http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: MANOHAR JOSHI ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DAMODAR TATYABA @DADASAHEB RUPWATE AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/03/1991

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. SINGH, K.N. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:  1991 SCR  (1) 759        1991 SCC  (2) 342  JT 1991 (1)   588        1991 SCALE  (1)410

ACT:      Representation  of the People Act, 1951:  Sections  99, 123(2),  (3)  and 3(A)--Corrupt  practice--Allegations  of-- Person summoned should know precise charge to be met--Notice to  such  person to spell out precise corrupt  practice  and portions  of  documentary evidence relied  upon  to  sustain such.

HEADNOTE:      In the 1989 elections to the Lok Sabha, respondent  No. 2  was  declared  elected  from  the  Bombay  South  Central Constituency. One of the defeated candidates (respondent no. 1)  filed an election petition challenging the  validity  of the election of respondent no. 2 inter alia on the ground of corrupt  practices  under sub-section (2),(3)  and  (3A)  of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.      The  High Court having reached the stage in  the  trial when  it  was prima facie of the opinion  that  the  charges alleged in the petition, of corrupt practices falling  under sections  123(3)  and 123(A) had been proved  to  have  been committed,  it  proceeded  under  section  99  to  name  the collaborators  in  such corrupt practices.  The  High  Court accordingly  directed issuance of notices to three  persons. Aggrieved  by  this order, two of the person  named  therein approached his Court by way of two separate appeals.      Before  this Court, it was contended on behalf  of  the appellants  that (i) the consequences of naming a person  on his being found guilty pursuant to such notices were  grave; (ii) the proviso to sub-section(1) of section 99 of the  Act enjoined  upon the Court to state precisely the charges  and the  evidence which the person summoned was called  upon  to meet;  and  (iii) the notices to the  appellants  to  answer allegations of corrupt practices allegedly committed by them were vague.      Allowing  the appeals and directing the High  Court  to issue proper notices to the appellants in the light of  law, this Court,      HELD:  (1)  It  is clear from the  provisions  of  sub- clauses  (i)  and  (ii) of clause  (a)  of  sub-section  (1) of section 99, that at the time of deciding                                                        760

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the election petition the Court has to record a finding that a corrup practices is proved to have been committed and that it has been committed by a particular person. The Court  has not  only  to  name the person but also the  nature  of  the corrupt practice committed by him.[766F-G)]      (2) If the person is a party to the petition, it is not necessary  to  hear  him separately  before  recording  such finding.   However, when he is not a party to the  petition, before such serious finding is recorded against him, he must have  the same opportunity as the party to the petition,  to meet the allegations against him. In that respect, he stands on  the  same footing as the party to the  petition  against whom  such  a  finding  is to  be  recorded.  He  cannot  be discriminated  against and made to suffer  any  disadvantage because he is not a party to the petition. [766H-767]      (3)  Where a corrupt practice is alleged, the trial  of an election petition on such charges is of a  quasi-criminal nature, and a heavy burden rests on the person alleging  the corrupt  practice to prove strictly all the  ingredients  of the  charge. This is as it should be since the naming  of  a person as having committed a corrupt practice  has a serious consequence  of  disqualifying him from being chosen  as  or from  being  member  of any House of Parliament  or  of  the Legislative Assembly or Council of a State for a period upto 6 years. [769B-C)      D.P.  Mishra  v. Kamal Narain Sharma &  Ors.,  [1971] 3 S.C.R. 257 and Rashim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors.,  [1975] I.S.C.R. 643, referred to.      (4)  When  the legislature requires that  the  election petition  shall contain full particulars of each  and  every alleged corrupt practice including as fuller a statement  as possible of the names of the  parties and the date and place of commission of such practice, it would be contrary to  the object of the said provisions to hold that when a notice  is issued under Section 99 against a person who is not a  party to  the  election  petition for holding him  guilty  of  any corrupt practice, the notice should not appraise him of  the precise charge against him and give him the full particulars thereof.[769D-E]      (5) The impugned order directing the issuance of notice is  extremely  vague  and defective to the  point  of  being contrary  to  the  provisions of law. The notice  is  of  an omnibus  character.  Section 123(3) does not  refer  to  one corrupt practice but a variety of them. Yet the notice  does not  specify which particular corrupt practice is sought  to be                                                        761 brought  home to each of the appellants, and does not  state which  of  the  portions of the  petition,  etc.  is  being relied  upon  to sustain which of the  charges  and  against which of the appellants. [769F-G, 770B]      [Order dated December 1, 1988 in Special Leave petition No.  13163  of  1988 and the  later  non-speaking  order  of January 23, 1989 in the matter overruled.] [771D]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  (NCE) 1044 & 1045 of 1991.      From  the Judgement and Order dated 29.10.1990  of  the Bombay High Court in Election Petition No.5 of 1990.      K.K. Venugopal, Harish Salve, P.H. Parekh, Sunil Dogra, V.D. Joshi and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellants.      A.S. Bobde, V.A. Bobde, S.D. Mudliar, C.K. Ratnaparkhi,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

