Case Note & Summary
The proceedings arose from the election of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly from Vile Parle constituency, held on 13.12.1987. The election petitioner, Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, challenged the election by filing Election Petition No. 1 of 1988 before the Bombay High Court, alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The returned candidate Dr. Prabhoo belonged to Shiv Sena, which was not a recognised political party for Legislative Assembly elections and hence his candidature was shown as 'Shiv Sena - Independent'. Bal Thackeray, the top leader of Shiv Sena, campaigned for Dr. Prabhoo as the main speaker. The election petition alleged three public speeches delivered by Bal Thackeray during the election campaign: on 29.11.1987 at Parle, on 09.12.1987 at Khar-Danda near Shankar Temple, and on 10.12.1987 at Jaltaran Maidan, Vile Parle (East). The speeches contained statements such as 'We are fighting this election for the protection of Hinduism; therefore, we do not care for the votes of the Muslims; this country belongs to Hindus and will remain so', 'Hinduism will triumph in this election... You will find Hindu temples underneath if all the mosques are dug out... A candidate by name Prabhoo should be led to victory in the name of religion', and 'We have come with the ideology of Hinduism... we do not want the Muslim votes... So the residents of Vile Parle should bury this party (Janata Party)'. The petitioner alleged that these speeches appealed for votes on the ground of religion and promoted feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens on grounds of religion and community, with the consent of the returned candidate. Before the High Court, the election petitioner closed his evidence; Dr. Prabhoo examined only himself in rebuttal. The High Court then issued notice under Section 99 to Bal Thackeray, who filed an affidavit in reply, and the election petitioner and three witnesses were recalled for cross-examination by counsel for Bal Thackeray. Bal Thackeray did not examine himself or any other witness in rebuttal. By judgment dated 07.04.1989, the Bombay High Court held that the three speeches amounted to corrupt practices under sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123: the speech on 09.12.1987 was held corrupt under Section 123(3) only, and the speeches on 29.11.1987 and 10.12.1987 were held corrupt under both Sections 123(3) and 123(3A). Consequently, the High Court declared the election of Dr. Prabhoo void under Section 100(1)(b) and named Bal Thackeray under Section 99. Both Dr. Prabhoo and Bal Thackeray appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 116A. In the Supreme Court, the appellants, through counsel Shri Ram Jethmalani, raised preliminary and substantive objections, including that sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 are constitutionally invalid, that there was insufficient pleading regarding the exact words of the speeches, and that the notice under Section 99 was not valid. The provided judgment text does not record the Supreme Court's detailed reasoning or final order on these contentions. The appeal remained to be decided on these grounds, with the text ending at the enumeration of the appellants' contentions.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Appeal on Ground of Religion - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 123(3), 100(1)(b) - The High Court found that Bal Thackeray's public speeches in the election campaign of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo, specifically the speeches dated 29.11.1987, 09.12.1987, and 10.12.1987, contained appeals to voters to vote for the candidate because of his Hindu religion, in intemperate and incendiary language. The speech dated 09.12.1987 was held corrupt under Section 123(3) only, while the other two speeches were held corrupt under both Sections 123(3) and 123(3A). Held that the returned candidate and Bal Thackeray, with consent, committed these corrupt practices, resulting in declaration of election void under Section 100(1)(b). B) Election Law - Corrupt Practices - Promoting Enmity Between Classes - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3A) - The High Court found that the speeches of 29.11.1987 and 10.12.1987, which included statements such as "We are fighting this election for the protection of Hinduism... we do not care for the votes of the Muslims" and "This country belongs to Hindus" promoted or tended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion and community. Held that such promotion constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(3A). C) Constitutional Law - Validity of Election Law Provisions - Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) - Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The appellants contended through counsel Shri Ram Jethmalani that sub-sections (3) and (3A) of Section 123 are constitutionally invalid. The judgment text does not record the Supreme Court's final ruling on this contention in the provided excerpt. D) Election Law - Procedure - Notice Under Section 99 - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 99 - The High Court ordered issuance of notice under Section 99 to Bal Thackeray after close of evidence; he filed an affidavit in reply; the election petitioner and three witnesses were recalled for cross-examination by counsel for the notice. The appellants raised the want of a valid notice under Section 99 as an objection. The judgment text does not record the final determination on this issue in the provided excerpt.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the returned candidate and his election agent Bal Thackeray committed corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) by appealing for votes on ground of religion and promoting enmity/hatred between classes through three public speeches; whether the election was void under Section 100(1)(b); whether the notice under Section 99 was valid; whether Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) are constitutionally invalid; whether there was sufficient pleading and permissible use of material beyond exact words pleaded.
Law Points
- Corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- appeal on ground of religion
- promoting enmity between classes
- election void under Section 100(1)(b)
- notice under Section 99
- constitutional validity of Sections 123(3) and 123(3A)
