2010 (2) TMI 1130 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal Decision, Emphasizes Proof Standard in Election Petitions

TUKARAM S. DIGHOLE Versus MANIKRAO SHIVAJI KOKATE

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal and imposing costs of Rs. 20,000. The Court emphasized the stringent proof ... Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside for having made communal appeals in his speeches recorded on the VHS Cassette produced by the petitioner in Court? Whether the petitioner proves that the election of the respondent is liable to be quashed and set aside under Sections 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for the reasons set out in paragraphs 9 to 18 of the Election Petition? Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent had deliberately issued the letter at Exhibit E page 42 dated 28.9.2004 in the name of the petitioner with a view to misguide the voters? Whether the respondent proves that he has not addressed communal and racial speeches as alleged in VHS Cassette filed by the petitioner? Issues Involved:1. Communal appeals in election speeches.2. Allegations under Sections 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.3. Alleged issuance of a misleading letter by the respondent.4. Denial of communal and racial speeches by the respondent.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Communal Appeals in Election Speeches:The appellant alleged that the respondent made communal appeals in his election speeches, which were recorded on a VHS cassette. The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to produce any evidence proving the cassette was a true reproduction of the original speeches. The Tribunal observed that the cassette was not exhibited as a public document and its authenticity was not established. The Tribunal held that the appellant did not prove the contents of the cassette or the transcripts, and thus, the allegation of communal appeals could not be accepted. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the need for stringent proof in cases of corrupt practices, equating them to criminal charges requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt.2. Allegations under Sections 100(1)(d)(ii) and 100(1)(d)(iv) of the Representation of People Act, 1951:The appellant claimed that the respondent's election should be quashed under these sections for various reasons outlined in the petition. The Tribunal found no specific pleadings or evidence supporting the appellant's claims regarding the respondent's work and alleged threats published in a local newspaper. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant failed to prove any corrupt practices under Section 123(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The Supreme Court agreed with this conclusion, noting the lack of clear, cogent, and credible evidence.3. Alleged Issuance of a Misleading Letter by the Respondent:The appellant alleged that the respondent issued a misleading letter to defame the appellant. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not prove the letter's authenticity or that it was circulated by the respondent. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing the need for clear and unequivocal evidence in allegations of corrupt practices.4. Denial of Communal and Racial Speeches by the Respondent:The Tribunal did not answer this issue due to the negative findings on the previous issues. The Supreme Court did not find any reason to interfere with this approach, given the lack of proof regarding the cassette's authenticity and the speeches' accuracy.Conclusion:The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the appeal with costs of Rs. 20,000. The Court reiterated the high standard of proof required for allegations of corrupt practices in election petitions, emphasizing the need for clear, cogent, and credible evidence to substantiate such claims.