SIKRI - (1.) THE following Judgments of the court were delivered by :
(2.) ON 11/05/1970, this court dismissed the above petitions and stated that reasons would be given later. We now proceed to give the reasons. These four election petitions filed under Section 14 of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Act (XXXI of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and Article 71 of the Constitution of India challenge the election of the respondent Shri V. V. Giri, to the office of the President of India. The petitioner in Election Petition No. 1 of 1969, Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, was a candidate in the election, and so was the petitioner in Election Petition No. 3, Shri Phul Singh. The nominations of both these petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer. Election Petition No. 4 was filed by Shri N.Sri Rama Reddy,M. P., and twelve other electors, all members of Parliament. Election Petition No. 5 was filed by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, M. P., and nine other members of Parliament and eight members of Legislative Assemblies of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar. Shri V. V. Giri is the sole respondent in Election Petititons Nos. 1, 4 and 5 while in Election Petition No. 3 he was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and Union of India, through the Election Commission, was impleaded as respondent No. 1. After the sad demise of the then President of India, Dr. Zakir Hussain, on 3/05/1969, the Election Commission issued a notification under Section 4 of the Act appointing 24/07/1969, as the last date for filing the nomination papers, 26/07/1969, as the date for scrutiny of the nomination papers, and 29/07/1969, as the last date for withdrawal of nomination papers. Polling was fixed for 16/08/1969. 24 nomination papers were filed before the Returning Officer. On scrutiny which took place on 26/07/1969, the Returning Officer rejected 9 nomination papers, including the nomination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, petitioner in Election Petition No. 1, and Shri Phul Singh, petitioner in Election Petition No. 3. He accepted the nomination papers of 15 candidates. No candidate withdrew his nomination by the due date. Counting of votes took place on 20/08/1969, when the result was announced and the respondent, Shri V. V. Giri, was declared elected. 581
(3.) THE election was sought to be challenged on various grounds in these election petitions. Some of these grounds were common. THE grounds may be broadly formulated as. follows : (1) that the nomination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, Shri Charan Lal Sahu and Shri Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected by the Returning Officer; (2) that the nomination papers of Shri V. V. Giri the respondent, were wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer; (3) that the nomination papers of Shri Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, Shri Santosh Singh Kachhwaha, Shri Babu Lal Mag and Shri Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly conected by the Returning Officer; (4) that Part III and Section 21 of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution; (5) that Rules 4 and 6(3) (a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Election Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), promulgated under Section 21 of the Act, are ultra vires the Constitution and the Act; (6) that the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories were entitled to be included in the Electoral College for the election of the President and their wrongful non-inclusion had not only materially affected the result of the election but also violated Article 14 of the Constitution; (7) that the petitioners were entitled to dispute the election even on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 18 of the Act; (8) that the offence of bribery at the election had been committed by the respondent and his supporters with his connivance; and (9) that the result of the election had been materially affected by the commission of the offence of bribery by persons other than the respondent. In addition to these allegations it was alleged that the offence of undue influence had been committed at the election with the connivance of the respondent. In any event the result of the election had been materially affected by the commission of this offence. We will elaborate the pleadings on this point when we come to deal with the issues arising out of that allegation. We have read the judgment prepared by Bhargava, J. He has dealt fully with the issues arising out of the allegations other than the allegation of undue influence and, as we agree with him, it is not necessary to add anything to his reasoning. We may, however, reproduce the issues and the conclusions thereon. Issue No. 5 of Election Petitions Nos. 1,4 and 5 of 1969 E.P.No. 1: Whether Section 21 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution of India ? E. Ps. Nos. 4 and 5: Whether Part III and Section 21 of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India? We hold that Part III and Section 21 of the Act are not ultra vires the Constitution of India. 