PETITIONER: DAULAT RAM CHAUHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: ANAND SHARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT16/01/1984 BENCH: [ENTITY], SYED MURTAZA BENCH: [ENTITY], [ENTITY] RANGNATH CITATION: 1984 AIR 621 1984 SCR (2) 419 1984 SCC (2) 64 1984 SCALE (1)81 CITATOR INFO : R 1985 SC 24 (2) ACT: [ACT] [SECTION], [SECTION] and [SECTION]. Election Petition-allegations of corrupt practices against two candidates-Candidates not impleaded as parties to election petition-Election petition whether liable to be dismissed Corrupt Practices-Allegations of-To be proved like a criminal charge without admitting of any doubt. Practice & Procedure . Pleadings in Election Petitions-Allegations of corrupt practice-Necessity to be clear and specific. HEADNOTE: The respondent filed an Election Petition challenging the election of the appellant who was declared elected to the State Assembly on the ground that the appellant, his election agent and other persons along with two other candidates made libelous slogans at a rally and displayed pamphlets to alienate the- voters 1. from the respondent and this constituted a corrupt practice within the meaning of [SECTION] of the [ACT]. upholding the . . respondent's contention the High Court set aside the election. In the appeal to this Court, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that since the two candidates who were alleged to have committed corrupt practices had not been made parties to the Election Petition, the petition should have been dismissed in limine for non compliance with the requirements of [SECTION] of the Act. Over-ruling the preliminary objection: ^ HELD: 1. The combined effect of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act is that once allegations of corrupt practice are made against a candidate it is incumbent on the Election petitioner to join him as a party and failure to do so would lead to the dismissal of the Election Petition under [SECTION]. . But before [SECTION] or [SECTION] could come into play it must be proved that the allegations of corrupt practice made against the candidate amounted to corrupt practices as contemplated by the provisions of [SECTION]. [423 F-G] 2. [SECTION] contains the salutary provision of audi alteram partem and requires that an allegation must be proved to the hilt in the presence of the Person 420 affected, failing which the election petition will stand dismissed. [426E-F] 3. Tn order that an act of the candidate may amount to a corrupt practice , it must be committed either by the candidate himself, his agent OF by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. An allegation of corrupt practice must be proved like a criminal charge without admitting of any doubt. [424 C] 4 The Election Petition must contain the following pleadings: (1) Direct and detailed nature of corrupt practices as defined in the Act, (2) details of every important particularly ex. the time, place, names of persons, use of words and expressions, etc. (3) that the corrupt practices were indulged in by the candidate himself, or his authorised agent or any other person with his express or implied consent. [428 E-F] 5. A person may, due to sympathy or on his own, support the candidature of a particular candidate but unless a close and direct nexus is proved between the act of the person and the consent given to him by the candidate or his election agent? the same would not amount to a pleading of corrupt practice as contemplated by law. It cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for the court to draw an inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. The allegation must be clear and specific that the inference. Of corrupt practice will admit of no doubt or qualm. [428 G-H] In the instant case, it was shown that the two candidates who participated in the rally might. have shouted libelous, slogans. But there is nothing to show that they were election agents or workers of the appellant or that they participate or shouted slogan with the express arid implied consent of the appellant. Whenever there is a rally, crowd or a gathering a number of persons participate. That by itself would. not give rise to an inference that their participation or presence was at the-instance of the person in whose favour the crows gathered or the rally was organised. [429 C-D] . [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and [PRECEDENT]; referred to. JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : [CASE NUMBER], From the Judgment and order dated the 28th December, 1981 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in [CASE NUMBER].
[ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] for Appellant.
[ENTITY], [ENTITY], Ms. [ENTITY] and Ms. [ENTITY] for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . [ENTITY], J. This election appeal is directed against a judgment dated December 28, 1982 of the Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, who was assigned as an election Judge under the provisions of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ac-t'). The appeal arises out of an election to the Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly from the Simla constituency. The poll was held on May 19, 1982 and the result was declared on May 21, 1982 whereby the appellant was declared elected by a margin of 2745 votes. The respondent, [ENTITY], filed an election petition in the High Court challenging the election of the appellant on the ground that the appellant) was guilty of indulging in several corrupt practices as envisaged by the provisions of the Act. The High Court, after giving though the entire evidence of the parties and considering the documents, came to the conclusion that the allegations of corrupt practices against the appellant were fully proved and accordingly set aside his election, hence this appeal to this Court by the elected candidate, [ENTITY]. We may also mention here that two other candidates, besides others, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] (hereinafter referred to as `[ENTITY]' and '[ENTITY]' respectively) were also in the field but they had withdrawn.
