vil Appeal No 139 of 1955
Appeal under Articles 132 and 133 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd December 1953 of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab in Civil Writ Application No 24 of 1953
NC Chatterjee B section Narula with him for the appellant
GS Pathak and Veda Vyas Ganpat Rai with them for respondent No 5 1955
September 6
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J
The proceedings that have given rise to this appeal arise out of an election petition before the Election Tribunal Delhi
The appellant Shrimati Sucheta Kripalani together with the contesting respondent Shrimati Manmohini Sahgal and others were candidates for election to the House of the People from the Parliamentary Constituency of New Delhi
The polling took place on 14th January 1952 and when the votes were counted on 18th January 1952 it was found that the appel lant had secured the largest number of votes and that the contesting respondent Manmohini came next
The appellant was accordingly notified as the returned candidate on 24th January 1952
On 6th March 1952 the appellant filed her return of election expenses
This was found to be defective and on 17th April 1952 the Election Commission published a notification in the Gazette of India disqualifying the appellant under Rule 1145 of the Representation of the People Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions Rules 1951 on the ground that she bad failed to lodge the return of election expenses in the manner required and that she had thereby incurred the disqualifications under clause c of section 7 and section 143 of the Representation of the People Act 1951
452 In view of this the appellant submitted a fresh return with an explanation under Rule 1146 on 30th April 1952
This was accepted by the Commission and on 7th May 1952 it published a notification in the Gazette of India under Rule 1147 stating that the disqualification had been removed
In the meanwhile on 7th April 1952 the contesting respondent Manmohini filed an election petition praying that the appellant s election be declared void and that she the petitioner be declared to have been duly elected
It will be noticed that this was before 17th April 1952 the date on which the Election Commission disqualified the appellant
The validity of the election was attacked on many grounds
A number of major corrupt practices were alleged and the return which the appellant had filed on 6th March1952 of her election expenses was challenged as a minor corrupt practice on two grounds 1 that the return was false in material particulars and 2 that it was not in accordance with the rules and so was no return at all in the eye of the law
Particulars of the instances in which the return was challenged as false were then set out
The appellant filed her written statement in reply on 7th October 1952
It will be noticed that this was after she had put in her second return and after the Election Commission had removed the disqualification due to the first return
Her reply was as follows 1 That as the disqualification with respect to the return of her election expenses had been removed by the Election Commission under section 144 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 this question could not be reopened 2 That a minor corrupt practice which cannot vitiate an election and which is not capable of materially affecting an election is wholly outside the scope of a proper election petition and so no cognisance of it can be taken by the Election Tribunal 3 That only such matters can be put in issue as are necessary to decide whether the election of the returned candidate is liable to be set aside within the meaning of section 1002 of the Act 453 The contesting respondent Manmohini filed a replication on 15th October 1952
In it she said 1that the Election Commission did not and could not decide whether the return was or was not false in material particulars and so the question was still open
This had reference to the first return dated 6th March 1952 2 that in any event even the revised return is false in material particulars and the objections with regard to the original return also apply exactly with regard to the revised return
The broad propositions of law raised by points 2 and 3 in the appellant s written statement were also denied
Then followed an item by item reply to the allegations made by the appellant in the list which she had appended to her written statement
That list was a reply to the particulars of false return and corrupt practices furnished by the contesting respondent Manmohini
It is evident then that Manmohini attacked the second return on exactly the same grounds as the first and furnished the same particulars
Now we have spoken of these returns as the first and the second
But counsel on both sides agreed before us that the first return was in fact no return at all in the eye of the law and that therefore the contesting respondent s real attack was on the second return which must be regarded as the only return which the law will recognise as a valid return
It was agreed that there cannot be two returns of expenses either the one originally filed is amended or it is treated as a nullity so far as it purports to be a return
In view of this agreement it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the matter and we will concentrate our attention on what for convenience we will continue to call the second return
The first point that now arises is whether the decision of the Election Commission to remove the disqualification attaching to the first return precludes an enquiry into the falsity of the second return simply because the respondent Manmohini alleged that the 454 particulars of the falsity are exactly the same as before
Our answer to that is No
If the first return is no return in the eye of the law then the only return we are concerned with is the second and that must be treated in the same way as it would have been if it had been the only return made
If there had been no other return and this return had been challenged on the grounds now raised it is clear that the truth of the allegations made would have to be enquired into
That enquiry cannot be shut out simply because the allegations against the second return happen to be exactly the same in the matter of its falsity as in the case of the first return
We are therefore of opinion that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to enquire into these matters was not ousted on that account
Our reasons for this are these
Section 76 of the Act requires every candidate to file a return of election expenses in a particular form containing certain prescribed particulars
The form and particulars are set out in the Rules
Section 143 prescribes the penalty for failure to observe those requirements
It is disqualification
