Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, Mohd. Aslam, seeking reconsideration of the Supreme Court's judgment in Manohar Joshi vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and Another, (1996) 1 SCC 169. The petitioner contended that the judgment was incorrect and conflicted with the concept of secularism as laid down in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India. The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Jagdish Saran Verma, N.P. Singh, and K. Venkataswami, dismissed the writ petition, holding that Article 32 is not available to assail the correctness of a decision on merits or to claim its reconsideration. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Khoday Distilleries Limited & Anr. vs. The Registrar General, Supreme Court of India and A.R. Antulay vs. R.S. Nayak Anr. to reiterate this principle. The Court then made further observations to dispel the petitioner's apprehensions. It clarified that the decision in S.R. Bommai did not relate to the construction of sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and therefore nothing in S.R. Bommai assists in construing the meaning and scope of these provisions. The reference to S.R. Bommai was inapposite. The Court also explained that the challenge to the correctness of Manohar Joshi was based on a misreading of that judgment. The observation in Manohar Joshi about Maharashtra becoming a Hindu State was made on an assumption, without a finding that the statement was proved. The allegation was based on a police report and Manohar Joshi did not admit making such a statement. The Court had expressed strong disapproval of such a statement if actually made. The standard of proof required for proving a corrupt practice, as per Jamaat-E-Islami Hind vs. Union of India, had not been satisfied in Manohar Joshi due to absence of legal evidence. The Court further observed that the application of Manohar Joshi in subsequent cases like Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo vs. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte & Others, Shri Suryakant Venkatrao Mahadik vs. Smt. Saroj Sandesh Baik (Bhosale), and Mohan vs. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat indicated that there was nothing in Manohar Joshi to enable misuse of religion for electoral appeals. Finally, the Court noted that any deficiency in the statutory prohibition of corrupt practices under Section 123 must be cured by legislation, not by judicial interpretation, and expressed hope that no misapprehension remains. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 32 of the Constitution of India - Reconsideration of Judgment - A writ petition under Article 32 cannot be used to assail correctness of a decision or claim reconsideration; the Court relied on Khoday Distilleries and A.R. Antulay - Held that the writ petition is not maintainable for this purpose and is dismissed on this ground alone. B) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Section 123(3) and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Secularism and Standard of Proof - The decision in S.R. Bommai did not deal with these provisions and is inapposite; the observation in Manohar Joshi about Maharashtra becoming a Hindu State was conditional and without a finding; strong disapproval was expressed; any deficiency in the statutory prohibition must be cured by legislation, not judicial interpretation - Held that the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner are imaginary and baseless, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable to seek reconsideration of a judgment; whether Manohar Joshi conflicts with secularism and S.R. Bommai
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that Article 32 cannot be used to assail the correctness of a decision on merits or to claim its reconsideration. The Court clarified that the judgment in Manohar Joshi did not deviate from secularism, that S.R. Bommai was not relevant to the interpretation of Section 123(3) and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, and that any deficiency in the statutory prohibition must be cured by legislation. The petition was dismissed.
Law Points
- Article 32 not available to assail correctness of decision
- deficiency in corrupt practices provision requires legislation
- standard of proof for corrupt practice requires legal evidence
- S.R. Bommai not relevant to Section 123(3) and (3A)
- Manohar Joshi does not conflict with secularism