Mr. [ENTITY], appearing for the appellant, raised a preliminary objection which, according to him, if accepted, was sufficient to dismiss the election petition of the respondent in limine. We had decided to go into the validity of the preliminary objection because if it was accepted then the election petition would have to be dismissed and it would not be necessary to hear the appeal on merits but if the preliminary objection was overruled then the appeal would have to he heard on merits .
The only important point raised by the counsel for the appellant before us is that as the election petitioner (respondent) had alleged that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], committed corrupt practices with the consent of the appellant and yet they were not made parties to the election petition, the High Court should have dismissed the election petition fn limine under the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. It is not disputed before us that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] were candidates for election to the Simla constituency and that they were not made parties to the election petition filed by the respondent in the High Court [SECTION] runs thus:
82. Parties to the petition A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition.
(b) any other candidate against whom allegations of corrupt practice are made in the petition."
[SECTION] provides that where there is a violation of [SECTION], the High Court shall dismiss the petition.
The dominant question for consideration is as to whether or not the respondent had alleged that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] indulged in corrupt practice as defined in [SECTION] of the Act. Mr. [ENTITY], appearing for the respondent, however submitted that the allegations made against the aforesaid persons did not amount to corrupt practice as contemplated by [SECTION] because from the averments made by the respondent there is nothing to show that these two persons had indulged in corrupt practice either at the instance or with the consent of the appellant, or his election agent.
In view of the arguments of the parties the matter lies within a very narrow compass because Mr. [ENTITY] with his usual ingenuity and brevity has invited us to consider the effect of the allegations made in para 16 of the election petition read with para 4, which according to him, is a sort of an index to para 16. It appears that an additional issue regarding the allegation contained in para 16 was raised in the High Court in the following terms:
"Whether any allegations of corrupt practices have been made in the petition against [ENTITY] [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] who were admittedly candidates at the election. If so, to what effect ?"
However, this additional issue was later on not pressed on behalf of the respondent and it was conceded that the court may take it as established that no allegations of corrupt practices were made against [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. In this view of the matter, the High Court without going into the issue decided it against the appellant. The counsel for the appellant submitted that once an issue was raised it was not open to the parties to make any concession as, according to law, the issue had to be tried whether pressed or not. In support of his contention, the earned counsel relied on a, decision of this Court in [PRECEDENT] where the Court made the A following observations while interpreting [SECTION] of the Act:-
"Behind this provision is a fundamental principle of natural justice viz., that nobody should be condemned unheard. A charge of corrupt practice against a candidate, if established, entails serious penal consequences It has the effect of debarring him from being a candidate at an election for a considerably long period That is why, [SECTION] in clear, peremptory terms, obligates an election-petitioner to join as respondent to his petition, a candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition. Disobedience of this mandate, inexorably attracts [SECTION] which commands the High Court, in equally imperative language, to.-
"dismiss an election petition which does not comply with the provisions of [SECTION]."
The respondent cannot by consent, express or tacit, waive these provisions or condone- a non- compliance with the imperative of [SECTION] Even inaction, latches or delay on the part of the respondent in pointing out the lethal defect of non- joinder cannot relieve the Court of the statutory obligation cast on it by [SECTION]. As soon as the non- compliance with [SECTION] comes or is brought to the notice of the court, no matter in what manner and at what stage, during the pendency of the petition, it is bound to dismiss the petition in unstinted obedience to the command of [SECTION]."
This Court further hold that once allegations of corrupt practice were made against a candidate it was incumbent on the election petitioner to join him as a party and failure to do so would automatically lead to the dismissal of his petition under [SECTION]. There can be no doubt that this is the combined effect of [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. I But before [SECTION] or [SECTION] could come into play in the instant case, ' it must be proved whether or not the allegation of corrupt practices made against [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] amounted to corrupt practice as contemplated by the provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. It was thus argued that the allegations made in para 16 come within [SECTION] which may be extracted thus " 123. Corrupt practices-The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:-
(2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of. the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent with the free exercise of any electoral right :"
It is manifest that in order that an act of the candidate concerned may amount to an allegation of corrupt practice, it must be committed either by the candidate himself, his agent Or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In order to determine whether the ingredients of [SECTION] have been fulfilled in the present case, it may be necessary to wade through the contents of para 6, the relevant portions of which may be extracted thus:
"16. That after the conclusion. Of the meeting, a rally was organised by the respondent, which passed through the main bazar of Simla town. In the rally also, the following. . persons of the Bhartiya Janata Party participated:
6. shri [ENTITY]. [ENTITY]
16. Shri [ENTITY] The persons in the rally including the respondent raised the following slogans :-
`[PRECEDENT]' , . . The aforesaid libelous slogans and displaying of pamphlets were made to alienate the voters from the petitioner."
