Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from elections to the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly from 48, Nehru Nagar Constituency held on 27 February 1990. The returned candidate, belonging to Shiv Sena, was declared elected on 1 March 1990. The defeated candidate filed Election Petition No. 14 of 1990 on 16 April 1990 before the Bombay High Court alleging corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, namely appeal to religion and promotion of enmity through speeches, posters, slogans, and video cassettes. The High Court, by judgment dated 23 April 1991, declared the election void under Section 100(1)(b) on the ground that the returned candidate, his election agent, and workers had committed corrupt practices. The returned candidate appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 116A. The appellant challenged the High Court judgment on multiple grounds: non-compliance of Section 81(1) because the election petition was filed beyond 45 days from election; non-compliance of Section 81(3) because copies of annexed photographs were illegible; lack of material facts under Section 83; and absence of proof of corrupt practices. The court examined these grounds. On limitation, the last day was 14 April 1990, but 14 and 15 April were court holidays. The Supreme Court, following its decision in connected Civil Appeal No. 4973 of 1993, held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act applies to election petitions, so the petition filed on 16 April 1990 was within time. On the true copy issue, the court found that the contents of the photographs were expressly pleaded in para 12 of the election petition, so the photographs were merely evidence, not documents incorporated by reference, and thus no violation of Section 81(3) occurred, applying Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar. The appellant also argued that the High Court relied on speeches made on 29 January 1990, before the appellant became a candidate, and on speeches by persons other than those pleaded, and that the trial became a roving inquiry into Shiv Sena's general philosophy. The respondent's counsel conceded that only the appellant's speech of 11 February 1990 could support corrupt practice. The Supreme Court noted obvious defects in the trial, reception of considerable irrelevant evidence, and reliance on extraneous considerations, including the High Court's stay order quoting Bal Thackeray's public defiance of court. The Court stated it would exclude all such extraneous material and examine whether any legal basis remained to decide the appeal on merits. The available text does not include the final disposition.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Limitation for Election Petition - Applicability of General Clauses Act - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81(1); General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 10 - Election petition filed on 16.4.1990 after limitation expired on 14.4.1990, but 14th and 15th April 1990 were court holidays - Supreme Court held Section 10 of General Clauses Act applies to election petitions presented under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, so petition filed on reopening day was within time - Held that there was no non-compliance of Section 81(1) (Paras Not mentioned) B) Election Law - True Copy of Election Petition - Failure to Supply Legible Copies of Photographs - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 81(3) - Appellant contended copies of photographs annexed to election petition were illegible, violating true copy requirement - Supreme Court found contents of photographs were expressly pleaded in para 12 of election petition, so photographs were only evidence of pleading and not incorporated by reference - Held that failure to supply copy of such document does not amount to non-compliance of Section 81(3) (Paras Not mentioned) C) Election Law - Pleadings in Election Petition - Material Facts and Full Particulars of Corrupt Practices - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 83 read with Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) - Appellant claimed election petition lacked material facts and full particulars of corrupt practices, making no triable issue - Supreme Court noted High Court relied on speeches by persons other than those pleaded and on irrelevant material, indicating pleading deficiencies - Held that allegations of corrupt practices must be specifically pleaded and trial cannot become a roving inquiry (Paras Not mentioned) D) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Speeches by Candidate and Others - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) - Respondent confined case to appellant's speech on 11.2.1990, conceding speeches of 29.1.1990 were before candidacy and irrelevant - Supreme Court observed High Court erroneously relied on speeches by other persons and unpleaded allegations, causing several errors in judgment - Held that such irrelevant evidence and extraneous considerations must be excluded from consideration (Paras Not mentioned) E) Procedural Law - Fair Trial - Extraneous Considerations in Election Trial - General Principles of Natural Justice - Appellant alleged the learned trial judge was influenced by activities of Shiv Sena and its leader's contempt of court, coloring perception - Supreme Court quoted the High Court's stay order referring to Bal Thackeray's public defiance of court, noted with justification that extraneous factors led to several errors - Held that all such material is excluded from consideration in deciding the appeal on merits (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the election petition was barred by limitation under Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951; whether non-supply of legible copies of annexed photographs violated Section 81(3); whether the election petition lacked material facts under Section 83; whether corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) were proved
Law Points
- Section 10 of General Clauses Act applies to election petitions
- true copy requirement under Section 81(3) not violated if document contents expressly pleaded
- corrupt practice pleadings must contain material facts under Section 83
- election trial cannot be roving inquiry
- speeches before candidacy and by unpleaded persons irrelevant
