Corrupt practice allegations in election petitions require credible evidence and disclosure of affidavit sources of information.

Allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be proved by reliable and credible evidence, and partisan, repetitive or uncorroborated oral testimony was treated as insufficient. The text also states that speeches cannot be treated as appeals on religion or threats of divine displeasure unless the evidence is dependable and coherent; on the material described, those allegations were not established. It further explains that an affidavit supporting corrupt practice allegations must distinguish knowledge from information and disclose the sources of information, so the respondent can test the contemporaneous basis of the charge. The corrupt practice findings were set aside and the election petition failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by making false statements at the election meetings at Athana, Jhatla and Singoli. (ii) Whether the speeches attributed to the appellant and the Swamiji of Bhanpura amounted to corrupt practice under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by appealing on the ground of religion and by threatening voters with divine displeasure. (iii) Whether the election petition affidavit was defective for failure to disclose the sources of information as required by the election law and allied procedural rules.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by making false statements at the election meetings at Athana, Jhatla and Singoli.

Analysis: The allegations rested mainly on oral testimony said to support speeches imputed to the appellant at different meetings. The supporting witnesses were found to be partisan, unusually consistent in sequence and wording, and lacking independent corroboration. The absence of the alleged contemporaneous notes and the non-production of the person said to have taken notes weakened the case further. The evidence was treated as coached and unreliable, and the High Court's acceptance of that evidence was held to be erroneous.

Conclusion: The allegation under Section 123(4) was not proved against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the speeches attributed to the appellant and the Swamiji of Bhanpura amounted to corrupt practice under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by appealing on the ground of religion and by threatening voters with divine displeasure.

Analysis: The evidence led for the respondent was found to be patterned, repetitive and unnatural, with witnesses speaking in identical language and relying on memory despite having attended only isolated meetings. The record also showed the absence of supporting documentary material and raised serious doubt about the existence of the alleged notes said to have been taken at the meetings. On the whole evidence, the Court held that there was no reliable basis to conclude that the speeches contained a religious appeal or a threat of divine displeasure.

Conclusion: The allegations under Sections 123(2) and 123(3) were not established against the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether the election petition affidavit was defective for failure to disclose the sources of information as required by the election law and allied procedural rules.

Analysis: An affidavit in support of corrupt practice allegations must disclose which statements are based on knowledge and which are based on information, and the grounds or sources of information must be stated. The statutory scheme and the applicable procedural rules were read together to require such disclosure, both to give notice of contemporaneous evidence and to prevent later embellishment. The Court, however, found it unnecessary to rest the result on this defect because the case had already been fully tried and heard.

Conclusion: Disclosure of the sources of information was required, though no final disposal turned on this defect.

Final Conclusion: The corrupt practice findings were set aside and the election petition failed, so the appellant's election stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Allegations of corrupt practice in an election petition must be proved by reliable and credible evidence, and an affidavit supporting such allegations must disclose the sources of information so that the opposing side can test the contemporaneous basis of the charge.

---