Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the Gujarat High Court's decision setting aside the election of Kanti Prasad Jayshankar Yagnik to the Gujarat State Assembly from Mehsana constituency under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, for corrupt practices. The election poll was held on 21 February 1967, and results declared on 22 February 1967. The appellant secured 23,055 votes against the respondent Purshottamdass Ranchhoddas Patel's 16,159 votes. The respondent filed an election petition on 5 April 1967 alleging that on 18 February 1967, a Hindu religious preacher, Shambhu Maharaj, addressed public meetings in several villages in the constituency in the presence of the appellant and with his consent. The speeches appealed to voters to vote for the Swatantra Party and not Congress on religious grounds, warned that voting Congress would continue cow slaughter and incur divine displeasure, linked natural calamities to cow slaughter, and asked voters to support the appellant because he was a Brahmin. Police constables, on government instructions, took notes of the speeches and made reports. The High Court relied on these reports to find corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(3). On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the police reports under Section 160 of the Evidence Act and the scope of corrupt practices. The majority held the reports admissible, finding implicit satisfaction of the statutory conditions: the witnesses had no specific recollection after nine months, and the notes were made contemporaneously. On merits, it held that the statement inducing belief in divine displeasure if Congress was voted for, because it would continue cow slaughter, was a corrupt practice under Section 123(2) proviso (a)(ii) made with the candidate's consent. The appeal to vote for the candidate because he was a Brahmin fell within Section 123(3). However, the general religious appeal and the statement about natural calamities did not per se constitute corrupt practices. A minority dissent by Hegde J. opined that even the Jagadguru statement could be corrupt and that the caste remark was not an appeal on ground of caste. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the election being set aside, with the majority view prevailing.
Headnote
A) Evidence - Documentary Evidence - Admissibility of Previous Statements - Section 160, Evidence Act, 1872 - Reports made from notes taken at public meetings are admissible if the witness has no specific recollection and is sure the facts were correctly recorded; satisfaction of conditions can be implied from circumstances. Here, police constables' reports were properly used and admissible. (Paras [405 E-G; 406 D-E]) B) Representation of the People Act - Corrupt Practice - Appeal on Ground of Religion - Section 123(2) proviso (a)(ii), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Statement that voting for Congress would continue cow slaughter and thus incur divine displeasure amounts to attempt to induce electors to believe they would become objects of divine displeasure. In the circumstances, made with candidate's consent, it is corrupt practice. Held, appellant guilty. (Paras [413C; 415B-C]) C) Representation of the People Act - Corrupt Practice - Appeal on Ground of Caste - Section 123(3), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Asking voters to vote for a candidate because he is a Brahmin falls within the mischief of the section. Held, corrupt practice committed. (Paras [411 F-G]) D) Representation of the People Act - Corrupt Practice - Scope of Section 123(2) - Section 123(2), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - An appeal to voters not to vote for a party in the name of religion, without reference to the candidate's religion, is not per se a corrupt practice. Majority view. (Paras [410 C-D; 411F]) E) Representation of the People Act - Corrupt Practice - Divine Displeasure - Section 123(2) proviso (a)(ii), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Describing a political party as irreligious and attributing natural calamities to its disregard of religion does not amount to corrupt practice. (Paras [411 E-F]) F) Representation of the People Act - Corrupt Practice - Spiritual Censure - Section 123(2), Representation of the People Act, 1951 - Statement that voting Congress would betray a religious leader who fasted for cow protection not sufficient to constitute corrupt practice as no proof that leader was religious head of majority of electors. Majority view; dissent held that inducement to even a single elector can suffice and in context could be corrupt. (Paras [410 A-C] and [415 C-G])
Issue of Consideration
Whether the police constables' reports of election speeches were admissible in evidence under Section 160 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and whether the speeches made by a supporter with the candidate's consent amounted to corrupt practices under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order setting aside the election. The majority (Sikri and Bachawat JJ.) held: (i) the police reports were admissible under Section 160 Evidence Act and reliable; (ii) the statement that voting for Congress would displease God due to cow slaughter was corrupt under Section 123(2) proviso (a)(ii) made with appellant's consent; (iii) the appeal to vote for appellant because he was a Brahmin was corrupt under Section 123(3); (iv) the general religious appeal and natural calamity statement did not per se constitute corrupt practice. Hegde J. dissented on the Jagadguru statement and the caste appeal but concurred on the divine displeasure point. The election was declared void.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 123(2) proviso (a)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act
- 1951 prohibits appeal to vote or refrain from voting on the ground of religion
- Section 123(3) prohibits appeal on ground of caste
- Section 160 of the Evidence Act
- 1872 allows use of previous statements if witness has no specific recollection and is sure of correctness
- consent of candidate can be inferred from presence at meeting without dissent
- not necessary for exact words to be reproduced to prove corrupt practice
- substance of speech can establish corrupt practice
- inducement of divine displeasure constitutes corrupt practice
- mere description of a party as irreligious is not barred.
