Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Winning Candidate in Election Corrupt Practice Case; Statement Calling Opponent 'Greatest of All Thieves' Constitutes Statement of Fact Under Section 123(4) of Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Court held that absence of details of time and place does not convert a statement that a candidate is a thief into mere opinion, and the candidate responsible for publication must prove belief in truth.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute arose from the 1962 general election to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency. The appellant, Kumara Nand, and the respondent, Brijmohan Lal Sharma, were candidates; the appellant secured the highest votes and was declared elected, while the respondent came second. The respondent filed an election petition challenging the appellant's election on the ground of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The respondent alleged that the appellant published a false statement of fact regarding the respondent's personal character or conduct. Specifically, a poem titled "Mang raha hoon de bhai vote" (I am an applicant and request your vote) was composed by Avinash Chander and read at an election meeting on February 21, 1962, where the appellant presided and his election agent Kalyan Singh was present. The poem targeted the respondent and contained the line "sab choron ka sartaj" (I am the greatest of all thieves), which the respondent argued was a statement of fact that the appellant either believed to be false or did not believe to be true, and was calculated to prejudice the respondent's election prospects. The Election Tribunal found the appellant guilty of corrupt practice and set aside the election. The appellant appealed to the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed the appeal on January 27, 1965, confirming the Tribunal's findings. The appellant then obtained a certificate and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered three main questions: whether the statement that the respondent was the greatest of all thieves was a statement of fact or a mere expression of opinion; whether the belief of the person who recited the poem, Avinash Chander, was relevant, or whether the candidate's belief mattered; and the nature of the burden of proof under Section 123(4) and whether the respondent discharged it. The appellant contended that the phrase was merely an opinion, lacking details of time and place of alleged thefts, and therefore not a statement of fact. He also argued that the prosecution had failed to prove that Avinash Chander believed the statement to be false or did not believe it to be true, and that the onus remained on the respondent. The respondent maintained that the statement was factual, that the appellant was responsible for its publication, and that the initial burden had been discharged. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions. It held that a statement that a candidate is a thief or the greatest of all thieves is a statement of fact about personal character or conduct, and the absence of details as to time and place does not convert it into a mere expression of opinion. The Court distinguished Ellis v. National Union of Conservative and Constitutional Association and relied on the principle that a general imputation can still be a statement of fact. Regarding publication, the Court found that the appellant presided over the meeting, his election agent was present, and the booklet had been printed with the knowledge and approval of the election agent; therefore the appellant was responsible for publication. The Court held that under Section 123(4), once the election petitioner shows publication by the candidate or his agent or with consent, and that the statement was false and related to personal character or conduct, the burden shifts to the candidate to prove that the statement was true or that he believed it to be true. The respondent's testimony was sufficient to discharge the initial light burden. The appellant failed to prove his belief in the truth of the statement. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the appellant committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court's judgment, holding that the appellant committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by causing publication of a false statement of fact about the respondent's personal character, and that the respondent had discharged the initial burden while the appellant failed to prove his belief in the truth of the statement.

Law Points