Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court adjudicated an election appeal arising from the Kendrapara parliamentary constituency in Orissa. The appellant, a voter in that constituency, challenged the election of Surendra Mohanty, the returned candidate and nominee of the Utkal Congress, founded by Biju Patnaik. The respondent was also the editor of the Oriya daily 'The Kalinga', published by Kalinga Publications, whose Chairman was Biju Patnaik. The election symbols allotted to the Utkal Congress were Chakra (wheel) and Langala (plough). The appellant alleged that the respondent committed corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by (i) publishing an editorial in his newspaper appealing to religious symbols of Chakra and Langala, associated with deities Jagannath and Balram, for electoral gain; (ii) allowing Biju Patnaik to make a similar religious appeal in a public meeting on February 15, 1971, in his presence with his consent, and then publishing the report of that meeting in his newspaper; and (iii) making false statements about the personal character and conduct of Surendranath Dwivedi, a defeated candidate, by alleging that Dwivedi had not rendered accounts of Rs. 1,00,000 from Marwari Society, Bombay, and Rs. 25,000 from the Prime Minister received for cyclone relief in 1967. The respondent conceded he was the editor of the newspaper but claimed he was on leave at the relevant time and had nothing to do with the writing of the editorial or editing of news reports. The Orissa High Court dismissed the election petition on January 14, 1972, leading to the appeal under Section 116A of the Act. The main legal issues were whether the respondent committed corrupt practices under Section 123(3) by appealing to religious symbols, whether consent could be inferred from his relationship with Biju Patnaik, whether false statements about non-rendering of accounts amounted to imputation against personal character under Section 123(4), and whether the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 was rebutted. The appellant contended that as editor, the respondent was presumed responsible for all publications, and the religious appeal was made with his consent. The respondent argued the presumption was rebuttable because he was on leave, and the demand to account for public funds was not a personal imputation. The Supreme Court held that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is rebuttable, and the respondent had established he had nothing to do with the impugned editorial and reports. The Court further held that consent or agency cannot be inferred from remote causes, close friendship, relationship, or political affiliation; since the publication of the speech was not made with the respondent's consent, no corrupt practice under Section 123(3) was made out. Regarding the false statement allegation, the Court held that asking a person who collected monies for public purposes to render accounts does not amount to imputation against personal character; such a demand refers to public conduct and is not a corrupt practice under Section 123(4). The Court also observed that pleadings need contain only material facts, not evidence, and the omission to plead evidence did not vitiate the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's decision upholding the respondent's election.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Appeal to Religious Symbols - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3) - The appellant alleged that respondent published an editorial in 'The Kalinga' appealing to religious symbols Chakra and Langala, and that Biju Patnaik's speech at a public meeting contained similar appeal with respondent's consent - The Supreme Court held that consent or agency could not be inferred from remote causes, close friendship, relationship, or political affiliation; since publication of the speech was not made with respondent's consent, no corrupt practice was established - Held that consent cannot be inferred absent evidence of authorization or responsibility (Paras Not mentioned). B) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - False Statement on Personal Character - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - Allegations that respondent made false statements in speech and newspaper report regarding rival candidate Surendranath Dwivedi's failure to account for cyclone relief funds - The Court reasoned that asking a person who collected monies for public purpose to render accounts does not amount to imputation against personal character; such demand refers to public conduct - Held that no corrupt practice under Section 123(4) was made out (Paras Not mentioned). C) Press Law - Editorial Responsibility - Rebuttable Presumption of Editorship - Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, Section 7 - The name printed in newspaper as editor raises presumption of responsibility for every portion, but respondent claimed leave and non-involvement - The Court held the presumption is rebuttable by evidence showing lack of knowledge or consent regarding publication; D.P. Mishra v. Kamal Narain Sharma held inapplicable - Held that respondent rebutted the presumption by proving he had nothing to do with the impugned editorial and reports (Paras Not mentioned). D) Civil Procedure - Pleadings - Material Facts and Evidence - Not mentioned - The respondent argued omission to plead evidence of non-involvement should not be viewed with suspicion - The Court reiterated that pleadings must contain only material facts in summary form, not evidence; material facts were sufficiently stated - Held that omission to set out evidence did not vitiate the pleadings (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether respondent committed corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(4) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 by publishing religious symbol appeal and false statements; whether consent could be inferred; whether presumption under Section 7 Press and Registration of Books Act was rebutted; whether pleadings were deficient
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming High Court's order. It held that presumption under Section 7 of Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 is rebuttable and respondent had rebutted it by showing lack of involvement. Consent cannot be inferred from mere relationship or political affiliation; since publication of speech was not with respondent's consent, no corrupt practice under Section 123(3). Statements demanding account of public funds do not amount to imputation on personal character under Section 123(4). No corrupt practice proved, election of respondent upheld.
Law Points
- Rebuttable presumption under Section 7 Press and Registration of Books Act
- 1867
- consent for corrupt practice cannot be inferred from relationship or political affiliation
- demand to account for public funds is not personal imputation
- pleadings need contain only material facts not evidence