B.P. Pandye, and Mrs. Nirmal Chhagan for the Respondent.      The Judgement of the Court was delivered by      SAWANT,  J. These two petitions arise out of  a  common order  dated  29th October, 1990 passed by the  Bombay  High Court in Election Petition No. 5 of 1990 and raise a  common question  of  law.  Hence  they  are  disposed  of  by  this judgement.      2. Leave is granted in both the petitions.      The  election petition in which the impugned  order  is passed  was filed by a defeated candidate (Respondent  No.1) against  the elected candidate (Respondent No.2) and   other contesting  candidates  challenging  the  validity  of   the election of respondent No.2 to the Lok Sabha from the Bombay South Central Constituency in the election held on  November 24,  1989. The election of respondent No.2 is challenged  in the  petition, among other things, on the ground of  corrupt practices  under sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A)  of  Section 123   of  the  Representation  of  the  People   Act,   1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). It appears from  the impugned  order that the High Court has reached a  stage  in the  trial  of the election petition  where  examination-in- chief  and cross-examination of about 14 witnesses has  been completed and various documents have been brought on record. It  is at this stage that the impugned order has been  made, the operative part of which reads as follows:                                                         762                "In this  Election Petition,  the  Petitioner          seeks to set aside the election of Respondent  No.1          on  the ground of corrupt practice  under  Sections          123(3) and 123(3A) of the said Act. The  Petitioner          has  led documentary and oral evidence.  Respondent          No.1  has  tendered documents but has led  no  oral          evidence.   The  other  Respondents  have  remained          absent   even   though   served.   Petitioner   and          Respondent No.1 have argued their respective cases.          The  learned  Advocate General has  also  drawn  my          attention  to  Section  99 of the  said  Act  which          requires  this Court, whilst giving a finding  that          corrupt   practice   has been proved, to  name  all          persons  who have been proved at the trial to  have          been guilty of any corrupt practice  and the nature          of that practice. This however must be after having          given  to  such persons notice to appear  and  show          cause why he/they should not be so named.                At  this  stage,  I am  of  the  prima  facie           opinion  that the charges alleged in the  Petition           of  corrupt  practice  under  Section  123(3)  and           123(3A)  of the said Act have been proved to  have           been  committed and that Mr. Bal  Thackeray,   Mr.           Chhagan Bhujbal and Mr. Manohar Joshi Are (to  use           the words of Supreme Court) collaborators in  such           corrupt practice.               Accordingly,  I  direct  that  notices   under          Section 99 of the Representation of the People Act,          1951,  shall  be given to Mr.  Bal  Thackeray,  Mr.          Chhagan  Bhujbal  and Mr. Manohar Joshi  to  appear          before me on 3rd December, 1990, to show cause  why          they should be not be so named in the order on  the          Election Petition.                Each notice shall state that the person named           in the notice shall have an opportunity of  cross-           examining  all witnesses who have  given  evidence           against  him  and that he shall have  a  right  of           calling evidence and of being heard.                I  direct  that to all the notices  shall  be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

