Case Note & Summary
This was an appeal before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura in an election petition. The dispute arose from the election to the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly from Songsak Constituency held on 9 March 1972. The appellant, the successful candidate, was declared elected with 819 votes, while the first respondent received 176 votes and the second respondent received 98 votes. The first respondent challenged the election alleging corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant was set up by the All Party Hills Leaders Conference, and the first respondent was supported by the Hill State People's Democratic Party, which was not a recognised party. The Election Commission allotted the symbol 'two leaves' to the first respondent. The election petition alleged that on 25 February 1972 at Bollonggiri, 5 March 1972 at Daggal Bazar, and 7 March 1972 at Songsak, the appellant distributed dummy ballot papers which showed a 'boat' as the election symbol of the first respondent instead of 'two leaves'. The first respondent claimed this was a false statement reasonably calculated to prejudice his election prospects. The appellant denied distribution, contending that the dummy ballot papers were printed by A. M. Sangma, Secretary of the A.P.H.L.C., that he discovered the mistake at a rest house in Bollonggiri, consulted the Chief Minister of Meghalaya, and issued a correction statement, and that no dummy ballot papers were distributed. The High Court, after appreciating evidence, found that dummy ballot papers were distributed at Bollonggiri and Daggal Bazar, and that the distribution was deliberate. The High Court set aside the election. The core legal issue was whether distribution of dummy ballot papers with a wrong election symbol constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and whether it was necessary to prove the exact number of votes affected once corrupt practice was established. The appellant argued that the dummy ballot papers were not distributed, that the printing mistake was bona fide, and that there was no publication of any false statement. The respondent contended that the distribution was proved by witnesses and documentary evidence, and that the wrong symbol misled illiterate voters, thereby prejudicing his election prospects. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's appreciation of evidence. It held that the distribution of dummy ballot papers at Bollonggiri and Daggal Bazar was proved through witnesses P.W.8, P.W.4, P.W.7, P.W.9, and P.W.10, and by the fact that six dummy ballot papers were exhibited while the appellant could only produce 497 of the 500 printed, claiming three were missing. The court found the appellant's explanation of pilferage unconvincing. It also noted that the appellant admitted distributing corrective pamphlets, which would have been unnecessary if no dummy ballot papers had been distributed. The continued distribution on 5 March, after the alleged discovery of the mistake, showed deliberateness, not bona fide error. The court emphasized that in a constituency with over 80 per cent illiterate electors, distribution of dummy ballot papers with wrong symbols could confuse voters, cause those intending to vote for the first respondent to vote for other candidates, or lead them to abstain from voting. The court held that once corrupt practice is proved under Section 123(4), it is not necessary to show the exact number of votes lost or gained; the corrupt practice itself invalidates the election. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order setting aside the election of the appellant. The finding of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - False Statement Under Section 123(4) - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - The distribution of dummy ballot papers depicting a wrong election symbol for a rival candidate constituted a false statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election, particularly in a constituency with more than 80 per cent illiterate electors - Held that the corrupt practice was established and the election was rightly set aside (Pages 802-805). B) Election Law - Proof of Corrupt Practice - No Need to Show Exact Votes Affected - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - Once corrupt practice under Section 123(4) is proved, it is unnecessary to demonstrate the precise number of votes lost by the affected candidate or gained by the successful candidate; the corrupt practice itself is sufficient to invalidate the election - Held that the High Court correctly set aside the election without quantifying the electoral impact (Pages 804-805). C) Evidence - Appreciation of Evidence - Distribution of Dummy Ballot Papers - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that dummy ballot papers were distributed based on credible witness testimony, the appellant's inability to explain missing ballot papers, and the admitted distribution of corrective pamphlets - Held that the distribution was deliberate, not a bona fide printing mistake, as evidenced by continued distribution after the alleged discovery of error (Pages 802-804).
Issue of Consideration
Whether distribution of dummy ballot papers showing a rival candidate's election symbol wrongly constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, invalidating the election.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the election of the appellant. It held that distribution of dummy ballot papers with wrong election symbol constituted corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and the corrupt practice itself was enough to invalidate the election without proof of exact number of votes affected.
Law Points
- Distribution of dummy ballot papers showing a rival candidate's election symbol wrongly amounts to corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951
- In a constituency with over 80% illiterate electors
- such distribution is reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the affected candidate
- Once corrupt practice is alleged and proved
- it is not necessary to show the exact number of votes lost or gained because the corrupt practice itself invalidates the election
- Evidence of distribution may be established through witness testimony and unexplained possession of dummy ballot papers by witnesses.
