LexZIYAUDDIN BURHANUDDIN BUKHARI versus BRIJMOHAN RAMDASS MEHRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' , ZIY AUDDIN BURHANUDDIN BUKHARI v. BRIJMOHAN RAMDASS MEHRA & ORS. April 25, 1975 [M. H. BEG, A. ALAQIRISWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] Representation of the People Act-Section 123(2), (3) & 3 (A)-Corrupt practice-Appeal 011 the gro1111d of relig~on-Pn11noti1.1g_ feelings of hatr.ed c:nd en1nity between different classes-Aniend1nent of pet1t1on-form of afJ.1dt;v1t- Vagueness of petition-Evidence Act-Cassettes evidence whether adm1ss1ble- Ord~r of costs in favour of the respondent. 281 A B ·The appellant a candidate of Muslim League defeated respondent No. 3 C Shauket Chagla, the Congress c.andidate in the Maharashtra State in Assembly Election. Respondent No. 1, a voter filed an Election Petition, inter alia, alleging that the appellant appealed to the voters to refrain from voting for respondent N~. 2. on the ground of religion and that the appellant promoted feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India On grounds of religion. The appe11ant made· the following appeai to the voters in his variuos elec- tion speeches : (1) ~(uslim personal Jaw was a matter of religious faith f~r Muslims and that it extended to the mode of disposing of bodies of the dead. The· voters were told that if they voted for Chagla they would have to cremate the bodies of their dead instead of burying them because Chagla had cremated the dead body of his sister. (2) The appe1lant entreated hi3 audience not to vote for those who stood .against" their religion. (3) Chagla was not true to his religion and that the appellant was a true Muslim. D E l4) If Muslim personal law may be considered a personal matter by Chagla it was considered to be "the law of God" by Muslims who F Would not tolerate any attempts to amend it as that would raise a religious question. ~5.) If the Congress Government brought any amendments iil Muslim religious law the battle v,rould be fought in every street. (6) Chagla advocated inter-com·munal or inter-caste marriages and that he wanted a Hindu to be a member of th~ Haj Committee. (7) There were references to riots -in which only Muslims were alleged to have been killed. (8) The appella:nt claimed that he would die far I dam and further said that "God has blessed us that every drop of our blood would give birth to thousands of Bukharis." (9) "At the moment we are in such a war in which our opponent is such G a person who is playing with our religious affairs. He considers us to H be a community whose conscience is dead." (10) "We have not signed any deed of slavery for the Government. \Vhen we find that the Goven1ment i! working against us, our lights are being crushed, our religious affairs are being interfered with, then we will rise openly against it. We would rise like a wan cemented with lead. Then who would bang with this wall, would get his hand broken. No harm would be done to us." 282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1975] SUPP· s.c.R. A (11) Chagla's wife Nalini was a Hindu and his son was named Ashok. B c Chagla used to attend the mosque as well as the temple and he should be excluded from Muslim localities. (12) Chagla \Vas neither a good Hindu nor a true Muslitn sd that neithzr God nor Bhag\van \Vas pleased with him. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the election of the appel- lant. The High Court awarded costs of Rs. 12,000 to the first respondent and costs of Rs. 3,000 to the second respondent. In the present statutory appeal the appellant contended : ( 1) The affidavit filed by the election petitioner was not in proper form since it does not give the sources of infoITIIation of· the corrupt practices. (2) The High Court erred in not framing issue on the vagueness of the petition. (3) The High Court erroneously allowed the amendment of the Election, petition. (4) The High Court ought not to have relied on the cassettes of tape records. D ( 5) The appellant merely asked the voters to suport one who opposed E F G H any change in· muslim personal law as against another who Wanted to change it. If change of personal law is a secular matter oj:iposi- ti_on to its change could not become an appeal on grounds of reli- gion. (6) The order of costs passed by the High Court \Vas very excessive. (7) The appellant did not get a fair trial. HELD : Our Constituticin-makers intended to set up a Secular Democratic Republic. Our political history made it particularly necessary that the basis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.