         annexed photo copies of:           (a)   the  Petition,  the  written  statement   of           Respondent No.1 and the Issues.                                                        763           (b)  the  oral  depositions  of  the   petitioners           witnesses.           (c)  all exhibits, except Exhibits RR, SS  to  YY,           AAA, AAA1, AAAA, BBBB, BBBB1 and Exhibits 1 to 8.           (d) this order.                I also direct that along with all the notices           shall be sent audio cassettes containing copies of           Exhibits SS to YY." Aggrieved  by this order, two of the persons named  therein, viz., Manohar Joshi and Chhagan Bhujbal have approached  his Court by way of these two separate appeals by special leave.      3. The order is assailed on the ground that although it directs  the issuance of notice to the appellants to  answer allegations  of  corrupt practices  allegedly  committed  by them, it is vague and does not indicate which of the corrupt practices  they  are  alleged to have  committed  and  which evidence  on  record supports them. In the  absence  of  the specific  charge/s  and the evidence in support  of  it/them indicated  in the order and the notices issued  pursuant  to it, the appellants are at a loss to comprehend the case that they  are  called  upon  to meet. They are  thus  put  to  a disadvantage  and are gravely prejudiced. It is pointed  out that the consequences of naming a person on his being  found guilty pursuant to such notice are grave inasmuch as,  among other  things, he incurs a disqualification  for  contesting election  under  Article 103 of the Constitution  read  with Section 8A of the Act. It is also urged that even  otherwise the  notice  to  appear and the opportunity  to  show  cause contemplated under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 99 of the Act enjoins upon the Court to state precisely  the charge and the evidence which the person summoned is  called upon to meet. It does not contemplate a vague notice such as the one which is issued and is directed to be issued by  the impugned order.      4.  For reasons more than one, we find great  force  in these  submissions. Shri Bobde, the learned Advocate General of  Maharashtra who appeared for respondent No.1  could  not seriously dispute these contentions. However, he pointed out to us an earlier order dated December 1, 1988 of this  Court passed in Special Leave Petition No. 13163 of 1988 which was filed  against  a similar order passed by  the  Bombay  High Court  in Election Petition No.1 of 1988. This Court by  its said order had held as follows:                                                        764                "We  do  not  think that in  a  notice  under           Section  99  of the Representation of  the  People           Act,  1951  the portions of the  speeches  of  the           petitioner  are  required to be specific  for  the           purpose  of sub-sections (3) and (3A)  of  Section           123 of the said act. The petitioner, however, will           be  at liberty to make an application  before  the           Court  for specifying those portions which,  Prima           facie,  according  to the Court, come  within  the          purview of sub-sections (3) or (3A) of Section  123          of  the said Act. If any such application is  made,          the  Court  will dispose of it in  accordance  with          law.                The  special  leave petition is  disposed  of accordingly."      The  provisions  of  the Act which  have  a  cumulative bearing  on the present question are contained  in  sections

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

82, 83, 97, 98, 99, 107, 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act.      6.  Section 82 enjoins upon the election petitioner  to join  as  respondent to the petition, in addition  to  other necessary parties, any candidate against whom allegations of any corrupt practice are made in the petition.      Section  83  which  deals  with  the  contents  of  the election  petition states, among other things, as follows:           "83.   Contents  of  petition.--(1)  An   election           petition--           (a) .........................................           (b)  shall  set  forth  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 and  place  of           the commission of each such practice; and           (c)...........................................               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.           (2) Any schedule or annexure to the petition shall           also  be signed by the petitioner and verified  in           the same manner as the petition."                                                        765 It is clear from the reading of these two sections that even in  the  election  petition  where  allegations  of  corrupt practices are made, full particulars of the alleged  corrupt practice including as fuller a statement as possible and the names of the parties who are alleged to have committed  such practice  and the date and place of the commission  of  each such  practice  have to be furnished. What is  further,  the allegations  of the corrupt practice have to be  accompanied by  an affidavit in support both of the allegations as  well as  the particulars thereof, and if there are any  schedules or  annexure  to  the petition in  support  of  the  corrupt practice, they have also to be signed by the petitioner  and verified by him in the same manner as the petition. This  is a  mandatory requirement. The object of the said  provisions is obvious. The party and it includes not only the  returned candidate but all other candidates against whom the  corrupt practice  is  alleged, must have an adequate notice  of  the precise allegations made against him so that he has a proper opportunity to meet them.      7. Section 97 states that when in an election  petition a  declaration  that any candidate other than  the  returned candidate  has  been duly elected is claimed,  the  returned candidate or any other party may give evidence to prove that the  election of such candidate would have been void  if  he had  been the returned candidate and the petition  had  been presented  calling  in question his  election.  The  section requires  that before the returned candidate or  such  other party,  as aforesaid, gives such evidence, he  should  have, within  14  days from the date of the  commencement  of  the trial, given notice to the High Court of his intention to do so  and that notice has to be accompanied by  the  statement and  particulars  required by Section 83 in the case  of  an election  petition and has to be signed and verified in  the like  manner.  We  have already  referred  to  the  relevant requirements of Section 83 with regard to the furnishing  of the particulars of the corrupt practice.      8.  Section  98 states that on the  conclusion  of  the trial of an election petition, the High Court shall make  an order (a) dismissing the election petition; or (b) declaring

