http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: KRISHAN CHANDER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM LAL

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/08/1973

BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN BENCH: REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN DWIVEDI, S.N.

CITATION:  1973 AIR 2513            1974 SCR  (1) 349  1973 SCC  (2) 759  CITATOR INFO :  R          1974 SC 480  (21)  RF         1974 SC1185  (16)  R          1975 SC 968  (6)  RF         1991 SC1557  (24)

ACT: Representation  of the People Act, 1951-Ss. 82(a) & (b)  and 86--Directory or mandatory-Impleading of defeated candidates against  whom corrupt practices were alleged-Whether  s.  82 violates article 14 of the Constitution.

HEADNOTE: In  his  election petition challenging the election  of  the respondent  the  appellant alleged that the  respondent  and three  other defeated candidates committed  various  corrupt practices  within the meaning of sub-sections (1) to (7)  of s. 123 of the Representation of the People, Act, 1951.   The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the  petition was  liable  to  be dismissed  for  noncompliance  with  the provisions of section 82 of the Act inasmuch as the defeated candidates against whom allegations of corrupt practice  had been  made had not been joined as parties to  the  petition. The  High  Court  upheld the  objection  and  dismissed  the petition. In appeal to this Court it was contended that: (i) since the affidavit filed by the appellant in support of the  election petition merely stated that the allegations contained in the relevant  paragraphs were based on information received  and had  not stated what the sources of information  were,  that part  of  the petition in which the allegations  of  corrupt practices  were made could not form the basis of  a  triable issued  (ii) while section 82(a) was mandatory  s.82(b)  was directory  and as such the petition could not be  dismissed: (iii) s.82(b) was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.. Dismissing the appeal. HELD  :  (i) The provision for setting out  the  sources  of information  in an affidavit was not a requisite  prescribed under r. 94-A of the conduct of Election Rules, 1961.  There was  ’nothing  in the affidavit in Form 25 under  this  rule which  required  the  petitioner  to  state  the  source  or source", of his information.  When there were specific rules under  the  Act  no other rules  were  applicable.   If  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

petition  and the affidavit conformed to the  provisions  of the Act and the rules made thereunder, it could not be  said that  because the source of information had not been  given. the  allegations  made in the petition had  to  be  ignored. [353E-F] Smt.   Sahodrobai  Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar &  Ors.   A.I.R. 1968  S.C.  1079; Amulva Chandra Rhaduri v.  Satish  Chandra Giri & Ors.  A.I.R. 1932 Cal. 255 and Wasudeoraoji v. A.  D. Mani A.I.R. 1951 Nag. 26, held inApplicable. (ii)  Section  82(2) enioins that, apart from  the  returned candidate whose election was challenged, any other candidate against whom any allegations of corrupt practices were  made should be joined as parties to the petition Section 86  read with s 82 makes both cls. (a) and (b) of s 82 mandatory  and noncompliance  with these requirements renders the  petition to  be  dismissed.   In  view of  these  provisions  it  was incumbent upon the High Court where the allegation *as  that the  requirements of s. g) were not complied with, to  deter mine that issue as a preliminary issue. [353A-D] Charan Lal Sohu v. Nandkishore Bhatt & Ors.  C..A. No.  2411 of 1972 dated August 1, 1973, referred to. Mohan  Singh v. Bhanwarlal & Ors.  A.I.R. 1964 S.  C.  1366, held inapplicable. (iii)An election petition cannot be split up in such  a manner  as  to  maintain it in  respect  of  allegations  of corrupt practiced only against some persons and not  against other  persons  who  were  required  to  be  made  necessary parties. 350 A  person  who  was not a party  and  against  whom  corrupt practices  had  been proved at the  trial,  natural  justice required  that he should also be afforded an opportunity  to contest that finding.  Article 14 had no application because the  object  of s. 82 was one and indivisible and  a  person coming  to  the court had to come with clean hands  and  not attempt  to  prevent a full and complete enquiry  or  thwart fair trial by picking and choosing the parties to the  peti- tion. [357C-F]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: civil Appeal No. 2384 of 1972. Appeal   by  special  leave  under  section  116A   of   the Representation  of  Peoples Act 1951 from the  judgment  and order  dated the 2nd August 1972 of the Punjab  and  Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election Petition No. 4 of 1972. Appellant appeared in person. D. N.  Mukherjee and N. R. Chaudhury, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANMOHAN  REDDY,  J.-The  appellant  is  a  voter  on  the electoral   roll  of  Karnal  Assembly   Constituency.    He challenged  the  election held on March 11,  1972,  for  the membership   of  the  Haryana  Vidhan  Sabha   from   Karnal Constituency.   At that election 16 candidates  filed  their nominations  which were declared as valid nominations.   Out of these, eight candidates withdrew their candidature.   The respondent and sevel others were the contesting  candidates. After the polling on March 11, 1972, counting took place  on March  12,  1972  and the respondent  was  declared  elected having polled 17719 votes, the other candidates Shanti  Devi polled 16857 votes, Balwan Singh 1602 votes, Piyare Lal 1243 votes, Kali Ram 1203 votes, Kalu Ram 616 votes, Radhey  Sham 542 votes and Kashmira Singh 180 votes. The   appellant  filed  a  petition  on  April   24,   1972,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