An analysis of the aforesaid extracts shows that there is no i clear and specific allegation-that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] took active part in raising libelous slogan and displaying the pamphlets with the express implied consent of the appellant or of his election agent. It is common knowledge that whenever there is a rally or a crowd or a gathering, a number of persons attend or participate in the same but that by itself would not give rise to an irresistible inference that their participation or presence was at the instance of the person in whose favour the crowd gathered or the rally was organised. Mr. [ENTITY] however stressed the fact that the words "persons in the rally including the respondent raised the libelous slogan" would lead to an inevitable conclusion that the persons who participated in the rally raised the slogan with the express ar implied consent of the appellant. We, are, however, unable to draw this inference because it is well settled that an allegation of corrupt practice must be proved like a criminal charge without admitting of any doubt. C In [PRECEDENT] this Court made the following observations:
"It is well settled by long course of decisions of this Court that such practices must be clearly alleged with all the necessary particulars and proved not by the standard of preponderance of probabilities but beyond reasonable doubt "
In these circumstances, therefore, before [SECTION] could apply it was incumbent on the part of respondent to allege that the appellant had given his consent to [ENTITY] or [ENTITY] for raising the slogan. There is also no allegation in the passage, extracted above, that [ENTITY] or [ENTITY] had obtained the consent of the appellant or his election agent.
Realising the futility and the frailty of his arguments Mr. [ENTITY] tried to call into aid the averments made in para 4 of the election petition, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus:
"That the respondent, his election agent and other persons with the consent of the respondent or his election agent have committed several corrupt practices with the full knowledge and consent of tile respondent and his election agent, which have prejudicially affected the election of the petitioner The catalogue of corrupt practices committed by the respondent, his election agent and other persons with the consent of the respondent and his election agent is detailed hereinafter."
Even if this allegation is taken at its face value, there is no mention at all about [ENTITY] or [ENTITY] having taken the consent of the appellant for indulging in corrupt practices. Strong reliance was placed on the second part of the recitals which disclose that there was a catalogue of corrupt practices committed by the appellant, his election agent and other persons as detailed in the petition. The learned counsel for the appellant wants us to read para 4 in conjunction With para 16 and then to arrive at the conclusion that libelous slogans were shouted by [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] with the consent of the appellant. We are however not in a position to accept this somewhat complex process of reasoning. In our opinion, such a disjointed scheme of averring particulars so that one has to read one part of the allegation with another and then by joining the two produce a particular result to infer an allegation of corrupt practice is not contemplated by [SECTION] of the Act an is in fact foreign to the principle of giving all necessary particulars and statement of facts, viz., time, place, manner, mode an the consent of the candidate or his election agent. Such an approach would naturally suffer from the vice of vagueness. It is even against the well settled rules of pleadings to interpret or read such a serious allegation as that of fraud by joining one portion of the allegation with another and then connect the head of one with the tail of the other in order to present a composite picture. The danger of making such an approach would really amount to basing the decision of the court on pure conjectures or speculation and is against the very spirit and tenor of [SECTION] of the Act. This section contains a salutary provision which is that nobody should be condemned unheard so as to amount of an infraction of the well settled practice of audi alteram partem (rules of natural justice) and requires than allegation must be proved to the hilt in the presence of the person affected, failing which the election petition would stand dismissed. If such a consequence were to follow, it is obvious that the allegations must be interpreted as they are and not by adding or subtracting one from the other.