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

the election of all or any of the returned candidates to  be void;  or  (c) declaring the election of all or any  of  the returned  candidates  to be void and the petitioner  or  any other candidate to have been duly elected.      Then  follows Section 99 of which what is relevant  for our purpose in sub-section (1) which reads as follows:           "99. Other orders to be made by the High  Court.--           (1) At                                                        766           the  time to making an order under section 98  the           High Court shall also make an order--           (a)  where any charge is made in the  petition  of           any corrupt practice having been committed at  the           election, recording--                (i)  a finding whether any  corrupt  practice           has or has not been proved to have been  committed           at  the election, and the nature of  that  corrupt           practice; and                (ii)  the names of the persons, if  any,  who           have been proved at the trial to have been  guilty           of  any  corrupt practice and the nature  of  that           practice; and           (b)  fixing the total amount of costs payable  and           specifying the persons by and to whom costs  shall           be paid.                Provided that a person who is not a party  to           the petition shall not be named in the order under           sub-clause (ii) of clause (a)  unless--           (a) he has been given notice to appear before  the           high Court and to show cause why he should not  be           so named; and           (b)  if he appears in pursuance of the notice,  he           has  been given an opportunity of  cross-examining           any  witness who has already been examined by  the           High Court and has given evidence against him,  of           calling  evidence  in  his defence  and  of  being           heard."      It  is clear from the provisions of sub-clause (i)  and (ii)  of clause (a) of sub-section (1), that at the time  of deciding  the  petition, the Court has to record  a  finding that a corrupt practice is proved to have been committed and that  it is committed by a particular person. The Court  has not  only  to  name the person but also the  nature  of  the corrupt  practice committed by him. If the person is a party to the petition, it is not necessary to hear him  separately before  recording  such finding. However, when he is  not  a party  to  the  petition, before  such  serious  finding  is recorded  against him, he must have the same opportunity  as the  party to the petition, to meet the allegations  against him.  In that respect, he stands on the same footing as  the party  to the petition against whom such a finding is to  be recorded. He cannot be                                                        767 discriminated  against and made to suffer  any  disadvantage because  he  is  not a party to the petition.  This  is  the precise object which is sought to be secured by the  proviso to the Section.      9. Section 107 of the Act states that the order of  the High Court under Section 98 or Section 99 shall take  effect as  soon as it is pronounced by the High Court  subject,  of course,  to  the  stay, if any, granted by  the  High  Court itself or in appeal by the Supreme Court.      10.  Section  123 enumerates and  defines  the  corrupt practices  for the purposes of the Act. We are concerned  in the  present  case with the corrupt practices  mentioned  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