challenging  the election of the respondent Ram Lal  on  the allegations,  inter alia, that the respondent, his  election agent  and  other persons with his  consent,  had  committed various  corrupt  practices  detailed  in  the  petition  as falling  within the meaning of sub-ss. (1) to (7) of s.  123 of the Representation of the People Act-hereinafter referred to  as  ’the  Act’.  For the purposes of  this  appeal,  the various  allegations  made  against the  respondent  in  the election petition are not relevant.  It is only necessary to state  that  certain allegations of corrupt  practices  were made  in paragraphs 11 & 12 of the petition  against  Piyare Lal,  Kali Ram and Kalu Ram.  The petition was  verified  by the  appellant as required under the Rules.   The  appellant also  filed an affidavit in which he stated that  paragraphs 11  &  12 among other paragraphs were based  on  information received and were believed to be true.  The respondent filed a  written statement on September 25, 1972,  contesting  the allegations  of  various  corrupt  practices  made  by   the appellant and further raised some pre iminary objections one of  which was that the petition was liable to  be  dismissed for  noncompliance with the provisions of s. 82 of  the  Act inasmuch as the persons against whom allegatione of  corrupt practice have been made such as Pivare Lal Kali Ram and Kalu Ram had not been joined as respondents to the petition. 351 The  appellant,  however,  averred in  reply  that  Ram  Lal respondent alone was required to be made a party and it  was not  necessary to implead any other candidate or  candidates as  the  allegations of corrupt.  practice  were  levelled against  the  successful  candidate  and  not   againstother candidates.  The learned Judge who tried the petition, after hearing  the  ’petitioner  in  person  and  the  respondents counsel, framed the following two issues :               1.Whether   it  was  necessary   for   the               petitioner  to  implead  Sarvshri  Ram  Piare,               Piyare  Lal, Kali Ram, Kalu Ram and  Kaslimira               Singh  as parties to the petition in  view  of               the allegations in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and  20               of the election petition ?               2.  If Issue No. 1 is found in favour  of  the               respondent,   what  is  the  effect  of   non-               impleadment of those persons as respondents to               the petition ? It  was conceded by the respondent’s counsel that there  was no, imputation of any corrupt practice against Shanti  Devi, Balwan  Singh and Radhey Sham and accordingly there  was  no necessity  to  implead’ them.  It was, however,  urged  that Comrade Ram Piare and the remaining four candidates, namely, Piyare  Lal,  Kali Ram, Kalu Ramand Kashmira  Singh,  having been  charged with committing corrupt practices set  out  in the a aforesaid paragraphs were necessary parties. The arned Judge  held  that  Comrade  Ram  Piare  had  withdrawn   his candidature  before the prescribed date, therefore,  he  was not  a  necessary party to the petition, nor was  there  any allegation  against  him,  that he  was  prevailed  upon  to withdraw  by  bribery, receipt of  gratification  or  reward which would constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 of the Act.  Even in respect of Kashmira Singh the allegation that he was persuaded to retire from the  contest and"  sit  silent in the election if he could not  help  the respondent could not amount to corrupt practice.  The Court, however,  came to the conclusion that the petitioner had  in paragraphs  11  and 12 of the petition made  allegations  of corrupt practices against Piyare Lal, Kali Ram  and Kalu Ram and in view of these allegations failure to implead them  as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

