Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Supreme Court of India arose from an election petition challenging the election of the appellant to the Rajasthan Legislative Assembly from the Beawar constituency in the 1962 general election. The appellant had secured the highest number of votes, while the respondent, an unsuccessful candidate, came second and filed an election petition alleging corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petition centered on a poem titled 'Mang raha hoon de bhai vote' composed by one Avinash Chander. The poem was read at an election meeting on February 21, 1962, at which the appellant presided and his election agent Kalyan Singh was present. The poem depicted the respondent requesting votes and contained the line 'sab choron ka sartaj', meaning 'I am the greatest of all thieves'. The High Court found that the poem was aimed at the respondent, was printed with the knowledge and approval of the appellant's election agent, and that the appellant had read the booklet before the meeting. The Election Tribunal held the appellant guilty of corrupt practice and allowed the election petition. On appeal, the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the finding of corrupt practice. The appellant then obtained a certificate and appealed to the Supreme Court. The main legal issues were whether the statement in the poem was a statement of fact or merely an expression of opinion, whether the belief of the person who recited the poem (Avinash Chander) was relevant or the belief of the candidate was material, and whether the election petitioner had discharged the burden of proof under Section 123(4). The appellant contended that the allegation of being the greatest of all thieves was a mere opinion lacking details of time and place, that no attempt was made to prove Avinash Chander believed the statement false, and that the onus lay on the respondent which had not been discharged. The respondent argued that the statement was a factual allegation about his personal character and conduct, false, and that the appellant either believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true, and was responsible for its publication. The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered by Wanchoo, J., rejected the appellant's contentions. It held that calling a person the greatest of all thieves was a clear statement of fact about his personal character or conduct and not a mere expression of opinion. The Court noted that the absence of details as to when and where the thefts occurred did not convert the statement into an opinion, and Section 123(4) did not require particulars akin to a criminal charge. On the issue of responsibility, the Court held that since the appellant presided at the meeting and his election agent was present, the responsibility for publication lay with the appellant, and it was the appellant's belief that mattered, not the belief of the reciter. On burden of proof, the Court explained that the initial onus on an election petitioner under Section 123(4) is light: he must show that a false statement of fact relating to personal character or conduct was published by the candidate or his agent or with consent, and he can discharge this by swearing to that effect. Once that is done, the burden shifts to the candidate to show that the statement was true or that he believed it to be true. The Court found that the respondent had discharged his initial burden, and the appellant had failed to prove any belief in the truth of the statement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the High Court's decision, and confirmed that the appellant had committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election of the appellant stood set aside as a consequence of the corrupt practice.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Statement of Fact vs Opinion - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - Statement that respondent was 'greatest of all thieves' in a poem read at an election meeting was held to be a statement of fact about personal character or conduct, not a mere expression of opinion; mere absence of details as to time and place did not convert such a factual imputation into opinion - Held that section 123(4) does not require particulars akin to a criminal charge. (Paras 130-133) B) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Responsibility for Publication - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - Where a candidate presided at a meeting and his election agent was present when a poem containing a false statement was recited, the responsibility for publication rested on the candidate; the belief of the reciter was immaterial, and it was the candidate's belief that mattered - Held that candidate was responsible for publication with consent. (Paras 135-136) C) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Burden of Proof - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 123(4) - The onus on an election petitioner is light; he must show publication of a false statement relating to personal character or conduct, and can discharge it by swearing to that effect; then the burden shifts to the candidate to show that the statement was true or that he believed it to be true - Candidate failed to discharge this burden, so corrupt practice established - Held that respondent discharged initial onus and appellant failed to prove belief. (Paras 136-137)
Issue of Consideration
Whether poem calling respondent 'greatest of all thieves' constituted a statement of fact under Section 123(4) of Representation of the People Act, 1951; whether candidate's belief or reciter's belief is relevant; whether burden of proof was discharged
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellant committed a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and confirmed the setting aside of the election.
Law Points
- A statement that a person is a thief or greatest of all thieves is a statement of fact
- not mere opinion
- Absence of details as to time and place does not turn statement of fact into expression of opinion
- Responsibility for publication lies on candidate when he presides at meeting where statement is made with his consent
- and candidate's belief matters
- not reciter's
- Initial onus on election petitioner under s.123(4) is light and discharged by swearing to falsity
- burden shifts to candidate to show statement true or believed true
- Section 123(4) does not require particulars like criminal charge
