Case: Jagdev Singh Sidhanti Vs. Pratap Singh Daulta

1. At the general elections held in February 1962 five candidates contested the election to the House of the People from the Jhajjar parliamentary constituency. On February 27, 1962 the appellant Jagdev Singh Sidhanti was declared elected. Pratap Singh Daulta who was one of the candidates at the election then filed a petition with the Election Commission praying, inter alia, that the election of the appellant be declared void on the ground that the appellant - Sidhanti - his agents and other persons with his consent, had committed certain corrupt practices in connection with the election. Daulta stated that the appellant Sidhanti was set up as a candidate to contest the election by the Hariana . Lok Samiti; that the appellant and six other persons - Piare Lal Bhajnik, Ch. Badlu Ram, Pt. Budh Dev, Prof. Sher Singh Mahashe Bharat Singh and Acharya Bhagwan Dev who were leaders and active workers of the GuruKul Section of the Arya Samaj had organised a political movement called "the Hindi agitation" in 1957 the real object of which was to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between the Sikh and Hindu communities in the State of Punjab "on the ground of religion and language" to promote their prospects in the general elections to be held in 1962, and for that purpose they held meetings in the Hariana region of the Punjab and appealed to the electorate to vote for Sidhanti "on the ground of his religion and language", and used a religious symbol - flag called "Om Dhwaj" in all these meetings, that the appellant himself made similar appeals to the electorate and appealed to them to refrain from voting for Daulta who was a sitting member of the House of the People from the constituency stating that he - Daulta - was an enemy of the Arya Samaj and of the Hindi language, that during the election campaign fifteen meetings were held between December 10, 1961 and February 18, 1962 and at all these meetings appeals were made to the electorate on the ground of religion and language of Sidhanti,. and attempts were made to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between Sikhs and Hindus of the Punjab. Allegations about undue influence on the voters in the exercise of their free electoral right were also made in the petition, and details of these alleged corrupt practices were furnished in the schedule annexed to the petition.2. Sidhanti denied that the six persons who were named as his agents and supporters ever acted as his agents in his election campaign and submitted that they were merely interested in the success of the candidates set up by the Hariana Lok Samiti and acted throughout "on their own and not as his agents". He also submitted that the Hariana Lok Samiti had no connection with the Arya Samaj, it being a political organization started by Prof. Sher Singh who was an important political leader in the Hariana region. Sidhanti admitted that he had participated in the meetings to canvass votes, but claimed that he was not responsible for convening the meetings or for the speeches made by others in those meetings, that the Om flag was not a religious symbol and denied that it was used on any occasion by him or his agents or the six persons named by Daulta in his petition, except Bhagwan Dev who was accustomed "throughout his career" to carry a pennant with "Om" and his own name inscribed thereon on his motor vehicle, but carrying of such a flag or pennant on Bhagwan Devs vehicle during the election was not with his (Sidhantis) consent and that it did not amount to commission of a corrupt practice as defined in the Act, that the residents of Hariana area were mainly Hindispeaking, but the Government of Punjab had made Punjabi language in Gurmukhi script a compulsory subject at various levels of school education and this gave rise to a wide-spread agitation against the policy of Government, that to resist the implementation of the policy and the programme of the Government in the administrative, economic and developmental spheres and to mitigate the hardships of the residents of the Hariana region and to secure redress of their grievances the Hariana Lok Samiti was formed, and an appeal to the electorate to secure a reversal of the policies and programme of the Government was not, it was submitted, an appeal on the ground of language or religion and did not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of S.123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.3. The Tribunal held, inter alia, that the "Om flag" was not a "religious symbol" of the Arya Samaj, that no satisfactory proof was adduced that Om flag had been used as a symbol of Arya Samaj or that an appeal to secure votes with the aid of the flag was made to the electorate by Sidhanti or by any one else with his consent, that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that appeals were made to the electorate to vote for Sidhanti or to refrain from voting for the other candidates on the ground of religion or language, and that the applicant Daulta failed to prove that an appeal on the ground of caste, community or religion or language had been made to the electorate to further the prospects of Sidhanti or to prejudicially affect the election of the other candidates. On these, and findings recorded on other issues not material