parties   to   the  petition   contravened   the   mandatory provisionsof  s. 82 of the Act.  In this view  the  election petition   was  dismissed.   Against  ’this  decision,   the appellant has come up in appeal before us. The  petitioner  who argued the appeal in  person  contends, inter  alia, firstly, that as the affidavit filed by him  in support  of  the election petition merely  stated  that  the allegations contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 were based  on information received and he had not stated. what the sources of information were, that part of the petition in which  the allegations  of corrupt Practices were made  against  Pivare Lal,  Kali  Ram  and Kalu Ram cannot form  the  basis  of  a triable  issue..  Consequently the allegations  against  the respondent  should have been enquired into;  secondly,  that the  learned Judge should have on the pleading-, framed  and tried all issues arising out of the petition and not  merely issues  confined to a preliminary point.  Where  issues  of’ fact  and law arise out of a petition it is  contended  that evidence  should have, been recorded and findings  given  in respect of all those issues; thirdly, the appellant  submits that while s. 82(a) is mandatory, s. 352 82(b)   is  directory,  as  such  the  petition  cannot   be dismissed;  fourthly, the allegations in paragraphs 11 &  12 of the petition did not constitute corrupt practice inasmuch as  the  allegations, only state that money  was  paid,  but there  was no express averment that it was accepted  by  the persons,  concerned;  and lastly, it was contended  that  s. 82(b) is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution in that it was harsh and would result in the dismissal of the  petition in which allegations of corrupt practices were made  against the successful respondent who committed them, merely because proper  allegations  were not made against the  persons  who were not elected. In  support  of  his  first  contention  the  appellant  has referred  to decisions rend,.-red under O. VI r. 15  and  O. XIX  r. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  These  decisions, in  our  view,  have no relevance and ,do  not  support  the submission of the appellant that in the affidavit in support of  the  petition  if  he has  not  stated  the  sources  of information  on which  the  several  allegations  in   the petition  are based, those allegations cannot be deemed  to, have  been made.  Order VI r. 15(2) states that  the  person verifying shall specify, by reference to numbered paragraphs of  the  pleadings, what he verifies on his  knowledge and what  he verifies upon information received and believed  to be true.  This provision, as we shall presently show, is  no different  to that required to be stated on an affidavit  by the proviso to s. 83(1) read with r. 94A and Form 25 of  the Conduct  of  Election Rules, 1961.  Order XIX r.  2  has  no relevance  as  that  deals  with  evidence  being  given  on affidavit  and if either party insists the Court  may  order the deponent to attend for cross-examination. At  the  outset  it may be stated  that  the  provision  for setting out the sources of information where the allegations have  been verified as having been made on  information  and knowledge  of the petitioner is not a  requisite  prescribed under r. 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961,  which are applicable to the filing of an election petition.  Under sub. s. (1 ) of s. 83 an election petition has to contain  a concise  statement  of  the  material  facts  on  which  the petitioner relies; it has to set fort a full particulars  of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges,  including as full a statement as possible of the names of the  parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

