Election petition pleading and proof rules defeated corrupt practice findings, while holiday filing was treated as timely.

Election petition limitation was treated as saved by Section 10 of the General Clauses Act where the last day fell during court holidays and the petition was filed on the next working day. On corrupt practice, speeches made before the returned candidate became a candidate were outside the relevant period, and allegations based on later speeches failed without proof of the candidate's presence or consent. The text also states that a court cannot finally decide an election petition under Section 98 and then issue notices under Section 99 on the same unadjudicated allegations. Wall paintings and video cassettes could not sustain corrupt practice findings without proper pleadings, particulars, and proof of consent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the election petition filed after the last day for presentation was saved by Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. (ii) Whether a finding of corrupt practice could be sustained on the basis of speeches allegedly made on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990 and whether notice under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 could be issued after the election petition had already been decided under Section 98. (iii) Whether the corrupt practice findings based on wall paintings and video cassettes were sustainable in the absence of proper pleadings and proof of the candidate's consent.

Issue (i): Whether the election petition filed after the last day for presentation was saved by Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Analysis: The limitation objection turned on whether the last day for filing, falling during court holidays, was extended by Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The election petition was otherwise presented on the next working day after the court reopened. The Court treated the issue as covered by the settled applicability of Section 10 to election petitions.

Conclusion: The petition was within time and the limitation objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether a finding of corrupt practice could be sustained on the basis of speeches allegedly made on 29.1.1990 and 24.2.1990 and whether notice under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 could be issued after the election petition had already been decided under Section 98.

Analysis: Speeches made on 29.1.1990 were held to be outside the relevant period because they preceded the date on which the returned candidate became a candidate within the meaning of Section 79(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. As to the meeting of 24.2.1990, the High Court itself had not found the candidate's presence proved, and the alleged corrupt practice based on speeches by others required proof of the candidate's consent. Without proof of presence or consent, the charge could not stand. The Court also held that the statutory scheme did not permit the High Court to first finally dispose of the election petition under Section 98 and then issue notices under Section 99 against other persons on the same unadjudicated allegations.

Conclusion: The findings based on the speeches were unsustainable and the notices under Section 99 could not be maintained.

Issue (iii): Whether the corrupt practice findings based on wall paintings and video cassettes were sustainable in the absence of proper pleadings and proof of the candidate's consent.

Analysis: The pleadings concerning wall paintings and video cassettes were found deficient because they did not set out the material facts and particulars necessary to constitute the alleged corrupt practices under Section 83(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Evidence recorded on matters not properly pleaded was held to be inadmissible and incapable of supporting a finding of corrupt practice. The Court further held that the High Court had misdirected itself by treating any invocation of Hindutva, in the abstract, as automatically amounting to an appeal on the ground of religion and as simultaneously constituting both Section 123(3) and Section 123(3A). The distinction between appealing for votes on the ground of religion and promoting enmity or hatred between classes of citizens had to be maintained, and consent could not be presumed merely from party affiliation or leadership. Vicarious liability for corrupt practice required specific pleading and proof of the candidate's consent.

Conclusion: The findings based on wall paintings and video cassettes were set aside and the corrupt practice case failed.

Final Conclusion: The election petition and the consequential notices under Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 could not stand, and the appellant's election was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In an election petition alleging corrupt practice, the material facts and particulars constituting the charge, including the candidate's consent where vicarious liability is alleged, must be specifically pleaded and proved; absent such pleading and proof, evidence cannot sustain a finding of corrupt practice, and the court cannot validly proceed to Section 99 action after finally disposing of the petition under Section 98 on the same unadjudicated allegations.

---