in this appeal, the petition filed by Daulta was dismissed by the Election Tribunal.4. Daulta preferred an appeal against that order to the High Court of Judicature for Punjab. The High Court held that the word "Om" is a religious symbol of the Hindus in general and of the Hindus belonging to the section known as Arya Samaj in particular and that the flag bearing the inscription "Om" is a religious symbol, that "Om Dhwaj" was flown during the election campaign on the election offices of the Hariana Lok Samiti Especially at Sampla and Rohtak, that the Samiti office was used by Sidhanti for his election campaign, that Hariana Lok Samiti was generally using the "Om Dhwaj"to further the prospects of its candidates, that out of the agents and supporters of Sidhanti "Bharat Singh at least once and Bhagwan Dev invariably used" the Om flag on their vehicles while attending the meetings convened by the Hariana Lok Samiti in furtherance of the election campaign of Sidhanti, that the Om flag was flying "on the pandal of the meeting" held at Majra Dubaldhan on January 19, 1962 when Sidhanti and his agents and supporters delivered speeches in support of the election campaign and that at the meeting held at Rohtak town, Piare Lal Bhajnik sang a song in the presence of Sidhanti the purport of which was that the honour of the Om flag should he upheld, that Bhagwan Dev was using the Om flag with the consent of Sidhanti and that Piare Lal Bhajnik at the Rohtak town meeting also sang the song in honour of the Om flag with the consent of Sidhanti. The High Court further held that the appellant has delivered speeches at Majra Dhubaldhan in the pandal on which the Om flag was flying, that as even an isolated act of the use of or appeal to the Om flag may constitute a corrupt practice under S.123 (3) that corrupt practice by Sidhanti and his agents and by his supporters with his consent was established. The High Court also held that Sidhanti had appealed for votes on the ground of his language and had asked the electorate to refrain from voting for Daulta on the ground of the language of the latter, and such appeals constituted a corrupt practice. The High Court accordingly allowed the appeal and declared the election of Sidhanti void under S. 100(1)(b) of the Act. Against the order this appeal is preferred with certificate granted by the High Court.

Court's reasoning:
10. The expression "Om" is respected by the Hindus generally and has a special significance in the Hindu scriptures. It is recited at the commencement of the recitations of Hindu religious works, Macdonell in his "A practical Sanskrit Dictionary" states that "Om" is the sacred syllable used in invocations, at the commencement of prayers, at the beginning and the end of Vedic recitation, and as a respectful salutation; it is a subject of many mystical speculations. In the Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Monier-William it is said that "Om" is a sacred exclamation which may be uttered at the beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas or previously to any prayer; it is also regarded as a particle of auspicious salutation. But it is difficult to regard "Om" which is a preliminary to an incantation or to religious books, as having religious significance. "Om" it may be admitted is regarded as having high spiritual or mystical efficacy; it is used at the commencement of the recitations of religious prayers. But the attribute of spiritual significance will not necessarily impart to its use on a flag the character of a religious symbol in the context in which the expression religious symbol occurs in the section with which we are concerned. A symbol stands for or represents something material or abstract in order to be a religious symbol, there must be a visible representation of a thing or concept which is religious. To Om high spiritual or mystical efficacy is undoubtedly ascribed; but its use on a flag does not symbolise religion, or anything religious.11. It is not easy therefore to see how the Om flag which merely is a pennant on which is printed the word Om can be called a religious symbol. But assuming that the Om flag may be regarded as a religious symbol, the evidence on the record is not sufficient to establish that by Sidhanti, his election agents or any other person with his consent or the consent of his election agent. Om flag was used or exhibited, or an appeal was made by the use of the Om flag to further the prospects of Sidhanti at the election.It is in the light of these principles, the correctness of the findings of the High Court that Sidhanti was guilty of the corrupt practice of appealing for votes on the ground of his language and of asking the voters to refrain from voting for Daulta on the ground of the language of Daulta may be examined. The petition filed by Daulta on this part of the case was vague. In paragraph 11 of his petition it was averred that Sidhanti and his agents made a systematic appeal to the audience to vote for Sidhanti and refrain from voting for Daulta "on the ground of religion and language", and in paragraph 12 it was averred that in the public meetings held to further the prospects of Sidhanti in the election, Sidhanti and his agents had made systematic appeals to the elctorate to vote for him and refrain from voting for Daulta "on the ground of his religion