and place of the commission of each such practice and  shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner  laid down  in  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  1908,  for   the verification  of  the  pleadings, provided  that  where  the petitioner alleges any corrupt practice. the petition  shall also  be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed  form in  support of the allegation of such corrupt  practice  and the   Particulars  thereof.   The  affidavit  in   Form   25 prescribed under r. 94-A is as follows               "I......  the petitioner in  the  accompanying               elect  ion  petition calling in  question  the               election  of  Shri/Shrimati  ....  (respondent               Ro  ....  in the said  petition)  make  solemn               affirmation on oath and say-               353               (a)that    the    statements    made     in               paragraphs....  of the  accompanying  election               petition  about the commission of the  corrupt               practice of  and the particulars of such  cor-               rupt  practice mentioned in paragraphs of  the               same  petition and in paragraphs ....  of  the               Schedule  annexed  thereto  are  true  to   my               knowledge;               (b)    that    the    statements    made    in               paragraphs .... of the said    petition  about               the  commission of the corrupt practice  of  *               the particulars of such corrupt practice given               in paragraphs. . . . of the said petition  and               in paragraphs of the Schedule annexed  thereto               are true to my information.               (c)               (d)               (e)                                  Signature               of deponent               Solemnly  affirmed/sworn by  Shri/Shrimati....               at this.... day of 19 ....               Before me,               *Here specify the name of               the corrupt practice.               Magistrate of the first               class/Notary/Commissioner               of Oaths. There is nothing in this form which requires the  petitioner to  state under cl. (b) of Form 25 the source or sources  of his information The appellant has referred us to O. 11 r. 13 of  the Supreme Court Rules as also to r. 12 of  the  Punjab High  Court  Rules,  in  which  when  the  deponent  in  the affidavit  filed in support of the petition states  that  he has  made  the allegations in the  paragraph  or  paragraphs specified  on information, he is required also  to  disclose the  sources of in,formation.  But when there ’are  specific Rules   made  under  the  Act  which  govern  the   election petitions,  no  other  Rules are  applicable.   Nor  is  the disclosure of the source of information a requisite under O. VI  r. 15(2) C.P.C. On this ground alone the  submission  of the appellant can be rejected.  But as he has cited  several cases,  a: few of them may be examined to show that they  do not help him. In  Amulya  Chandra  Bhaduri  v.  Satish  Chandra  Giri  and others()  what was considered was whether the  affidavit  in support of the petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 12 of 1926, disclosed the sources of information in respect  of the allegations made in the petition for contempt of  Court. It  was  observed that in cases of this nature, as  is  well known,  the practice of the Court was to enable the  parties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

concerned  to  know  what are the points they  have  got  to answer  in a charge of contempt and the practice has  always been that the opposite parties, namely, the parties  charged with contempt, can-not be called upon to answer to  anything which  is not set out specifically in the grounds  used  be- fore the Courts at the time when the Rule was (1) A.I.R, 1932 Cal. 255. (2) A.I.R. (1951) Nag., 26. 354 issued.  Wasudeoraoei v. A. D. Mani(2) is also a case  under the  Contempt of Courts Act. 1926, and does not support  the submission  of  the appellant.  There is  nothing  in  these decisions  which state that the affidavit in support  of  an election  petition  should itself disclose  the  sources  of information.  The election petition under s. 83 (1) (b) its- elf must contain all the particulars that are necessary  and in the affidavit in support of that petition the  petitioner is required to say which of the allegations made in  various paragraphs  of  the petition are true to his  knowledge  and which  of them are true to his information.  If any  sources of  information have not been set out and  the  respondent cannot answer them without particulars,. he can always apply for  better particulars.  If the petition and the  affidavit conform  to  the provisions of the Act and  the  Rules  made thereunder,  it cannot be said that because the  sources  of information have not been given, the allegations made in the petition have to be ignored. The  decision in Smt.  Sahodrabai Rai v. Rain Singh  Aharwar and  others(1)  states nothing further than that  under  the Representation  of  the  People  Act,  details  of   corrupt practice or averments too compendious for being included  in the  election  petition may be set out in the  schedules  or annexures  to the election petition.  The law requires  that even  though  they are outside the election  petition,  they must be signed and verified, but such annexures or schedules are  then treated as integrated with the  election  petition and copies of them must be served on the respondents if  the requirement regarding service of the election petition is to be  wholly complied with.  No doubt it was observed in  this case  that the trial of election petition has to  follow  as far as may be the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. But  these observations were made in respect of the need  to furnish  along with the plaint copies of all  the  documents filed  with the plaint when summoning the  defendants.   The Court  observed that the plaintiff is required to  file  one copy  of the documents and not as many copies as  there  are defendants  in  the case.  It is clear  that  the  documents which  are filed with the plaint have to be  accompanied  by one  copy  of the documents.  This is because  the  copy  is compared  with the original and the copy is endorsed by  the clerk of court and the document is sometimes returned to the party  to be produced into Court later.  The copy takes  the place of the document concerned and is not to be sent out to the  parties  with the plaint.  The election  law  does  not provide anything different.  This case also does not  assist the appellant. It  is unnecessary for us to refer to other decisions  which are  not germane to the contentions urged before us  In  our view. there is no defect in the election petition.  There is no  force  in  the submission that  because  the  source  of information  had  not  been  disclosed  the  allegations  of corrupt  practices made in the petition have to be  ignored. It  may also be pointed out that the logical result  of  the contention  urged  by the appellant that  the  affidavit  is defective,  if  accepted, would make the  election  petition

