1956 (10) TMI 44 - HC - Indian Laws

Tribunal's Jurisdiction Quashed under Section 125(3) - Appeal Dismissed, Costs Order Overturned

The High Court quashed the Tribunal's jurisdiction to investigate the charge under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, stating the ... Illegal practice under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to enquire into charges - material facts required in an election petition - scope of enquiry of an election tribunal under Section 99 - disqualification consequent on findings under Section 140Illegal practice under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - circular - Whether the documents in question were circulars and whether the Election Tribunal rightly found that Dr. John committed the illegal practice under Section 125(3). - HELD THAT: - The Court upheld the Election Tribunal's factual finding that three of the impugned documents were circulars printed for distribution and therefore fell within the expression 'circular' used in Section 125(3). The appellants' reliance on English authorities construing the word 'bill' was rejected because the statutory language here uses 'circular' and a document may be a circular though not a bill, placard or poster. Applying the ordinary dictionary meaning and the nature of the material, the Court accepted the Tribunal's finding of fact that the requirement of name and address of the printer was omitted and thus the practice charged fell within Section 125(3). [Paras 3, 4, 5]Finding that the documents were circulars is sustained and the factual conclusion that Dr. John committed the illegal practice described in Section 125(3) is accepted on its merits (subject to the jurisdictional ruling in the next issue).Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to enquire into charges - material facts required in an election petition - scope of enquiry of an election tribunal under Section 99 - Whether the Election Tribunal had jurisdiction to enquire into and record a finding on the illegal practice under Section 125(3) when a Division Bench had prohibited trial so far as relief (b) (setting aside election of returned candidates) was concerned and the alleged illegal practice was not material to the relief still maintainable. - HELD THAT: - The Court construed Section 83(1) and (2) (analogous to Order VI Rules of the Civil Procedure Code) to require that an election petition contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies to obtain the relief claimed; particulars of corrupt or illegal practices are required only where such practices are alleged and relevant. The Court rejected the broader view that a tribunal must enquire into any alleged corrupt or illegal practice irrespective of its relevance to the relief claimed. Decisions relied upon to support unfettered enquiry (including dicta in Sucheta Kripalani and Raj Krushna Bose) do not authorize inclusion or investigation of allegations having no bearing on the relief sought. Applying this principle, the Court held that the illegal practice under Section 125(3) alleged against Dr. John could not be investigated because that allegation was not necessary to determine whether the petitioner was entitled to the relief (a) sought; consequently the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to make a finding on that charge and its finding on issue 8 is quashed. [Paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into or record a finding on the Section 125(3) illegal practice alleged against Dr. John where that allegation was irrelevant to the relief still maintainable; the Tribunal's finding on issue 8 is quashed.Final Conclusion: The Court affirms the factual finding that the impugned documents were circulars, but holds that the Election Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to enquire into and record the finding of an illegal practice under Section 125(3) because that allegation was not material to the relief properly triable; the Tribunal's finding and the consequential order of disqualification are quashed, W.P. No. 478 of 1956 is allowed, and Writ Appeal No. 19 of 1956 is dismissed as academic. Issues Involved:1. Entitlement to multiple reliefs in an election petition.2. Timeliness of the election petition.3. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to investigate allegations of illegal practices.4. Interpretation of 'circulars' under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.5. Impact of subsequent amendments to the Representation of the People Act on disqualification.Detailed Analysis:1. Entitlement to Multiple Reliefs in an Election Petition:The respondent filed an election petition seeking three reliefs: declaring the election wholly void, declaring the election of the returned candidates void, and finding that the candidates were guilty of corrupt and illegal practices. The returned candidates contested the petition on the grounds that the respondent was not entitled to claim more than one relief. However, the Division Bench held that the petitioner could seek alternative reliefs as specified in Section 84 of the Act.2. Timeliness of the Election Petition:The returned candidates argued that the petition was barred by time as it was not filed within the period prescribed by Rule 119(a). The Division Bench agreed in part, holding that the petition against the returned candidates for the relief of declaring their election void was out of time. However, the petition seeking a declaration that the election was wholly void was found to be within time.3. Jurisdiction of the Election Tribunal to Investigate Allegations of Illegal Practices:The Tribunal framed an issue on whether it could investigate matters germane to prayers (a) and (c) despite a writ of prohibition on prayer (b). The Tribunal decided it could investigate these matters. The returned candidates filed petitions under Article 226 to restrain the Tribunal from investigating allegations relevant only to prayer (b). The High Court dismissed these petitions, stating that the trial of an election petition includes an enquiry into allegations of corrupt and illegal practices, not limited to the relief sought.4. Interpretation of 'Circulars' under Section 125(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:The Tribunal found Dr. John guilty of issuing circulars without the name and address of the printer, constituting an illegal practice under Section 125(3). The High Court upheld this finding, stating that the documents in question were indeed circulars. The term 'circular' was interpreted as something addressed to a circle of persons, and the material letters were printed for distribution among voters.5. Impact of Subsequent Amendments to the Representation of the People Act on Disqualification:Dr. John argued that even if found guilty of the illegal practice, the finding would not entail disqualification due to a subsequent amendment to the Act. Section 72 of the Amending Act removed disqualification for acts that ceased to be illegal practices under the amended Act. The High Court did not decide on this issue, as it held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to enquire into the charge under Section 125(3) and quashed the finding.Conclusion:The High Court quashed the portion of the Tribunal's order relating to the charge under Section 125(3), stating that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to investigate it. The writ appeal seeking prohibition was dismissed as the Tribunal had completed its enquiry. The order for costs against the appellant was set aside, with no order as to costs in the appeal.