Case Note & Summary
The case involved an election petition filed by Ghasi Ram challenging the election of Dal Singh to the Haryana State Legislative Assembly in the election held on February 19, 1967. Dal Singh was a Minister in the State Government at the relevant time. The petition alleged corrupt practices under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically bribery. The appellant contended that the respondent, prior to the election, visited several villages in his constituency where voters expressed dissatisfaction with his performance. To secure electoral support, he allegedly used his ministerial discretionary funds to grant benefits: funds for constructing a sacred tank, building public utility works and community centres, repairing a Harijan well, and providing irrigation facilities. It was claimed that these acts were intended to induce voters to vote for him. The High Court, after considering evidence, dismissed the election petition holding that corrupt practice was not proved. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court observed that under election law, the charge of corrupt practice, including bribery, must be established beyond doubt by clear and cogent evidence. The evidence must show a direct or indirect promise or gift made to an elector with the object of influencing voting. The Court recognized the difficult position of a Minister: he cannot cease to perform his official functions merely because an election is approaching. He must attend to public grievances and improve his administration's image. If every bona fide official act were to be construed as a corrupt practice, governance would be paralysed. While spending discretionary funds for general public good just before an election may be an evil practice, it does not automatically amount to bribery under the Act unless the specific intent to bribe voters is proved. On the facts, the Court found that the High Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly concluded that the allegations of bribery were not made out. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the election of the first respondent was upheld.
Headnote
A) Election Law - Corrupt Practice - Bribery - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 123(1), (2), (7) - Allegation that elected candidate, a Minister, used discretionary funds to grant benefits to villages for public works, tank, wells, irrigation to induce voters - Court held that bribery must be proved by clear evidence of direct or indirect promise/gift to an elector to vote or refrain; mere bona fide official acts, even if done near election, do not constitute corrupt practice unless specifically linked to vote inducement. Held that High Court rightly dismissed petition. (Paras 1-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first respondent, as a sitting Minister, committed corrupt practice of bribery under Section 123(1), (2) & (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, by using discretionary funds and official position to confer benefits on voters in his constituency before the election with a view to securing support for his candidature.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court, dismissing the election petition. The appeal was dismissed. The election of the first respondent was not void.
Law Points
- bribery requires direct or indirect promise or gift to an elector to induce voting or refraining from voting
- corrupt practice must be fully established by clear evidence
- Minister's bona fide official acts before election are not corrupt practice per se
- spending discretionary funds for general public good just before election is an evil practice but must be specifically proved as bribery under Section 123
- Representation of the People Act
- 1951