sub-sections  (3) and (3A) of the said section.  Those  sub- sections read as follows:           "(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or  by           any  other person with the consent of a  candidate           or  his  election agent to vote  or  refrain  from           voting  for  any  person  on  the  ground  of  his           religion,  race, caste, community or  language  or           the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or  the           use  of, or appeal to, national symbols,  such  as           the national flag or the national emblem, for  the           furtherance  of the prospects of the  election  of           that candidate or for prejudicially affecting  the           election of any candidate:                Provided  that no symbol allotted under  this           Act  to  a  candidate  shall be  deemed  to  be  a           religious  symbol  or a national  symbol  for  the           purposes of this clause.           (3A)  The  promotion of, or  attempt  to  promote,           feelings  of  enmity or hatred  between  different           classes  of  the citizens of India on  grounds  of           religion, race, caste, community, or language,  by           a candidate or his agent or any other person  with           the  consent of a candidate or his election  agent           for  the  furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  the           election  of that candidate  or for  prejudicially           affecting the election of any candidate."      It is clear from the aforesaid sub-sections that each - of them enumerates not a single corrupt practice but various distinct corrupt practices. They are as follows. Sub-section (3) speaks of the corrupt practices of--           (A)  the  appeal (i) to vote, or (ii)  to  refrain           from voting for any                                                        768           person on the ground of -           (a) his religion. (b) his race, (c) his caste, (d)           his community, or (e) his language;           (B)(i)  of  the use of, or (ii) of appeal  to  (a)           religious symbols (b) national symbols such as the           national  flag or (bb) the national emblem  either           for  the  furtherance  of  the  prospects  of  the           election  of that candidate, or for  prejudicially           affecting the election of any candidate.      Likewise Sub-section(3A) consists of different  corrupt practices as follows:           (i) the promotion of, or           (ii)  attempt  to  promote feeling  of  enmity  or           hatred  between different classes of the  citizens           of India on ground of-           (a)religion,  (b) race, (c) caste, (d)  community,           or (e) language either for the furtherence of  the           prospects of the election of that candidate or for           prejudically   affecting  the  election   of   any           candidate.      Hence  merely by enumerating in the notice the  numbers of  sections, viz., 122(3) and 122(3A) as is directed to  be done  by  the impugned order, the person summoned  does  not understand which of the various corrupt practices  mentioned in  the  sections is alleged against him  and  what  precise charge he has to meet.      11. Section 8A of the Act states that the case of every person who is found guilty of a corrupt practice by an order under  section  99 shall be submitted, as soon  as  may  be, after  such  order takes effect, by such  authority  as  the Central  Government  may  specify in  this  behalf,  to  the President  for determination of the question as  to  whether

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

such  person  shall  be disqualified and  if  so,  for  what period.   The period of disqualification is not to exceed  6 years  from the date on which the order made in relation  to him  under Section 99 takes effect.  Subsection (3)  thereof requires the President to obtain the opinion of the Election Commission  on  such question and to act according  to  such opinion.   The President exercises this power under  Article 103   of  the  Constitution  and  the  powers  of   Election Commission  when such a reference is made by  the  President are governed by Section 146 of the act.                                                        769      12. A reading of all the aforesaid provisions  together would  show  that  the proceedings pursuant  to  the  notice issued by the High Court under Section 99 of the Act are  of a  quasi-criminal nature.  It has also been held so by  this Court  in  so  many words, in some  of  the  decisions:  See D.P.Mishra  v.  Kamal Narain Sharma & Ors .., [1971]  3  SCR 2571 and Rashim Khan v. Khurshid Ahmed & Ors..,[1975] 1  SCR 643.  Where, therefore, a corrupt practice is  alleged,  the trail of an election petition on such charge is of a  quasi- criminal  nature,  and a heavy burden rests  on  the  person alleging  the  corrupt practice to prove  strictly  all  the ingredients  of the charge.  This is as it should  be  since the  naming  of  a  person as  having  committed  a  corrupt practice has a serious consequence of disqualifying him from being  chosen  as or from being member of any House  of  the Parliament  or of the Legislative Assembly or Council  of  a State for a period upto 6 years.      13.  What  is further, as pointed out above,  when  the legislature  requires  that  the  election  petition   shall contain  full particulars of each and every alleged  corrupt practice including as fuller a statement as possible of  the names  of  the  parties  and  the  date  and  place  of  the commission  of  such practice, it would be contrary  to  the object of the said provisions to hold that when a notice  is issued under Section 99 against a person who is not a  party to  the  election  petition for holding him  guilty  of  any corrupt  practice, the notice should not apprise him of  the precise charge against him and give him the full particulars thereof.      14.  Judged in the light of these requirements  of  law there  is  no doubt that the impugned  order  directing  the issuance of notice as stated theren, is  extremely vague and defective to the point of being contrary to the provision of law.   We have reproduced above the relevant portion of  the order.  The order (i) directs issuance of an omnibus  notice against  the  appellants and one  other  person;(ii)  states again in an omnibus manner that the Court is satisfied  that the  charges  alleged in the petition of  corrupt  practices under Section 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act have been proved to have been committed by all of them (iii) further  directs that  each notice shall state that the person named  in  the notice  shall  have an opportunity  of  cross-examining  all witness  who  have given evidence against him  and  that  he shall have a right calling evidence and of being heard.   It then directs that to all the notices to be issued, copies of (a)  the  petition  and  the  written  statement,  (b)  oral deposition,  (c) all exhibits (d) the impugned order  itself and (e) audio cassettes containing copies of Exhibits SS  to YY should be annexed                                                         770      15.  The notices directed to be issued and  which  have accordingly  been issued are defective in many respects.  In the  first  instance,  they do not spell   out  the  precise corrupt practice which each of the appellants is called upon