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

itself  not  maintainable  for  having  filed  a   defective affidavit.   On  this ground itself the  petition  could  be rejected,  but  such is not the position in law and  in  our view  the election petition does not suffer from any  defect on this score. (1)A.I.R. [1968] S.C. 1079.  3 5 5 The next submission of the appellant that all issues  should have,  been framed and tried, instead of only one  issue  on the  preliminary  Point is equally without  force.   Section 82(2) enjoins who the parties to the petition should be, and among  those,  apart  from  the  returned  candidate   whose election is challenged, any other candidate against whom any allegations  of corrupt practices are made in  the  petition should  be  joined.  If this requirement is  not  fulfilled, sub-s. (1) of s. 86 makes it mandatory for the High Court to dismiss  the  election petition for noncompliance  with  the provisions  of  s.  82 of the Act.  The  contention  of  the appellant that while cl. (a) of s. 82 is mandatory, cl.  (b) of  that section is only directory, is not  tenable  because reading s. 86 with s. 82 makes both cls. (a) and (b) of  the latter   section  mandatory  and  non-compliance  with   the requirements thereof visits the petitioner with the  penalty of  having  his  petition  dismissed.   In  view  of   these provisions,  it is incumbent upon the High Court, where  the allegation  is  that  the  requirements of  s.  82  are  not complied  with,  to determine that issue  as  a  preliminary issue.   If  the respondent has made out his  case  on  that issue,  the Court is left with no option but to dismiss  the petition for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of s.  82.   This  Court  has  held  in  Charan  Lal  Sahu   v. Nandkishore  Bhatt  & Ors(1) that non.-compliance  with  the provisions of s. 117 of the Act which is one of the sections mentioned  in  sub-s. (1) of s. 86 merits dismissal  of  the election petition. Before dealing with the third and fourth submissions, it  is necessary to see what the allegations made by the petitioner in  paragraphs  11  and  12  are.   The  following  are  the allegations in respect of these paragraphs :               "11. That through Sh.  Sardha Ram,  President,               Municipal  Karamchari  Dal,  Karnal  and   Sh.               Prithvi   Raj  President   Distt.    Municipal               Subordinate   Employees  Union,   Karnal   the               respondent  Sh.   Ram Lal and  Sh.   Hargobind               Senior  Vice President,  Municipal  Committee,               Karnal induced Sh.  Piara Lal a caste  brother               of Mr. Sardba Ram to stand at the election for               the Karnal Assembly Constituency for that deal               Sh.  Sardha Ram was promised that he would not               be dismissed again even if his appeal had been               dismissed  by the learned Commissioner  Ambala               Division  and Sh.  Prithvi Raj would be  given               extension  of  his service.   It  was  further               promised by the respondent at the house of Sh.               Piara Lal Ward No. 9, Jundle gate, Karnal that               he would bear the entire election expenses  of               Sh.  Piara Lal for the purpose and he was paid               Rs.  3000  for standing in  the  elections  in               advance as gift by the respondent on 10th Feb.               1972.   It  was further agreed upon  that  Jan               Sangh  workers would also work for Sh.   Piara               Lal.   He  was actually supplied  workers  and               loud  speaker fitted Rikshaw  for  opropaganda               work.  So this inducement to Sh.  Piara Lal to               stand at the election is a corrupt practice in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