Moreover, the scheme followed by the respondent would itself show that the allegations in para 4 are not meant to be an index or glossary for the recitals in para 16 because wherever other corrupt practices have been averred, it has been clearly mentioned in those very averments that the consent of the appellant or his election agent was obtained In para 16, however, this is completely absent. For - instance, in para 18 where the respondent has made a clear allegation regarding the slanderous campaign against him, he has in the clearest possible terms mentioned that these acts were committed by the appellant, his election agent and workers with his tacit consent. In this connection, the relevant portion of the averment may be extracted thus :
"That the respondent, his workers and election agent did not choose to rest there and it appears had deviser well-knit and calculated slanderous campaign against the petitioner. The respondent, his election agent and workers with his consent to further the prospects of the respondent by denigrating the petitioner in the eyes of people launched a character assassination The respondent, this agent and workers knew that contents contain in Annexure 'G' are false an the respondent does not believe it to be true."
If, therefore, the intention of the respondent was to allege corrupt practice as contemplate by law against [ENTITY], the averment in para 16 should have been either identical or of the nature of averments contained in para 18 (which is in respect of other persons). This is yet another reason why we cannot accept the argument or Mr. [ENTITY] that the averments of par 16 must be read with the averments made in para 4.
In [PRECEDENT]. this Court pointed out thus :
"But the corrupt practices are view separately according as to who commits them. The first class consist of corrupt practices committed by the candidate or his election agent or other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. These, if established, void the election without any further condition being fulfilled.
In the scheme of election law they are separate corrupt practices which cannot be said to grow out of the material facts related to another person. Publication of false statements by an agent is one cause of action, publication of false statements by the candidate is quite a different cause of action. Such a cause of action must be alleged in the material facts before particulars may be given. One cannot under the cover of particulars of one corrupt practice give particulars of a new corrupt practice. They constitute different cause off action. Since a single corrupt practice committed by the candidate, by his election agent or by another person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent is fatal to the election, the case must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. If it has not been pleaded 25 part of the material facts, particulars of such corrupt practice cannot be supplied later on. We must remember that in order to constitute corrupt practice which entails not only the dismissal of the election petition but also other serious consequences like disbarring the candidate concerned from contesting a future selection for a period of six years, the allegations must be very strongly and narrowly construed to the very spirit and letter of the law. In other words, in order to constitute corrupt practices, the following necessary particulars, statement of facts and essential ingredients must be contained In the pleadings:-
(1) Direct and detailed nature of corrupt practice as defined in the Act, .
(2) details of every important particular must be stated giving the time, place, names of persons, use of words and expressions, etc. (3) it must clearly appear. from the allegations that the corrupt practices alleged were indulged in by
(a) the candidate himself (b) his authorised election agent or any other person with his express or implied consent.
A person may,. due to sympathy or on his own? support the candidature of a particular candidate but unless a close and direct nexus is proved between the act of the person and the consent given to him by the candidate or his election agent, the same would not amount to a pleading of corrupt practice as contemn It cannot be left to time, chance or conjecture for an inference by adopting an involved process of reasoning. In fine, the allegation must be so clear and specific that the inference of corrupt practice will irresistibly admit of no doubt or qualm. A As a logical consequence of the principles enunciated by us, it follows that where the allegation of fraudulent practice is open to two equal possible inferences, the pleadings of corrupt practice must fail. For instance, A, or in this case [ENTITY] or [ENTITY], joined or participated or was present in an election rally or crowd and may have shouted slogans on his own without taking the consent of the candidate concerned, this would not be a corrupt practice within the meaning of [SECTION] because the element of consent is wholly wanting.
Applying these tests to the averments made in para 16, the position is as follows: C That [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] doubtless participated in the rally and may have shouted libelous slogans but there is nothing to show that they were either the election agents or workers of the appellant or that they participated or shouted slogans with the express or implied consent of the candidate. D In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the argument of Mr. [ENTITY] that reading the averments in para 4 alongwith para 16, the irresistible inference would be that [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] had shouted the slogans with the consent of the appellant. E The fundamental core and the pivotal basis of the argument of the appellant that in view of the specific allegations of corrupt practices having been made by the respondent and yet [ENTITY] and . [ENTITY] were not made parties to the election petition is not proved and, therefore, the requirement of [SECTION] of the Act has not been fulfilled. in this case so as to reject the election petition at the very behest.
We are, therefore, in agreement with the arguments of Mr. [ENTITY], counsel for the respondent, that the averments contained in para 16 cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to . constitute allegations of corrupt practice as envisaged by [SECTION] of the Act. The additional issue is, therefore, decided against the appellant.
For the reasons given above, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. [ENTITY] is overruled and it is held that the election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine under [SECTION] of the Act. The appeal will now be posted for hearing on merits in respect of other issues.
[ENTITY] Preliminary objection over-ruled