SH. SURYAKANT VENKATARAO MAHADIK versus SMT. SAROJ SANDESH NAIK (BHOSALE)

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 11-12-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SH. SURYAKANT VENKATARAO MAHADIK 
v. 
SMT. SAROJ SANDESH NAIK (BHOSALE) 
DECEMBER 11, 1995 
B 
(J.S. VERMA, N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMY, JJ.] 
Representation of the people Act 1951, Ss.100( l)(b) r/w 123(3)(3A}-
Election-<:ormpt practice-Appeal to voters on ground of religion-Returned 
candidate a Hindu invoking support for the Hindus and Hindu religion in a 
C religious gathering of Hindus during election campaign-Candidate stating 
that for protection of Hindutva it was necessary to give vote to the Shiv 
Senir-Held, the speech was an appeal to voters on the ground of religion and 
amaunted to cormpt practice. 
Election /aw-Proof of cormpt practice-Direct evidence of sub-inspec-
D tor of police who attended meeting where speech made by candidate amount-
ing to cormpt practice-Candidate not offering himself for cross-exami-
nation-Held, adverse inference would follow since the best person to deny 
the assertion was the candidate himself. 
E 
Representation of the People Act 1951, Ss.81 (3) r/w s.86(1}-Non-
supp£v of document annexed to election petition contents of which expressly 
pleaded in the petition-Held, does not amount to non-compliance with 
s.81(3) rem/ting in dismissal of election petition. 
Representation of the People Act 1951, S.81(1) r/w General Clauses 
F Act, s.10-Last date of presentation falling on a holiday-Petition filed on day 
of reopening of Court-Held, not time barred. 
Appellant, a Hindu and a candidate of the Shiv Sena was declared 
duly elected from the 48 Nehru Nagar constituency to the Maharashtra 
Legislative Assembly. The respondent challenged the election inter alia on 
G the ground that at a gathering of Hindus at temple where a religious 
ceremony was in progress, the appellant made inciting speeches based on 
religion and exhorted voters to vote for Shiv Sena for the protection of 
Hindutva. The respondent examined a police sub-inspector, who was 
present at the meeting and maintained a diary as a witness. The appellant 
H did not offer himself for cross-examination. The High Court set aside the 
530 
S.V. MAHADIK v. S.S. NAIK 
531 
appellant's election on the ground that he had committed a corrupt A 
practice as defined under s.123(3) and (3A) of the Representation of the 
People Act, 1951 ('Act'). 
Before this Court the appellant contended that the election petition 
was time barred; the non-supply of legible copies of the photographs 
annexed to the petition amounted to non-compliance with s.81(3) of the 
Act warranting dismissal of the petition; the petition did not disclose 
material facts and full particulars and that on facts no corrupt practice 
was proved. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The speech of the Appellant on February 11, 1990 in 
Sarveshwar Mandir during the religious festival of 'Akhand Harinam 
Saptah' to the congregation of Hindu devotees at that time and place was 
clearly an appeal to the voters on the gronnd of his religion which amounts 
B 
c 
to a corrupt practice under sub- section (3) of S.123 of the Act. The word D 
'Hindutva' used in the speech of the Appellant at that time and place and 
occasion has to be understood only as an appeal on the ground of Hindu 
religion, that is, by the candidate on the ground of his religion. [541-D, BJ 
Bal Thackeray v. Prabhakar K Kunte, [1995] Snppl. 6 SCR, referred 
to. 
2. The evidence of the police sub-inspector is the only direct evidence 
on the point to which there is no rebuttal by the appellant inasmuch as 
the appellant did not enter the witness box to deny the version. He was the 
best person to deny the assertion if he challenged the same and to otTer 
himself for cross-examination. This he failed to do. He conld not be 
relieved from the consequence of the adverse interference arising against 
him on this point. [540-C-B] 
E 
F 
3. The election petition is not liable to be dismissed for non-com-
pliance of S.81(3) of the Act. The contents of the four photographs annexed G 
to the election petition are expressly pleaded in the petition. The 
photographs were only evidence of the pleading and it is not a case of 
incorporating their contents in the petition by reference without stating it 
in the petition. [535-A, 534-C] 
Sahodrabhai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar, [1968] 3 SCR 13, applied. 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
4. The election petition was within time. S.10 of the General Clauses 
Act applies to election petitions presented under the Representation of the 

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