             the meaning of the section 123 (1) (A) (a)  of               the Representation of People Act and  election               is void.               (1)   C. W No. 2411 of 1972 decided on  August               1, 1973.               356               12.That   the  respondent  Sh.    Ram   Lal               accompanied  by  his agents  Sh.   Sunder  Lal               Dhawan,  Sh.Baldev  Raj Anand  and  also  Sh..               Prithvi Raj Anand Officiating Health  Officer,               Municipal Committee Karnal, went to the, house               of  Sh.   Kali Ram resident  of  Sadar  Bazar,               Karnal   and   offered  him  Rs.   2000/-   as               inducement  to  stand  as  candidate  at   the               election,  they further offered him  that  the               entire   election  expenses  and   substantial               workers would also be supplied by Sh. Ram  Lal               and his party as the Congress nominee belonged               to Jat community of the Chief Minister of Jats               always have been torturing the Harijans.   Sh.               Kali  Ram on 10th Feb. 1972 took them  to  the               house  of  Sh.  Kalu Ram resident  of  Jawahar               Market,  Karnal where Sh.  Kalia  was  sitting               with  his friends Sh. Ved Parkash and Sh.   K.               K.  Marwaha  and after discussions  Sh.   Kalu               said that the respondent every time makes  Sh.               Piara  Lal stand at the elections and  why  he               did  not come to him first as Sh.   Piara  Lal               was  not  superior  or  more  influential   in               Jhimers  of Karnal.  Upon this it was  settled               that Sh.  Kalu should also stand and for  that               purpose  he  was also paid Rs. 2000/-  on  the               spot and so was Sh.  Kali Ram paid Rs. 2000/-.               Next  day  i.e.  on 11-2-1972  Sh.   Kali  Ram               accompanied  by  Kalu filed  their  nomination               papers  and they both praised that they  would               not  withdraw their candidature come what  may               and from next morning i.e. from 42-2-1972 both               of them were given loud speaker fitted Rikshaw               and  workers  for  propaganda  sake  till  9th               March, 1972.  This gratification and offer  to               the  persons  to stand in elections  and  with               promise on their part not to withdraw till end               of elections is a corrupt practice within  the               meaning  of Section 123 (1 ) (A) (a) (B).   So               election is void. A perusal of the contents of paragraph-11 will show  clearly that the respondent bad promised Piare Lal at his house that he would bear the entire expenses and in furtherance of that promise had paid Rs. 3000 for his standing in the  elections in advance as gift on February 10 1972.  This inducement  to Piara  Lal  to stand at the election has been alleged  as  a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 ( 1 ) (A)  (a) of  the  Act.  Similarly allegations in paragraph- 1  2  are that  the  respondent offered to Kali Ram and  Kalu  Ram  on February 10, 1972, Rs. 2000 each to stand as candidates  for elections   and  that  on  February  11,  1972,   Kali   Ram accompanied by Kalu Ram filed their nomination papers.  This gratification and offer to the persons to stand in elections so  that they may later withdraw from the elections to  help the respondent was a corrupt practice within the meaning  of s. 123(1)(A)(a)(B).  In our view, there can be no manner  of doubt  that the averments in paragraphs 11 and 12 amount  to allegations  of  corrupt  practice.   The  argument  of  the appellant that there is nothing in paragraphs II and 12 from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

