Case Note & Summary
The case arose from the election to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 201-Kaij (Scheduled Caste) Constituency held on 27 February 1990, results declared on 1 March 1990. Dr. Vimal Nandkishore Mundada was declared elected with 35,957 votes; the election petitioner, Bhaguji Nivrutti Satpute, secured 25,736 votes and Mangesh Pralhadrao Ranjankar secured 15,260 votes. Bhaguji filed Election Petition No. 7 of 1990 before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) under the Representation of the People Act, 1950, challenging the election on grounds that Dr. Vimal, despite having married a Jain and allegedly embracing Jainism, filed nomination as Chambhar and canvassed as Jain (Hindu); that she canvassed on religion and promoted communal hatred through speeches by Smt. Jayantiben Mehta and Sri Pramod Mahajan; and that Ere Maruti Nivrutti and Mangesh Ranjankar, not being Scheduled Castes, had their nominations illegally accepted. In their written statements, Dr. Vimal denied losing caste by marriage, denied publishing offending posters or banners, and contended that her appeal followed the BJP manifesto. Mangesh claimed he belonged to Khatik caste, certified on 29 February 1990 by the Executive Magistrate, and that his brother's entry as Kalal was wrong. The High Court framed several issues. By judgment dated 20 April 1991, it held that Ere Maruti and Mangesh were not Scheduled Castes and their nominations were wrongly accepted; however, that wrong acceptance did not materially affect Dr. Vimal's election result. It also rejected allegations that Dr. Vimal ceased to be Scheduled Caste on marriage, that she committed corrupt practice by projecting as Marwari, and that she published posters/banners attacking personal character. The High Court, however, answered Issue No.7 in the affirmative, finding that Smt. Jayantiben Mehta and Sri Pramod Mahajan, with Dr. Vimal's consent, delivered speeches appealing on religion and promoting communal hatred, constituting corrupt practice under Section 123(3) and 123(3A). Consequently, the High Court declared Dr. Vimal's election void and held that the election petitioner, having secured the next highest vote, was entitled to be declared elected. Both Dr. Vimal and Mangesh appealed to the Supreme Court. Dr. Vimal challenged the finding of corrupt practice; Mangesh challenged the finding that he was not a Scheduled Caste member. Before the Supreme Court, Dr. Ghatate, senior counsel for Dr. Vimal, argued that the High Court based the corrupt practice finding solely on newspaper reports: the speech of Smt. Mehta reported in Maratha Sathi on 15 February 1990 and the speech of Pramod Mahajan reported in Ambajogai Times on 19 February 1990. He contended that the reporters admitted the extracts were in their own language, not verbatim; the notes (Tipan) were not produced; the speakers were not examined; and the evidence of P.W.14, a reporter, showed his personal assessment about political vote-bank on religion. Therefore, the reports could be out of context and insufficient to prove corrupt practice. The extract does not include the Supreme Court's final decision.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Religious Appeal and Communal Hatred - Representation of the People Act, 1950, Sections 123(3), 123(3A) - The High Court held that speeches by Smt. Jayantiben Mehta and Sri Pramod Mahajan, delivered with the consent of Dr. Vimal, appealed to voters on the ground of religion and promoted communal hatred, constituting corrupt practice. Dr. Vimal challenged the reliance on newspaper reports and reporter testimony, arguing that complete verbatim speeches and reporter's notes were not produced, and the reports were not verbatim. The Supreme Court was examining whether such evidence sufficiently established corrupt practice; no final holding is available in the extracted text (Paras Not mentioned). B) Election Law - Nomination of Scheduled Caste Candidates - Caste Certificate and Wrong Acceptance - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - The High Court held that Ere Maruti Nivrutti and Mangesh Ranjankar were not members of Scheduled Caste, and acceptance of their nomination papers for the reserved constituency was illegal. However, the High Court also held that their contest did not materially affect the election result of Dr. Vimal. Mangesh challenged the finding that he was not a Scheduled Caste member. Held that acceptance was illegal but did not void election on that ground (Paras Not mentioned). C) Election Law - Grounds for Declaring Election Void - Material Effect on Result - Representation of the People Act, 1950 - The High Court held that despite wrongful acceptance of nominations of non-Scheduled Caste candidates, the election was not void on that ground because the result was not materially affected. The election of Dr. Vimal was declared void only on the separate ground of corrupt practice under Section 123. Held that corruption under Section 123 made election void (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether Dr. Vimal committed corrupt practice under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 by appealing for votes on ground of religion and promoting communal hatred through speeches made with her consent; whether Mangesh Ranjankar belonged to Scheduled Caste and whether acceptance of his nomination was illegal; whether wrongful acceptance of nominations of Ere Maruti Nivrutti and Mangesh Ranjankar materially affected the election result; whether the election of Dr. Vimal was void.
Law Points
- Corrupt practices under Section 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1950
- appeal to vote on ground of religion and promotion of communal hatred as corrupt practice
- burden of proof on election petitioner to prove corrupt practice
- wrong acceptance of nomination of non-Scheduled Caste candidate illegal but requires material effect on result to void election
- newspaper reports and reporter testimony as proof of corrupt practice
- challenge to non-verbatim speech reports
- absence of speaker and reporter's notes
