Section 99 compliance is mandatory before naming non-parties guilty of corrupt practice; election void order was unsustainable.

A finding that an election was void for corrupt practice cannot stand unless Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act is first complied with by giving notice and hearing to every non-party proposed to be named as guilty. The omission to issue such notice was treated as going to the root of the matter and rendered the order legally unsustainable, so the matter had to be remanded for fresh decision. On procedure, the Court stated that election petitions should be tried like civil suits with distinct issues and controlled recording of evidence, but the broadly framed issues and cumbersome evidence in this case did not by themselves vitiate the proceedings absent demonstrated prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-compliance with Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in not issuing notice to persons named as guilty of corrupt practice vitiated the order declaring the election void and required remand; (ii) Whether the manner in which issues were framed and evidence was recorded in the election petition warranted any interference or guidance.

Issue (i): Whether non-compliance with Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in not issuing notice to persons named as guilty of corrupt practice vitiated the order declaring the election void and required remand.

Analysis: Section 99 requires the High Court, at the time of making an order under Section 98, to record findings on corrupt practice and the names of all persons proved guilty, and a non-party cannot be named without notice and an opportunity of hearing. The judgment under appeal had recorded findings of corrupt practice and had named persons alleged to have committed them, but no notice had been issued to such persons. This omission went to the root of the matter and made the final order declaring the election void legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The order declaring the election void was vitiated for breach of Section 99 and the matter had to be remanded for fresh decision after compliance with that provision.

Issue (ii): Whether the manner in which issues were framed and evidence was recorded in the election petition warranted any interference or guidance.

Analysis: An election petition is to be tried like a civil suit, with each material proposition ordinarily forming a distinct issue so that the real controversy is clearly defined. The evidence should be confined to the issues and pleadings, and the trial court must actively control examination and cross-examination to prevent prolixity and impermissible questions. Although the issues in the case were broadly framed and the evidence was recorded in a cumbersome manner, no prejudice was shown and the defect did not by itself vitiate the trial. The Court nevertheless gave guidance that issues should be framed more precisely and evidence should ordinarily be recorded in a more controlled narrative form.

Conclusion: No separate ground for setting aside the proceedings was made out on the framing of issues or recording of evidence, though procedural guidance was issued for future trials.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the election judgment was unsustainable for want of mandatory compliance with Section 99, and the election petition was sent back for reconsideration in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A finding declaring an election void on corrupt practice cannot stand unless the statutory requirement of notice and hearing under Section 99 is first complied with for every non-party proposed to be named as guilty of corrupt practice.

---