582 Issue No. 6 of Election Petitions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of 1969 E. P. Nos. 1,4 and 5: Whether Rules 4 and 6(3) (e) of the Rules are ultra vires the Constitution and the rule-making power of the central government; We hold that Rule 4(3) of the rules was validly made by the government in exercise of its rule-making power under Section 21 of the Act. That rule being valid. Rule 6(3) (e) of the rules, which is consequential, muse also be held to be valid. Issue No. 1 in Election Petitions Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of 1969 E. P. No. 1.-Whether the nomination papers of the petitioner, Gharan Lal Sahu and Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in Paragraphs 5(a) and (b), 6 and 7 of the petition? E. P. No. 4.-Whether the nomination papers of Shiv Kirpal Singh, Charan Lal Sahu and Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in Paragraphs 8(a) and 9(a), (b)and (c) of the petition ? E. P. No. 5.-Whether the nomination papers of Shiv Kirpal Singh, Charan Lal Sahu and Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in Paragraphs 8 (a) and 9 of the petition? We hold that the nomination paper of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh was rightly rejected on the ground that it was not accompanied by a certified copy of the entry relating to him in the electoral roll of the Parliamentary Constituency in which he was registered as a voter. We further hold that the nomination' paper of Shri Charan Lal Sahu was rightly rejected on the ground that he was not 35 years of age on the date of nomination. We also hold that the nomination paper of Shri Yogi Raj was rightly rejected on the ground that he had been proposed and seconded by the same electors who had proposed and seconded another candidate, Shri Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, the nomination paper of the latter having been received earlier by the Returning Officer. Issue No, 2 in E. Ps. Nos. 1 and 5 and Issue No. 3 in E. P. No. 4 of 1969. E. P. No. 1.--Whether the nomination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in Paragraphs 5(c)and 8 of the petition? E. P. No. 4.-Whether the nomination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged 'in Paragraphs 8(c) and 11 of the petition? E. P. No. 5.-Whether the nomination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in Paragraphs 8(b) and 10 of the petition? We hold that the nomination papers of the respondent were validly accepted. THE certified copies of the electoral roll filed with the nomination papers were issued by the appropriate authority. Issue No. 3 in E. Ps. Nos. 1 and Sand Issue No. 2 in E. P. No. 4 of 1969. E. P. No. 1.-Whether the nomination papers of Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji and Babu Lal Mag were wrongly accepted as alleged in Paras 5(b) and 9 of the petition? E. P. No. 4.-Whether the nomination papers of Rajbhoj Pandureng 583 Nathuji, Babu Lal Mag and Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly accepted as alleged in Paragraphs 8{b) and 10(a), (c) and (t) of the petition? E. P. No. 5.-Whether the nomination papers of Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, Santosh Singh Kachhwaha, Babu Lal Mag and Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly accepted as alleged in Paragraphs 8(c)and ll of the petition? We hold that the nomination paper of Shri Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji was validly acepted, the certified copy of the electoral roll filed by him was a valid and a good copy. We further hold that the nomination paper of Shri Santosh Singh Kachhwaha was not invalid even though he signed his nomination paper before his seconder had signed it. His nomination paper, therefore, was rightly accepted. We further hold that the nomination paper of Shri Babu Lal Mag was not invalid even though he had signed his nomination paper before it was signed by the proposer and the seconder. His nomination paper was, therefore, rightly accepted. We further hold that the nomination paper of Shri Ram Dulare Tripathi was not invalid. THE disputed signatures have not been shown to be not genuine. Issue No. 4 in E. P. No. 1 and issue No. 7 in E. Ps. Nos. 4 and 5 of 1969 (a) Whether the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories were entitled to be included in the electoral college for the election of the President? (b) If so, whether the non-inclusion of the members of the Legislative Assembilies of the Union Territories in the electoral college amounts to non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution? If so, whether