Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the general elections held in February 1962 for the Jhajjar parliamentary constituency to the House of the People. Five candidates contested the election, and the appellant, Jagdev Singh Sidhanti, was declared elected on February 27, 1962. The respondent, Pratap Singh Daulta, one of the unsuccessful candidates, filed an election petition before the Election Commission seeking to declare the appellant's election void, alleging corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allegations centred on the use of a religious flag called 'Om Dhwaj' in election meetings and appeals made to the electorate on the grounds of religion and language, purportedly to promote feelings of enmity between Sikh and Hindu communities in Punjab and to further the appellant's election prospects. The respondent claimed that the appellant was set up by the Hariana Lok Samiti, whose leaders of the Arya Samaj had organised a 'Hindi agitation' since 1957, and that during fifteen election meetings held between December 10, 1961 and February 18, 1962, appeals were made to vote for the appellant on account of his religion and language and to refrain from voting for the respondent, a sitting member, on the ground that he was an enemy of Arya Samaj and Hindi language. The appellant denied these allegations, asserting that the Om flag was not a religious symbol and had not been used by him or his agents, except by one Bhagwan Dev who habitually carried a pennant with 'Om' on his vehicle; that the Hariana Lok Samiti was a political organisation formed to agitate against the Punjab Government's policy of imposing Punjabi language in Gurmukhi script on Hindi-speaking residents, and that appeals for reversal of government policy did not amount to appeals on ground of language or religion. The Election Tribunal dismissed the election petition, finding no satisfactory proof of corrupt practices. The respondent appealed to the High Court of Punjab, which reversed the Tribunal and declared the appellant's election void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Act, holding that the Om flag was a religious symbol used with the appellant's consent and that appeals on ground of language had been made. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court with a certificate granted by the High Court. The two principal questions for determination were whether a religious symbol was used with consent in furtherance of the election and whether appeals were made on the ground of the candidate's language. The Supreme Court held that the use of or appeal to a religious symbol to constitute corrupt practice must be by the candidate or his election agent or with consent. It further held that the Om flag was not a religious symbol because, despite the spiritual efficacy attributed to 'Om', the flag did not visibly represent a religious thing or concept. On the language appeal, the Court construed Section 123(3) in light of Article 29(1) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to conserve language. The right to conserve language includes the right to agitate for its protection, and political agitation for conservation of language of a section of citizens cannot be treated as a corrupt practice. The corrupt practice under Section 123(3) is committed only when an appeal is made to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of a candidate's particular language, not where appeals are made for conservation of the electorate's language with promises to take steps. The Court distinguished the earlier decision in Jamuna Prasad Mukhariya v. Lachhi Ram. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the Election Tribunal's order dismissing the election petition, thereby upholding the appellant's election.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Use of Religious Symbol - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3) - Use of or appeal to national or religious symbols to be a corrupt practice must be made by the candidate or his election agent, or by some other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, before it can be regarded as a ground for declaring the election void. The High Court had found use of Om Dhwaj with consent, but the Supreme Court held that the Om flag was not a religious symbol and that the consent findings were not sustainable. Held that no corrupt practice under this head was established. B) Election Law - Religious Symbol - Meaning of Religious Symbol - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3) - 'Om' is regarded by Hindus as having high spiritual or mystical efficacy, but that attribute does not necessarily impart to its use on a flag the character of a religious symbol. A symbol stands for or represents something material or abstract; to be a religious symbol there must be a visible representation of a thing or concept which is religious. The High Court erred in holding that the Om flag was a religious symbol. Held that use of Om Dhwaj did not come within purview of Section 123(3). C) Constitutional Law - Right to Conserve Language - Article 29(1) Constitution of India - Section 123(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be read in light of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 29(1). Right to conserve the language of citizens includes the right to agitate for protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of language of a section of citizens cannot be regarded as a corrupt practice within meaning of Section 123(3). Held that appeals for conservation of language not corrupt practice. D) Election Law - Appeal on Ground of Language - Scope of Section 123(3) - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(3) - The corrupt practice defined by clause (3) of Section 123 is committed when an appeal is made either to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of a candidate's language. It is only when electors are asked to vote or not vote because of the particular language of the candidate that a corrupt practice may be deemed committed. Where, however, for conservation of language of the electorate appeals are made and promises given that steps would be taken to conserve that language, such appeals or promises do not amount to a corrupt practice. Held that no corrupt practice was established on this ground.
Issue of Consideration
Whether a religious symbol was used in the course of election by the appellant, his agents or other persons with his consent in furtherance of prospects of his election; Whether appeals were made to the electorate by the appellant, his agents or other persons with his consent to vote in his favour on account of his language and to refrain from voting in favour of respondent on ground of his language, constituting corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order declaring the appellant's election void, and restored the Election Tribunal's order dismissing the election petition. The Court held that the Om Dhwaj flag was not a religious symbol, that no corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was established, and that appeals for conservation of electorate's language did not amount to corrupt practice.
Law Points
- Use of religious symbol to be corrupt practice must be made by candidate
- election agent or person with consent
- Om Dhwaj flag not a religious symbol as it does not visibly represent a religious thing or concept
- Section 123(3) of Representation of the People Act
- 1951 must be read in light of Article 29(1) of Constitution
- right to conserve language includes right to agitate for protection
- political agitation for conservation of language not corrupt practice
- corrupt practice under Section 123(3) only when appeal made to vote or refrain from voting on ground of candidate's language
- not for conservation of electorate's language
