SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI versus C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 09-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

C. NARAYANASWAMY 
v. 
C.K. JAFFAR SHARIEF AND ORS. 
AND 
SMT. PRAMILA NESARGI 
v. 
C.K. JAFFER SHARIEF AND ORS. 
AUGUST 9, 1994 
(KULDIP SINGH, P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH. JJ.] 
Election laws- Representation of the People Act, 1951,-Section 
123(l)(A)(b)-Corrupt practices-Mass feeding of electors during elec-
tion-Whether a corrupt practice. 
A 
B 
c 
Election laws-Bribery, gift, offer or promise of gratification and.induce- D 
ment to vote-Negotiation between Candidate or agent and electors-Need 
not be proved-inducement to voters may be indirect. 
Representation of the People Act, Sec. 83(1)(a)(b)-Requirements 
of-Pleadings-Statement of material facts and setting forth of full particulars 
of any corrupt practice-Needs to be complied with-Mere reproduction of E 
section does not amount to statement of material facts. 
Representation of the People Act-Section 83(J)(a)(bf--<:orrupt prac-
tices-f'roof of incuning of expenditure beyond prescribed limit by elected 
candidates-Burden of-Conduct of ''Election Rules, 1961-ll.ule 90. 
Election Laws-ll.ight to elect or to be elected-Statutory right, not 
fundamental or Common law right-ll.ight to challenge electio~Similarly, 
flows from statute. 
F 
Representation of the People Act-Ss. 77(1)-Effect of Explanation I G 
as introduced by Act 58 of 1974 and 123(6)-Corrupt practice-Expendi-
ture-By political party or association or other person-Not deemed expendi-
ture incu"ed .or authorised by candidate. 
Representation of the People Act-S.IOO(l)(d)(iii)-Declaring election 
. void-Grounds of-Conduct of electi01.-Election Rules-ll.ules 45 and 56 H 
463 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
(7)-Fom1 16-lmproper numbering of ballot papers-Effect of 
B 
c 
Shri. C.K. Jaffer Sharief was elected to the Lok Sabha from Banglore 
North Lok Sabha Constituency. His election was challenged by the appel· 
lant on the grounds of corrupt practice of mass scale free feeding of the 
electors, excessive expenditure and printing of spurious ballots papers. 
The respondent's position was (i) the free feeding was on account of the 
obsequies observed for the assassinated former Prime Minister, Shri Rajiv 
Gandhi; (ii) the respondent had only incurred the reported expenditure 
and the rest was incurred by the party and; (iii) the ballots were not 
spurious. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
HELD: 1. After the process of election had commenced and before the 
electors had exercised their right of franchise. mass feeding of electors 
arranged by the candidate or on his behalf in order to induce directly or 
D indirectly the electors to vote, was a corrupt practice. With the existing 
economic conditions prevailing in the country feeding of electors may in· 
duce them to vote in favour of the candidate arranging it. [ 468·G·H, 469-A] 
E 
F 
G 
Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal, AIR (1964) SC 1366 andRajendra Prasad 
Jain v. Shee/ Bhadra Yajee, AIR (1967) SC 1445, relied on. 
2. The negotiation between the candidate or by any person on his 
behalf on the one hand and the electors on the other need not be proved. 
Section 123(1)(A)of the Representation of people Act did not require the 
electors to express or convey their acceptance or assurance that they could 
vote for the candidate. But a ne>.11s between the gift, offer or promise of 
gratification and the inducement to vote had to be established, which 
could be d.one even by circumstantial evidence. (469-C-F] 
S.B. Adityan v. S. Kandaswami, AIR (1958) SC 857 and B. Rajagopala 
Rao v. Appayya Dora Hanumanthu & Ors., AIR (1990) SC 1889, relied on. 
Laxmi Narayar. Nayak v. Ramrathan Chaturoedi, (1990] 2 SCC 173; 
referred to. 
Ghasi Ram v. Dal Si11gh, [1968] 3 SCR 102=AIR (1968) SC 1191, 
Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia, [1971] 3 SCR 522 = AIR 
H 
(1971) SC 2025 and Harjit Singh Man11 v. S. Umrao Singh, [1980] 2 SCR 
NARAYANASWAMY v. JAFFAR SHARIEF 
465 
3. Charge of corrupt practice bad to be proved by the election A 
petitioner. The proceedings in the election petition were quasi-criminal in 
nature. 
Devi Prasad v. Malluram Singhania, [1969] 3 SCC 595; Rahim Khan 
v. KhurshidAhmed, AIR (1975) SC 290; Bir Chandra Barman v.Anil Sarkar, 
AIR (1976) SC 603; Laxmi Raman v. Chandan Singh, AIR (1977) SC 587 
ao_d Amolakchand v. Bhagwandas, AIR (1977) SC 813, relied on 
B 
4. The elected candidate could not meet the allegations in the vagoe 
pleadings. Requirements of section 83(l)(a)b) regarding statement of 
material facts and setting
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.