Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal by Returned Candidate; Upholds High Court's Decision Setting Aside Election for Corrupt Practice. Speech Threatening Divine Displeasure for Voting Deemed Undue Influence Under Section 123(2) Proviso (a)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Case Note & Summary

Background: The case concerns an election petition filed by an elector challenging the election of the Swatantra Party candidate from the Banaskantha Parliamentary constituency in the 1967 general elections. The election was contested between the appellant (Swatantra Party), the Congress candidate, and an independent candidate. The appellant won by a margin of about 4,400 votes. The petition alleged corrupt practices under Section 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically that the appellant’s election agents induced electors to believe they would be objects of divine displeasure if they voted for the Congress. Facts: The election petition, filed on April 10, 1967, contained a charge that one Shambhu Maharaj, a religious speaker (Kirtankar), addressed several public meetings in the constituency with the consent of the appellant’s election agent. In those speeches, he told electors that voting for the Congress candidate would be a sin of cow slaughter and implored them in the name of mother cow to take a vow not to vote for Congress. On September 25, 1967, the petitioner obtained leave to amend the petition to add a charge regarding the sin of Brahma hatya and Sadhu hatya. The trial began on February 29, 1968. During the trial, a witness mentioned that Shambhu Maharaj also told the audience that Jagadguru Shankaracharya had commanded them not to vote for Congress and that disobeying this command would be a sin. On objection, the respondent initially agreed not to rely on that statement. However, on March 5, 1968, the respondent applied to amend the petition again to include this charge. The High Court allowed the amendment, and based on the Shankaracharya command charge, set aside the appellant’s election, holding that corrupt practice was proved. Legal Issues: The appeal before the Supreme Court raised two main issues: (1) Whether the High Court rightly allowed the amendment to the petition; and (2) Whether the appellant was guilty of any corrupt practice. Arguments: The appellant contended that the amendment was improper as it introduced a new corrupt practice not earlier pleaded, and was made in bad faith after the trial had commenced. The respondent argued that the amendment was within the court’s discretion and that the speeches, whether relating to cow slaughter or Shankaracharya’s command, amounted to undue influence. Court’s Analysis: The Supreme Court (majority per Bachawat J., with Hegde J. dissenting on the amendment issue) held that the High Court had erred in allowing the amendment. Section 86(5) permits amendment of particulars but not to introduce a wholly new corrupt practice. The petitioner knew of the Shankaracharya command from his witnesses but deliberately withheld it, and moved the amendment at a late stage in bad faith. Normally, the Supreme Court under Section 116A would not interfere with the High Court’s discretion, but here manifest injustice resulted, warranting correction. However, on the substantive charge, the Court found that the original plea regarding cow slaughter was sufficient. The speeches, even without the Shankaracharya reference, induced the belief that voting for Congress would be a sin causing divine displeasure. The Court relied on its earlier decision in Narbada Prasad v. Chhagan Lal, [1969] 1 S.C.R. 499. The dominant theme of the speech was the sin of cow slaughter and divine displeasure, which fell squarely within the prohibition of Section 123(2) proviso (a)(ii). The audience comprised mostly illiterate and orthodox Hindus who viewed cow slaughter with horror, and the speech was calculated to interfere with the free exercise of electoral right. Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the setting aside of the appellant’s election. Although the amendment was wrongly allowed, the corrupt practice was proved on the basis of the original charge. The appellant’s election was thus rightly set aside.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision setting aside the election. The Court held that the amendment was erroneously allowed by the High Court, but that the original charge of corrupt practice (cow slaughter) was sufficient to prove undue influence, and the appellant's election was rightly set aside.

Law Points