LexSUCHETA KRIPALANI versus SHRI S.S. DULAT, I.C.S., CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1955 Stpttmbr 6 450 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1955] SHRI S. S. ELECTION SUCHETA KRIPALANI ti. DULAT, I.C.S., CHAIRMAN OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI AND OTHERS. [VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.] Election Dispute-Election petition by unsuccessful rival-A/le- gations of r12ajo1· co"upt practices and falsity in the return of election expenses against the returned candidate-Return of election expenses found defective and returned candidate disqualified by the Election Commission-Removal of such disqualification on lodging of fresh re- turn-furisdiction of Election Tribuna/_:_If competent to inquire into identical allegations of falsity against the second return-Repre· sentation of the People Act (XL/II of 1951), s. 143-The Representa· tion of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, rule 114(4), (5) and (6). The provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Rules framed thereunder assign distinct and different jurisdictions to the Election Commission and an Election Tribunal so far as a Re.turn of election expenses is concerned. Where there are allegations of major corrupt practices and a Tribunal constituted is in lawful seisin Of the dispute, s. 143 of the Act gives it the sole jurisdiction and makes it incumbent on it to in- quire into the falsity of any particulars mentioned in the return where such falsity is alleged and brought into issue and is reason- ably connected with the major corrupt practices. What the Election Commission has to do under Rule 114( 4) is to satisfy itself that the return is in the prescribed form. It is no part of its function to inquire into the correctness of any particulars mentioned therein. That question can only arise when some one raises a dispute and brings the matter into issue. Consequently, in a case where, as in the present, the Election Commission removed the disqualification it had imposed on the re- turned candidate for lodging a defective return of election expenses on the lodging of a fresh return; Held, that the decision of the Elec- tion Commission removing the disqualification attaching to the first return in no way precluded the Tribunal from inquiring into the falsity of the particulars in the second return although they were identical with those challenged in the first return; that the removal of the disqualification only meant that the accepted return was the only valid return, being the first to be cor- rect in form, and the Tribunal had only that return before it. ----------- 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 451 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1955. - . suC11efa- Kri'p~lani Appeal under Articles 132and 133 of the Constitu- tion of India against the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd December 1953 of the High Court of Judi- cature for the State of Prinjab,in Civil \Vrit Applica- tion No. 24 of 1953.L_____ ·;- 0 • "·. . · • • ' ' . ~: 1-tl -. . . . . - ; . N. 0. Chatterjee·, (R. S. N!irula, with him) for the appellant. . . . · . . . · ·. a:s. Pathak and Veda Vyds',-(Ganpat :R~i, ~ith them), for respondent No. 5 · "" . -~- ·- .. · i955. Septe~ber, 6.' The ·Judgment _of the Court was delivered by • ,. · · ·, BosE J.-· The proceedings that have given rise fo this appeal arise out of an·eJection petition liefore the Election Tribunal; Delhi. ' . · . · .. ' · The appellant Shrimati Sucheta·Kripalani together with the contesting respondent Shrimati Manmohirii Sahgal and others were candidates for· election to the House of the People from the Parliamentary ,Con- . stituency of New Delhi. The polling took place on - 14th January, 1952, and when the' votes.were counted on 18th January, 1952; it was foun·d that the appel- lant had secured the largest number of votes an_d that the contesting respondent 1\Ianmohlni came next; The appellant '.was accordingly notified as the returned candidate on 24th January, 1952. · · .· · . On 6th ~larch, 1952, ·the appellant filed her return of election expenses. This was found to· be defective, and on .17th April, 1952, tlie Election· Commission published a notification in the Gazette of India dis-· qualifying the appellant under Rule·ll4(5) of the Re- presentation of the People (Conduct of Electio_ns and Election Petitioris) Rules, 1951, ori the ground that she had · · . . · · '•-" • · : · · _ . : "failed to lodge the rel urn' of election expens
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.