False statements about a candidate's personal conduct can amount to corrupt practice; political criticism does not.

Under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a corrupt practice is made out only where there is a false statement of existing fact, relating to a candidate's personal character or conduct, made without belief in its truth and reasonably calculated to prejudice electoral prospects. Applying that test, the Court treated the allegation that a candidate paid money to secure another candidate's withdrawal as a proved false statement warranting voiding of the election, while other criticisms were held to be political comment or vague assertions outside the statute. It also held that expressions of opinion and political exhortation did not justify naming the rival candidate, and that a declaration of being duly elected requires independent proof under Section 101(b).

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statements attributed to Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and justified setting aside his election. (ii) Whether the statements attributed to Sharad Chandra Govindrao Pawar amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and justified his being named under Section 99. (iii) Whether, after setting aside the returned candidate's election, the petitioner could be declared duly elected under Section 101(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Issue (i): Whether the statements attributed to Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and justified setting aside his election.

Analysis: A statement falls within Section 123(4) only if it is a statement of fact, is false, is made believing it to be false or without believing it to be true, relates to the personal character or conduct of a candidate, and is reasonably calculated to prejudice electoral prospects. The Court distinguished between mere political criticism or future apprehension and a false statement of existing fact touching personal character. It held that the allegation that the candidate had paid money to a Janata Dal candidate to secure withdrawal and contest from another constituency was a false statement of fact about bribery, reflecting on personal character and conduct, and the evidence showed that the maker did not believe it to be true. Other alleged statements about an election budget, bicycles, clothes, liquor, repairs, and worker payments were treated as either speculative, vague, or related to political conduct and not within the statutory mischief.

Conclusion: The election of Gadakh Yashwantrao Kankarrao was rightly voided, but only on the basis of the proved false allegation of payment of money to secure withdrawal of another candidate.

Issue (ii): Whether the statements attributed to Sharad Chandra Govindrao Pawar amounted to a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and justified his being named under Section 99.

Analysis: The Court held that the statements attributed to Sharad Pawar were in substance expressions of opinion, political exhortation, or warnings against possible vote-buying, and did not amount to statements of fact relating to the personal character or conduct of the rival candidate. Remarks about morality, ideology, party loyalty, and acceptance of distributed goods, even if distasteful, were treated as directed to political conduct rather than private character. Since the basic statutory element of a false statement of fact was absent, the further questions of consent and prejudice did not arise.

Conclusion: Sharad Chandra Govindrao Pawar was not liable to be named for corrupt practice and the notice under Section 99 could not stand.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner could be declared duly elected under Section 101(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Analysis: A declaration under Section 101(b) requires proof that, but for votes obtained by corrupt practice, the petitioner would have secured a majority of valid votes. The Court held that the mere setting aside of the returned candidate's election did not automatically entitle the next highest candidate to be declared elected. The necessary evidentiary foundation for such a positive declaration was absent.

Conclusion: The declaration that the petitioner was duly elected was unsustainable and had to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The returned candidate's election remained void on the proved corrupt practice, the rival candidate's declaration as duly elected was rejected, and the order naming Sharad Pawar was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 123(4), only a false statement of existing fact relating to a candidate's personal character or conduct, made without belief in its truth and reasonably calculated to prejudice electoral prospects, amounts to corrupt practice; political criticism, opinion, or future apprehension does not.

---