Case Note & Summary
The case arose from an election petition filed by the first appellant, a candidate for the Mysore Legislative Assembly from Shiggaon constituency, and a voter, challenging the election of the first respondent, the then Chief Minister, who was declared elected unopposed. The election schedule set the last date for filing nominations as 20th January 1967, scrutiny on 21st January, and withdrawal by 23rd January. The first respondent had filed nominations from two other constituencies, Bagalkot and Hospet, where he made the required affirmations under Article 173(a) of the Constitution on 19th and 20th January respectively. He also made an affirmation before the Returning Officer at Shiggaon on 21st January, the date of scrutiny. The first appellant alleged that the first respondent's nomination was invalid because he did not make the affirmation before filing the nomination at Shiggaon, that the first appellant's withdrawal was procured by corrupt practices including bribery, threats, and undue influence exerted by one Patil Puttappa with the connivance of the Returning Officer, and that there were other irregularities. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the affirmation made before scrutiny was sufficient compliance with Article 173(a) and that the corrupt practice charges were not proved. On appeal, the Supreme Court considered two primary legal issues: first, whether the requirement of making an oath or affirmation under Article 173(a) of the Constitution must be fulfilled separately for each constituency from which a candidate seeks election; and second, whether the High Court erred in not drawing an adverse inference against the first respondent for failing to examine Patil Puttappa and in not summoning him as a court witness. The appellants contended, relying on Pashupati Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad Singh, AIR 1968 SC 1064, that the oath must be made before the date of scrutiny, so the affirmation at Shiggaon on 21st January was late, and the first respondent was disqualified. The respondent argued that the affirmations made at Bagalkot and Hospet on 19th and 20th January satisfied the constitutional requirement for all constituencies. The Court held that Article 173(a) imposes a single qualification for membership of the State Legislature, and once an oath or affirmation is made before a competent authority in respect of any constituency, it is not necessary to repeat it for each additional constituency. The purpose of the provision is to ensure allegiance to the Constitution, and a candidate is bound by the oath taken for one constituency even if elected from another. The Election Commission's notification requiring the oath before the Returning Officer or Assistant Returning Officer 'for that constituency' simply identifies the officer before whom the oath may be taken; it does not mandate a separate oath for each constituency if a valid oath has already been taken elsewhere. The Court found that the first respondent had made the required affirmations at Bagalkot and Hospet on 19th and 20th January, well before the scrutiny date, and thus was duly qualified. Consequently, there was no need to decide whether the affirmation at Shiggaon on 21st January was timely. On the second issue, the Court observed that the High Court had correctly assessed the evidence. The appellants' allegations of corrupt practice were improbable and contradicted by circumstances. The High Court found that the version of events was shown to be false by other evidence. Therefore, there was no compelling reason to summon Patil Puttappa as a court witness under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC or to draw an adverse inference against the first respondent for not examining him. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, dismissed the appeal with costs, and upheld the election of the first respondent.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Qualification for Membership of State Legislature - Article 173(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 - The making of an oath or affirmation under Article 173(a) is a single qualification for being a candidate for election to the Legislature of a State, and once it is made before a competent authority in respect of any constituency, it is not necessary to repeat it for each additional constituency from which the candidate may seek election. The Election Commission's notification that the oath should be made before the Returning Officer of 'that constituency' means the constituency from which the candidate stands for election, but a prior oath made in another constituency meets the constitutional requirement. Held that the first respondent, having made the affirmation on 19th and 20th January 1967 at Bagalkot and Hospet respectively, was duly qualified to be a candidate from Shiggaon constituency, even though he also made an affirmation there on 21st January 1967. (Paras 532 E-F, 534 A-E) B) Election Law - Corrupt Practices and Evidence - Sections 123, 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Order 16 Rule 14 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court's refusal to summon Patil Puttappa as a court witness and to draw an adverse inference against the first respondent for not examining him was justified where the circumstantial evidence indicated that the appellants' version of corrupt practices was not true. The court has discretion under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC to summon witnesses, but no compelling reason existed to exercise that discretion when the appellants' case was already shown to be false by other evidence. Held that the charges of corrupt practice and undue influence were not proved, and the appeal is dismissed. (Paras 540 G-H, 541 A)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Article 173(a) of the Constitution of India, 1950 requires a candidate to make a separate oath or affirmation for each constituency from which he seeks election; Whether the High Court erred in not drawing an adverse inference against the first respondent for not examining Patil Puttappa as a witness and in not summoning him as a court witness
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that the first respondent was duly qualified and that no corrupt practices were proved. The election of the first respondent was upheld. The Court held that the oath made in one constituency suffices for candidacy in any other, and the High Court's refusal to summon Patil Puttappa was justified.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Oath or affirmation under Article 173(a) is a single qualification not required to be repeated for each constituency
- purpose of oath is to ensure allegiance to Constitution
- Election Commission's notification requires oath before Returning Officer of the constituency from which candidate seeks election
- court has discretion to summon court witnesses under Order 16 Rule 14 CPC but no adverse inference warranted when other evidence shows case false
