respondents have stated the details of the various acts of 
hooliganism, threat, intimidation and other nefarious activities that were 
indulged in by the appellant and his henchmen at the time of counting of H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
the votes. As against the positive case so pleaded by the respondents, the 
sole defence put up by the appellant was one of clear denial. There are no 
two versions of the incident. From the pleadings and on the basis of the 
evidence on record it was clear that various acts of hooligani

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