JAGANNADHADAS, - (1.) THE Judgment of the court was delivered by :
(2.) THESE are two appeals by special leave against two orders of the Election tribunal, Vindhya Pradesh at Rewa, dated 26/4/1954 and 31/5/1954. which arise out of the election to the House of People (Lok Sabha) from Shahdol-Sidhi constituency of Vindhya Pradesh. It is a double member constituency, one being a general seat and other being a reserved seat for a member of the scheduled tribes of Vindhya Pradesh. Twelve nominations were filed for the general seat and three for the reserved seat. The Returning Officer, after scrutiny, held only five out of the twelve nominations to the general seat to be valid and rejected the rest. Out of the three for the reserved seat, he declared only one, namely, that of one Randaman Singh, to be valid and rejected the rest. As a result thereof the said Randaman Singh was declared elected without contest to the reserved seat. Out of the five candidates whose nominations for the general seat were held valid, two subsequently withdrew in time. Accordingly the polling was held for the remaining three candidates in the various polling stations of the constituency on dates between the 11th and 19/01/1952. THESE three candidates obtained votes as follows : JUDGEMENT_200_AIR(SC)_1960Html1.htm Consequently Bhagwan Datt Shastri (hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was declared elected, and the same was published in the Gazette dated the 14/02/1952. Thereupon two election petitions were filed, both on the 24/04/1952, contesting the validity of the election. The first (Election Petition No. 185 of 1952) was filed by four voters of the constituency. The relief asked for was the setting aside of the election of the appellant on various grounds set out therein and the declaration of Ram Ratan Gupta as the validly elected candidate. The second petition (Election Petition No. 187 of 1952) was filed by three other voters of the same constituency and also prayed that the election of the appellant should be sat aside. It asked also for a further relief, viz., that the election of Randaman Singh the candidate returned unopposed for the reserved seat should also be set aside. In this petition the grounds alleged against the appellant's election were partly the same as those which were set out in the earlier petition. But there was added another substantial ground. This was that out of the nominations for the general seat which were rejected as being invalid on scrutiny by the Returning Officer, the rejections of the nominations of three candidates, viz., Baboo Lal Udaniya, Deep Narain and Rajkishore Shukla, were erroneous in fact: and in law and that as a result thereof the election - it was alleged was materially affected. It was 'on the basis of this allegation that the relief asked for in this petition was not merelv to set aside the election of the appellant but also for the setting aside of the entire election which would result in the unseating even of the 202 reserved-seat candidate who elected unopposed. Common evidence was taken by consent of parties in both these petitions. Quite a large number of issues were raised in each of the petitions, some of which were common. A good many out of those issues were found in favour of the appellant. But only three of the issues in the first petition relating, respectively, to (1) undue influence, (2) use of vehicles for carrying voters to the polling station, and (3) appeal to voters on grounds of caste, race, community or religion, were found against the appellant. In the other petition, in addition to the findings against the appellant in respect of issues' corresponding to these three, a further issue relating to the wrongful rejection of nomination papers and the election being materially affected thereby, was found against the appellant. As a result of all these findings, the election of the appellant was set aside. The additional relief asked for in the first petition, viz., that Ram Ratan Gupta be declared elected was rejected as also the additional relief asked for in the second petition, viz., that Randaman Singh was to be unseated. As a result, the Election tribunal maintained the election of the reserved seat candidate but ordered a fresh election in the constituency for the general seat. There is no question raised before us as to the correctness of the order of the Election tribunal in so far as it upheld the election of the reserved seat candidate and rejected the relief asked for that Ram Ratan Gupta be declared elected. The only common question therefore now raised in both the appeals is as to the correctness of the tribunal's order in each of the election petitions setting aside the appellant's ; elcetion. Since at this stage there is only one common question arising in both appeals it is convenient to treat both tho appeals together by a common judgment. This judgment accordingly disposes of both the appeals.
(3.) THE findings of the Election tribunal which resulted in the election of the appellant being set aside are the following. 1. Leaflets like Ex. P-3 were circulated in numerous villages of Shahdol district to the effect that every member belonging to the Gond community who would not vote for the appellant would be ex-communicated. Such distribution was by various redcapped workers who were members of the Socialist Party. THE appellant having stood as a candidate on the ticket of the SocialistParty, they were virtually agents of the appellant. Thus the appellant was guilty of the major corrupt practice of undue influence under proviso (a)(i) and (ii) of S. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 2. Leaflets like Ex. P-6, the later portion of which contained a clear and systematic appeal to the voters to vote (or refrain from voting) on grounds of caste, race, community or religion and contained a threat of injury, were widely distributed in the entire district of Sidhi and Tahasil of Mauganj in Rewa district by workers of the Socialist Party, who were virtually in the position of agents of the appellant. This constituted both a major corrupt practice under proviso (a)(i) and (ii) to S. 123(2) and a minor corrupt practice under S. 124(5) of the Act. 3. On 11/1/1952 (one of the polling dates) quite a number of voters from two villages in the constituency were brought to one of the polling stations by the use of one motor truck which belonged to Achutanand, a SocialistParty candidate for the same constituency of the State Legislative Assembly, polling for which also was going on simultaneously at the various polling stations. THE voters were brought by Achutanand himself as well as by other SocialistParty workers. This was with the knowledge and connivance of the appellant and constituted a major corrupt practice, within the meaning of S. 123(6) of the Act. 4. THE nominations of the three persons above mentioned, viz., (1) Baboo Lal Udaniya, (2) Deep Narain, and (3) Rajkishore Shukla, were wrongly rejected and the rejection materially affected the result of the election. The correctness of all these findings was vigorously canvassed before us both on the evidence and on the law relating thereto. It may be mentioned that each one of these, if held proved, was by itself enough to invalidate the election of the appellant. The first three of the above findings which fall under S. 123 of the Act and are major corrupt practices would, if accepted, bring about the setting aside of the election by the tribunal under S. 100(2)(b) of the Act. The finding in respect of the fourth, if upheld, would bring about the voidness of the election under S. 100(1)(a) of the Act.;