1973 (9) TMI 103 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Election Recount Decision

Laxminarayan Versus Returning Officer

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the appellants' application for inspection of all votes in an election dispute, finding that ... - Issues Involved:1. Improper reception, refusal, or rejection of votes (Issue No. 2)2. Alleged corrupt practice involving a false statement by an agent (Issue No. 4)3. Alleged false statement in pamphlet (Issue No. 5)4. Alleged corrupt practices in speeches (Issue No. 8)5. Distribution of defamatory material (Issue No. 9)Issue No. 2: Improper Reception, Refusal, or Rejection of VotesSection 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifies the grounds for setting aside an election. According to Section 100(1)(d)(iii), an election may be set aside if the result has been materially affected by the improper reception, refusal, or rejection of any vote. Paragraphs 14-16 of the election petition allege improper arrangements and recounting issues. The recount revealed discrepancies, including missing votes and improperly counted rejected votes. The High Court rejected the appellants' application for inspection of all votes, finding the recount sufficient. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, agreeing that the recount was conducted according to Rule 63 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, and that the appellants failed to provide evidence to the contrary.Issue No. 4: Alleged Corrupt Practice Involving a False Statement by an AgentThe appellants alleged that a false statement by Satya Narain Sharma, an agent of the respondent, constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Act. The statement questioned the genuineness of a letter purportedly from the Prime Minister supporting another candidate. The High Court found no evidence that the statement was made with the respondent's consent, nor that it related to the personal character or conduct of the candidate. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the evidence did not prove the respondent's consent or the falsity of the statement.Issue No. 5: Alleged False Statement in PamphletThe appellants claimed that a pamphlet, Document C, contained false statements about the personal character of a candidate and was published by the respondent. The respondent denied this, asserting that Document 2R 20 was the actual pamphlet published. The High Court found the appellants' witness, who claimed Document C was printed at a specific press, unreliable. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, noting discrepancies in the witness's testimony and the lack of evidence to support the appellants' claims.Issue No. 8: Alleged Corrupt Practices in SpeechesThe appellants alleged that the respondent and his agents made speeches constituting corrupt practices under Section 123(4) of the Act. The High Court found no evidence that the respondent consented to the speeches made by his agents or that the speeches contained offending statements. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including testimonies and shorthand notes of the speeches, and found inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the appellants' witnesses. The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the appellants failed to prove the alleged corrupt practices.Issue No. 9: Distribution of Defamatory MaterialThe appellants alleged that the respondent and his followers distributed copies of the weekly Gram Sewak, which contained defamatory statements about a candidate. The High Court found no evidence that the respondent consented to the publication or distribution of the material. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the evidence showed the Gram Sewak was sold, not distributed for free, and that there was no direct evidence linking the respondent to its distribution. The Court also found the appellants' witnesses unreliable and highly interested.Costs Awarded by the High CourtThe High Court awarded costs to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 400 per day for 52 hearings, based on the Bombay High Court Rules for counsel fees. The Supreme Court found no evidence that any fees were paid to counsel and held that the respondent is entitled only to costs actually incurred. The appeal was allowed in this respect, but dismissed on all other grounds, with the respondent entitled to costs incurred in the Supreme Court and the High Court.