which  it can be gathered that Piare Lal, Kali Ram and  Kalu Ram had accepted the gratification, when it is categorically stated that the amounts had been paid to the persons on  the soot  and  that these amounts were paid to  induce  them  to stand for the elections and in pursuance thereto such person or persons stood 357 for   the,   elections  with  the  object   of   withdrawing subsequently  after the nomination papers were  held  valid. appears to us to be spacious.  The   case or Mohan  Singh v. Bhanwarlal  and  others (1) cited by the petitioner  has  no application, because on the facts of that case, there was no express  averment that one of the candidates  had  withdrawn his  candidature as a consequence of a promise made  to  him by. the successful candidate that a job will be secured  for him,  as  such  it was held that it  did.  not  disclose  an allegation  of  corrupt practice.  The High  Court,  in  our view,  was  right  in  holding that  paragraphs  11  and  12 contained  allegations of corrupt practices alleged to  have been  indulged in by the three persons named therein.   Once an  allegation  of  corrupt practice  is  made  against  the candidates  who have offered themselves for  the  elections, sub-s.  (b) of s. 82 of the Act applies, and the failure  to implead the three persons named in the petition is fatal  to the maintainability of the petition. The last contention that s. 82(b) is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution is equally far fetched.  The provision that non-compliance with any of the provisions of s. 82 makes  it obligatory on the High Court to dismiss the petition  cannot be  said  to be discriminatory, merely  because  substantial allegations  against the respondent who had been  successful at  the  elections cannot be tried for  non-compliance  with those requirements, if other unsuccessful candidates against whom  corrupt practices are alleged are not made parties’  A petition challenging the election of a successful candidate is  required  to  set out certain particulars  and  to  join certain  persons as necessary parties to that petition,  and if  it omits to comply with any of the mandatory  provisions of  the Act the petition is liable to be dismissed under  s. 86(1).   The petition cannot be split up in a manner  as  to maintain  it in respect of allegations of corrupt  practices only against some persons and not against other persons  who are required to be necessary parties. In  any election, where a candidate challenges the  validity of the election of a successful candidate, and further  asks that he be declared duly elected, all contesting  candidates must  be made parties to the petition.  The reason for  this provision  is  obvious, because other  candidates  who  have contested have interest in the result of the election  and may  even  challenge the petitioner’s prayer for  his  being declared  duly elected.  Where corrupt practice  is  alleged the  need for maintaining the purity of  elections  requires that  where  it appears to the Court  that  persons  whether candidates  or  not have indulged in  corrupt  practice,  it should  make an equity in respect of such  corrupt  practice which has been proved at the trial.  This is evident from s. 99  which requires that the Court at the time of  making  an order  under  s. 98 should also make an  order,  naming  all persons  who have, during the trial, been proved  guilty  of corrupt practices and also state the nature of those corrupt practices.   Where any person against whom corrupt  practice is  alleged  is a party he will  naturally  have  sufficient opportunity to defend himself against such allegation, but a person who is not a party and against whom corrupt practices have been proved at the trial, natural justice requires that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