This ensues if there is a default in making the return
It also ensues if such a return is found  upon the trial of an election petition under Part VI  to be false in any material particular
That places the matter beyond doubt
The trial of an election petition is conducted by an Election Tribunal and this section makes it incumbent on the Tribunal to enquire into the falsity of a return when that is a matter raised and placed in issue and the allegations are reasonably connected with other allegations about a major corrupt practice
The jurisdiction is that of the Tribunal and not of the Election Commission
The duty of the Election Commission is merely to decide under Rule 1144 whether any candidate has among other things failed to lodge the return of election expenses in the manner required by the Act and these rules
It is a question of form and not of substance
If 455 0 the return is in proper form no question of falsity can arise unless somebody raises the issue
If it is raised the allegations will be made in some other document by some other person and the charges so preferred will be enquired into by the Tribunal
If the return is not in proper form disqualification ensues but the Election Commission is invested with the power to remove the disqualification under Rule 1146
If it does the position becomes the same as it would have been had the Election Commission decided that the form was proper in the first instance
That would still leave the question of falsity for determination by the Tribunal in cases where the issue is properly raised
Mr Chatterjee contended on behalf of the appellant that we were not concerned with the second return in this appeal and 0strongly protested against Mr Pathak being allowed to argue this point
But that has been the main bone of contention almost from the start
When the election petition was filed there was only one return to attack
The second had not been put in
Later when it was put in the contesting respondent Manmohini attacked both and the appellant herself said that questions about the falsity of the return could not be gone into because of the Election Commission s order removing the disqualification
That argument applies as much to the second as to the first return and raises an issue about the respective jurisdictions of the Election Commission and the Election Tribunal on this point
The Tribunal decided against the appellant on this point and held as we do that the Election Commission was not concerned with the issue of fact about the falsity of the return
The appellant then filed a petition under article 226 to the High Court and questioned the Tribunal s jurisdiction to enquire into the issue of falsity
The High Court upheld the Tribunal s decision and the appellant pursued the matter here both in her grounds of appeal and in her statement of the case
She cannot at this stage ask us to leave 456 the matter open so that she can come here again and re agitate this question
We accordingly overrule Mr Chatterjee s objection
The next question argued was whether an Election Tribunal can enquire into a minor corrupt practice if it is of such a nature that standing by itself it could not have been made the basis of an election petition because it could not materially affect the result of the election
We need not go into that because the question is purely academic in this case
The allegation about the minor corrupt practice does not stand by itself
There are also allegations about major corrupt practices which require investigation and the minor corrupt practices alleged are reasonably connected with them
Section 143 of the Act is a complete answer to the question of the Tribunal s jurisdiction on this point when it is properly seised of the trial of an election petition on other grounds
Whether it could be properly seised of such a trial if this had been the only allegation or if the minor corrupt practice alleged was not reasonably connected with the other allegations about major corrupt practices does not therefore arise
As the trial is proceeding on the other matters the Tribunal is bound under section 143 now that the issue has been raised also to enquire into the question of the falsity of the return
Without such an enquiry it cannot reach the finding which section 143 contemplates
We need not look into the other sections which were touched upon in the arguments and in the Courts below because section 143 is clear and confers the requisite jurisdiction when a trial is properly in progress
The appellant has failed on every question of substance that she raised
There was some vagueness in the Election Tribunal s order about which of the two returns formed the basis of the enquiry on this point but even if the Tribunal intended to treat the first return as the basis that did not really affect the substance because exactly the same allegations are made about the second return and the issue of fact would therefore have to be tried in any event
The appel 457 lant s whole endeavour was to circumvent such an enquiry and oust the Tribunal s jurisdiction
In that she has failed so she will pay the contesting respondent s costs throughout
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs all through


Summary:
The provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the Rules framed thereunder assign distinct and different jurisdictions to the Election Commission and an Election Tribunal so far as a Return of election expenses is concerned
Where there are allegations of major corrupt practices and a Tribunal constituted is in lawful seisin of the dispute section 143 of the Act gives it the sole jurisdiction and makes it incumbent on it to inquire into the falsity of any particulars mentioned in the return where such falsity is alleged and brought into issue and is reasonably connected with the major corrupt practices
What the Election Commission has to do under Rule 1144 is to satisfy itself that the return is in the prescribed form
It is no part of its function to inquire into the correctness of any particulars mentioned therein
That question can only arise when some one raises a dispute and brings the matter into issue
Consequently in a case where as in the present the Election Commission removed the disqualification it had imposed on the returned candidate for lodging a defective return of election expenses on the lodging of a fresh return Held that the decision of the Election Commission removing the disqualification attaching to the first return in no way precluded the Tribunal from inquiring into the falsity of the particulars in the second return although they were identical with those challenged in the first return that the removal of the disqualification only meant that the accepted return was the only valid return being the first to be correct in form and the Tribunal had only that return before it 451