and language". A bare perusal of the particulars of the corrupt practice so set out in paragraphs 11 and 12 are to be found in Schs.C and D clearly shows that it was the case of Daulta that Sidhanti had said that if the electorate wanted to protect their language they should vote for the Hariana Lok Samiti candidate. Similar exhortations are said to have been made by the other speakers at the various meetings. It is stated in Sch. D that resolutions were passed at the meetings urging upon the Government to "abolish Punjabi from Hariana", that many speakers said that the Hariana Lok Samiti will fight for Hindi for Hariana and that they were opposed to the teaching of Punjabi in Hariana. These exhortations to the electorate to induce the Government to change their language policy or that a political party will agitate for the protection of the language spoken by the residents of the Hariana area do not fall within the corrupt practices of appealing for votes on the ground of language of the candidate or to refrain from voting on the ground of language of the contesting candidate.28. Speeches made at political meetings held for canvassing votes must be examined in the context of the atmosphere of a political campaign and the passions which are generally aroused in such a campaign. In adjudging whether an appeal is made to the language of the candidate, a meticulous examination of the text of the speech in the serene atmosphere of the Court room picking out a word here and a phrase there to make out an offending appeal to vote for or against a candidate on the ground of language would not be permissible. A general and overall picture of the speeches delivered by Sidhanti and other speakers at the meetings disclosed nothing more than a tale of political promises, exhortations and inducements to vote at the forthcoming election for Sidhanti.29. It is not disputed that in 1957 there was a wide-spread agitation in the State of Punjab against the enforcement of the education policy of the State, incorporated in the "Sachar formula." Many persons were imprisoned or detained in the cause of the agitation for individual acts done by them. But the movement was not and could not be declared illegal. It is common ground that in the Hariana region Hindi is the predominant language of the people and if a section of the people thought that compelling the students in the Hariana region to learn Punjabi was not in their interest and in the election campaign such a view was advocated and votes were canvassed on the promise that the candidate if elected will take steps to conserve the language of the region, it would be difficult to hold that appeal as amounting to a corrupt practice. It is open to a candidate in the course of his election campaign to criticise the policies of the Government including its language policy and to make promises to the electorate that if elected he will secure a reversal of that policy or will take measures in the Legislature to undo the danger, real, apprehended or even fancied, to the language of the people. The object of the Hariana Lok Samiti was evidently to resist the imposition of Punjabi in the Hariana region and that object appears to have been made the platform in the election campaign. Thereby it could not be said that the voters were asked not to vote for Daulta on the ground of his language, assuming that it was other than Hindi. Nor can it be said that it was an appeal to the voters to vote for Sidhanti on the ground of his language.30. The evidence which has been referred to by the High Court regarding the speeches made by Badlu Ram and Harphul Singh on December 10, 1961, at Beri on the face of it shows that the speeches were an attack against Daulta in respect of his political conduct, behaviour and beliefs. The speeches made at the meetings at Sampla, Ladpur and Majra Dabuldhan read like political harangues addressed to the electorate to vote for the candidate who would project the language of the people of Hariana. At Bahadugarh also Sidhanti is stated to have claimed that he was opposed to the Government and its supporter Daulta in the matter of the language movement. The evidence also showed that Sidhanti had appealed to the voters to vote for him because he was actively associated with the Hindi agitation movement and that he was championing the cause of Hindi and resisting the imposition of a rival language Punjabi and thereby suggesting that Daulta was hostile to the cause of Hindi language and was supporting the Punjabi language the criticism by Sidhanti in his appeal to the electorate related to the political leanings of Daulta, and his support to the policy of the Government and was not personally directed against him. Nor did Sidhanti appeal to the voters to vote in his favour on account of his language. Such political speeches exposing the cause of a particular language and making promises or asking the people to protest against the Government of the day in respect of its language policy is not a corrupt practice within the description of corrupt practice under S. 123(3) of the Act.31. We are therefore unable to agree with the High Court that Sidhanti was guilty of any corrupt practice under S. 123(3) by appealing for votes on the ground of his language or by asking the voters to refrain from voting for Daulta on the ground of his language.