he be also afforded an opportunity to (1)A.T.R. [1964] S. C. 1366. 358 contest  that    In  order to facilitate him to  do  so  the proviso  to clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 99  requires  the Court give the person concerned notice to appear before the Court and to show cause why he should not be so named If any person whether he be a candidate at the election. or not, is found  guilty of any corrupt practice as provided in s.  123 he  will incur a disqualification under s. 8-A for A  period of  six years from the date on which the order under  s.  99 takes  effect.  If such are the consequences of being  found guilty  of corrupt practices in cases where a person is  not made a party to the petition, and corrupt practice  against him  is  discovered  during the trial,  then  a  person  who challenges  an election, and with the knowledge  that  other candidates  have indulged in corrupt practices  deliberately omits to  make  them  parties  debarring  them  from   any opportunity  to defend themselves,. he is visited  with  the penalty  of having his petition dismissed for  noncompliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 82.  The concept of fair trial  requires  that all candidates who are  known  to  the petitioner  to have indulged in corrupt practices should  be made  parties, and this is the reason why s. 82(b) has  been enacted.  Section 82 differs from the proviso to cl. (b)- of sub-s. (1) of s. 99 in that the former contemplates  joining of  parties who are known to the petitioner at the  time  of filing his petition, whereas the latter deals with the cases which  are discovered during the trial and which  were not known to the petitioner at the time of filing the petition. Apart from ensuring the purity of elections, and finality in regard  to  all election matters,  one  other  consideration seems to be the expeditious disposal of election  petitions. Before  the  amendment  of  s. 82 by  Act  27  of  1956  the unamended section made it incumbent on a petitioner "to join as   respondent  to  his  petitioner  candidates  who   were duty,nominated at the election other than himself, if he was so nominated."The  reason  for the amendment of s.  82  has been stated in thenotes  on clauses to the Amendment  Bill No. 33 of 1955 to be that thesection as it stands holds  up the trial of an election petition because of the  difficulty in serving a notice on all those who have been nominated- It is  further  stated:  "Naturally, it is  only  the  returned candidate who takes any interest in contesting the  election petition.  Moreover there is a provision in section 90 which enables any other candidate to join as a respondent.  It  is accordingly  proposed in this clause that section 82  should be  revised so that it is necessary to join  as  respondents only those candidates who are interested prima facie in  the outcome of the petition." After the amendment the candidates under  clause (b) of s. 82 are not impleaded merely  because they are necessary parties in an election petition in  which a  declaration is sought that the election of all or any  of the  candidate would be void, but are impleaded  as  parties because  there are allegations of corrupt practices  against them in the election petition.  Where action is taken  under s.  90  and  order under s. 98 of  the  Act  dismissing  the election petition or declaring the election of all or any of the  returned  candidates to be void  and/or  declaring  the petitioner or any other candidate to have been duly elected, would delay the, disposal of the election petition,  because notice will have to be  3 5 9 given to all the persons named under the proviso to  sub-cl. (ii) of cl. (a) of sub-s. (1) of s. 99. , The provisions  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

82(b) would avoid any such delay as they make it  obligatory for  a person filing an election petition when he  makes  an allegation of corrupt practice against any candidate to make him a party on pain of the petition being dismissed under s. 86(1) if he omits to do so.  It may also be pointed out that a  person  who offers himself to stand as  candidate  at  an election  holds  out to the voters that if elected  he  will truly  and  effectively represent them in  the  Assembly  to which  he  is  elected.  The voters  of  the  Constituencies equally  expect  from  their  candidates  who  have  offered themselves  at the election a high degree if  integrity  and honesty,  and  if  there  are  allegations  in  an  election petition that any of the candidates have indulged in corrupt practices,  it  would be in consonance with  the  purity  of elections  that  they  should  be  made,  parties  and   the allegations of corrupt practices enquired into after  giving them an opportunity to meet those allegations.  Under s.  90 though  it is not required that those against  whom  corrupt practices have been proved should be made parties, yet  they are required to be named for the purposes of being  debarred from  offering  themselves as candidates, in  future.   This then is the rationale underlying the mandatory  requirements of  s. 82 (b).  In any view of the matter, Art. 14  has no application,  because  the  object  of  s.  82  is  one  and indivisible in that it is incumbent on any person coming  to Court to challenge an election to come with clean hands  and not  attempt  to  prevent a full  and  complete  enquiry  or perhaps  dictated by his own interests to thwart fair  trial by picking and choosing the parties to the petition. As  none of the contentions urged by the appellant  has  any validity, this appeal is dismissed with costs. P.B.R. Appeal dismissed 36 0