1969 (2) TMI 187 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Decision on False Statements in Election Appeals

Samant N. Balakrishna Etc. Versus George Fernandez And Ors. Etc.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Court found that while some false statements were made about ... - Issues Involved:1. Invalidity of the election due to non-compliance with the Representation of the People Act and the Constitution.2. Allegations of corrupt practices, including false statements and defamatory publications.Detailed Analysis:1. Invalidity of the Election:The election petition initially included grounds based on non-compliance with Section 62 of the Representation of the People Act and Articles 326 and 327 of the Constitution. These grounds concerned the secrecy of the ballot, registering voters in multiple constituencies, omission of qualified voters, and impersonation by persons for dead or absent voters. However, these grounds were abandoned in the High Court, and thus, the Supreme Court did not address them.2. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:The core of the election petition was based on allegations of corrupt practices, specifically false statements and defamatory publications. These were detailed in sub-paragraphs E to J of the petition and supported by newspaper extracts.Sub-paragraph E:This dealt with statements made at a meeting on February 16, 1967, at Shivaji Park by Jagadguru Shankaracharya, accusing Mr. S.K. Patil of complicity in arson and attacks. These statements were published in the 'Maratha' and 'Blitz' and were alleged to be inspired by Mr. Fernandez, thus constituting a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.Sub-paragraph F:This involved statements by Jagadguru Shankaracharya on cow slaughter, accusing Mr. Patil of pretending to support the anti-cow-slaughter movement. These statements were alleged to offend Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act.Sub-paragraph G:This referred to speeches by Mr. Fernandez and his workers, accusing Mr. Patil of being an enemy of Muslims and Christians and interfering with their religious practices. These statements were alleged to violate Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act.Sub-paragraph H:This involved a false statement published in the 'Maratha' that Mr. Patil had paid Rs. 15 lakhs to Mr. Jack Sequeira to undermine efforts for incorporating Goa into Maharashtra. This was alleged to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(4).Sub-paragraph I:This referred to various defamatory articles and cartoons published in the 'Maratha,' portraying Mr. Patil negatively. These were alleged to be false statements made to prejudice Mr. Patil's election prospects, thus violating Section 123(4).Sub-paragraph J:This involved additional defamatory articles published in the 'Maratha,' accusing Mr. Patil of various wrongdoings, including mortgaging India's freedom with America and being a traitor. These statements were alleged to be false and aimed at damaging Mr. Patil's election prospects.Amendments and Procedural Issues:The petitioner sought several amendments to include additional instances of corrupt practices and to introduce new grounds. The Supreme Court had to determine whether these amendments were permissible under the election law. The Court held that amendments introducing new corrupt practices after the period of limitation were not allowed, but amendments clarifying existing allegations were permissible.Key Findings:- The Court found that the original petition did not sufficiently allege corrupt practices by Mr. Fernandez personally but focused on the actions of his alleged agents, particularly the 'Maratha' newspaper and its editor, Mr. Atrey.- The Court ruled that the amendments introducing new allegations of corrupt practices by Mr. Fernandez himself were not permissible as they were sought after the limitation period.- The Court acknowledged that Mr. Atrey, as the editor of the 'Maratha,' published false statements about Mr. Patil, but there was insufficient evidence to prove that these actions were done with the consent of Mr. Fernandez.- The Court emphasized that to declare an election void under Section 100(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, it must be shown that the result of the election was materially affected by the alleged corrupt practices. The Court found that this burden of proof was not met by the petitioner.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decision of the Bombay High Court. The Court concluded that while some false statements were made by Mr. Atrey, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that these were made with the consent of Mr. Fernandez, and the petitioner failed to prove that the election result was materially affected by these statements. The appeals were dismissed with costs.