Section 99 defence rights and proof of corrupt practice failed where implied admission and manifesto evidence were insufficient.

A noticee under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has an independent right to contest every essential ingredient of the alleged corrupt practice and to adduce evidence in defence. The written statement in this matter was read as denying invitation, presence, connection with the meeting and consent, so no implied admission could be inferred; refusal to allow that defence vitiated the inquiry. The alleged corrupt practice based on Pramod Mahajan's speech was also not proved, because the manifesto was not pleaded as the basis of liability, could not by itself establish the charge, and the evidence did not legally prove an appeal on religious grounds or promotion of enmity. The election could not be voided on those findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a noticee under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has an independent right to plead and prove absence of an essential ingredient of the alleged corrupt practice, and whether the returned candidate's written statement contained an implied admission of consent to the speech attributed to Sadhvi Reethambara. (ii) Whether the alleged corrupt practice based on Pramod Mahajan's speech was proved, and whether the Bharatya Janata Party manifesto could by itself supply the foundation for such a finding.

Issue (i): Whether a noticee under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has an independent right to plead and prove absence of an essential ingredient of the alleged corrupt practice, and whether the returned candidate's written statement contained an implied admission of consent to the speech attributed to Sadhvi Reethambara.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 99 confers on a non-party noticee the same opportunity to show cause as is available to a party, including the right to cross-examine and to adduce evidence in defence. The noticee could therefore contest the alleged presence of the candidate and the alleged consent, even if the returned candidate had not pleaded the matter in the same manner. The written statement, read as a whole, contained specific denials of invitation, presence, connection with the meeting, and consent, and did not permit an implied admission of the kind found by the High Court. Evidence to show the candidate's presence elsewhere was relevant and could not be shut out merely for want of a more explicit pleading. The refusal to permit such defence vitiated the inquiry under Section 99.

Conclusion: The finding naming Sadhvi Reethambara under Section 99 and the associated finding of corrupt practice based on her speech could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged corrupt practice based on Pramod Mahajan's speech was proved, and whether the Bharatya Janata Party manifesto could by itself supply the foundation for such a finding.

Analysis: The election petition did not plead the party manifesto as the basis of liability, yet the High Court substantially relied on it. A party manifesto, by itself, does not establish a corrupt practice by a candidate unless the candidate's role in its use or adoption in the campaign is proved. On the evidence, the testimony relied upon was insufficient to prove the speech in the form alleged, and the document relied upon did not establish an appeal for votes on grounds of religion or promotion of enmity within the meaning of Section 123(3) or Section 123(3A). The candidate and Pramod Mahajan denied the allegation, and there was no legal evidence proving the charge.

Conclusion: The finding that corrupt practice was proved on the basis of Pramod Mahajan's speech was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The election petition failed on the merits of the alleged corrupt practices, and the declaration voiding the election could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A noticee under Section 99 has an independent right to dispute every essential ingredient of the alleged corrupt practice, and a corrupt-practice finding cannot rest on implied admission, unpleaded manifesto material, or evidence that does not legally prove the statutory ingredients.

---