the result of the election has been materially affected by such non-compliance? (c) Whether the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution has violated Article 14 of the Constitution? We hold that members of Legislatures created for Union Territories under Article 239-A cannot be held to be members of Legislative Assemblies of States. THEy were, therefore, rightly excluded from the electoral college. Issue No. 4(a) in Election Petition No. 1 and Issues Nos. 7(a) in Election Petitions Nos. 4 and 5 are accordingly decided against the petitioners. In view of this conclusion Issue No. 4(b) and Issue No. 4(c) of Election Petitition No. 1 and Issues Nos. 7(b) and(c) of Election Petitions Nos. 4 and 5 do not arise. Issues Nos. 1 and 2 in Election Petition No. 3 of 1969 1. Whether the nomination paper of Phul Singh, the petitioner, was wrongly rejected? 2. What relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled to? We hold that the nomination paper of Shri Phul Singh was rightly rejected on the ground that his nomination paper was not signed either by a proposer or a seconder. Election Petition No. 3 of 1969, accordingly fails and is liable to be dismissed. Issue No. 8 in Petitioner Election Nos. 4 and 5 of. 1969 E. P. No. 4: (a) Whether.the petitioners are entitled to dispute the election of the respondent on grounds Other than those mentioned in Section 18 of the Act? 584 (b) If Issue No. 8(a) is decided in favour of the petitioners- (i) whether the respondent or any person with his connivance printed, published and distributed the pamphlet, Annx. A-3, to the petition? (ii) Whether the pamphlet, at Annx. A-3, contained any false statement of facts relating to the personal character and conduct of N. Sanjiva Reddy, a candidate at the election and other persons named in the pamphlet? (iii) Whether the persons found responsible for publishing the pamphlet believed the statements made therein as true or had reason to believe them to be true? (iv) Whether the pamphlet was published with the object of prejudicing the prospects of the election of Sanjiva Reddy and furthering the prospects of the election of the respondent? (v) Whether the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void on this ground ? E. P. No. 5: Issue No. 8 in Election Petition No. 5 is substantially the same except that the Annx. in Petition No. 5 is Annx. A-38 and not Annx. A-3. On the first part of Issue No. 8 we hold that the petitioners are not entitled to dispute the election of' the respondent on grounds other than those mentioned in Section 8 of the Act. THE other parts of the issues, as a consequence, do not arise at all. Issues Nos. 9, 9-A and 10 in E. P. No. 5 of 1969 9.Whether the respondent or any person with his connivance committed the offence of bribery as alleged in Paragraph 15 of the petition? 9-A. Whether the allegations in Para 15 constitute bribery within the meaning of the Act? 10. Whether the offence of bribery was committed at the election by any other person without the connivance of the respondent as alleged in Paragraph 15 of the petition, and if so, whether it materially affected the result of the election? We hold that no offence of bribery was committed in the matter of grant of licence for the Polyester Factory to Swadeshi Cotton Mills. This leaves Issue No. 4 in Election Petition No. 4 and Election Petition No. 5. THEse read as follows: E. P. No. 4: (a) Whether all or any of the allegations made in Paragraphs 8(e) and 13(a) to (m) of the petition constitute in law an offence of undue influence under Section 18(l)(a) of the Act? (b) Whether the said allegations made in Paragraphs 8(e) and 13(a) to (m) are true and proved? (c) In the event of these allegations being proved and constituting undue influence- 585 (i) whether the returned candidate has committed the offence of undue influence? (ii) whether the offence of undue influence was committed by his workers, and if so, with his connivance? (iii) whether the offence of undue influence was committed by others without his connivance) and if so, whether that has materially affected the result of the election? E. P. No. 5: (a) Whether all or any of the allegations made in Paragraphs 8(e) and 13 of the petition constitute in law an offence of undue influence undersection 18(1) (a) of the Act? (b) Whether the said allegations in Paragraphs 8(e) and 13 are true and proved? (c) In the event of these allegations being proved and constituting undue influence- (i) whether the returned candidate has committed the offence of undue influence? (ii) whether the offence of undue influence was committed by his workers, and if so, with his connivance? (iii) whether the offence of undue influence was committed by others without his connivance, and if so, whether that has materially affected the result of the election? We may now refer to the pleadings relevant to Issue No. 5 in Election Petition No. 5.;