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

to meet. As has been pointed out above, Section 123(3)  does not refer to one corrupt practice but a variety of them. Yet the  notice  does  not  specify  which  particulars  corrupt practice  is  sought  to  be brought home  to  each  of  the appellants.      Secondly, although the copies of the petition,  written statement   etc.  are  directed to be sent  along  with  the notices, the order does not direct the notices to state  and therefore,  they do not state which of the portions  of  the petition,  written  statement,  oral  evidence,  documentary evidence and audio cassettes is being relied upon to sustain which of the charges and against which of the appellants. As pointed out earlier, it is a pre-condition for the trial  of the charges of the corrupt practices that the person  called upon  to face the charge should be apprised, in advance,  of the  precise  charge  or charges against him  and  also  the precise  evidence--oral or documentary, which is  sought  to be relied upon in support of the said charge or each of  the said charges. It is obvious that the kind of notice which is directed to be issued by the impugned order is defective  in all  these respects and conveys nothing to  the  appellants. The  impugned  order and the notices issued pursuant  to  it falling  short  of the requirement of  law  are,  therefore, liable to be struck down.      16.  It  is  true that this Court in  its  order  dated December  1,  1988 had refused to interfere with  a  similar order  and  had held that such a notice is not  against  the provisions of the law. It has, however, to be remembered  in this  connection  that even while doing so,  the  Court  had given  an opportunity to the petitioner therein to  make  an application  before  the  High Court  for  specifying  those portions of the speeches of the petitioner which prima facie according to the High Court came within the purview of  sub- sections (3) or  (3A) of Section 123. The Court had  further directed  that  if any such application is  made,  the  High Court  should  dispose  it of in  accordance  with  law.  It appears  that consequent upon the direction, an  application was  made by the petitioner for specifying the  portions  of the speeches which were sought to be relied upon to  sustain the charges under sub-sections (3) and (3A). The High  Court held that the provisions of Section 99 did not require it to analyse the evidence and specify either in the notice  under the said section or at any time prior to hearing the  person to  whom  it  is issued, what portion  or  portions  thereof seemed in its view prima facie to make out the case which he was called upon to answer.                                                        771 This  the  High  Court  did in spite of  the  fact  that  it recorded  correctly that the person to whom a  notice  under Section  99  is  issued is entitled to be put  in  the  same position as the elected candidate and that his position  can be  no better. We have pointed out earlier that in fact  the vague notice which is directed to be issued by the  impugned order does in fact place the person against whom the  notice is  issued  in a worse  position than not only  the  elected candidate but other persons who are parties to the  election petition. It is with a view to see that he is not placed  in a  disadvantaged  position  as against the  parties  to  the petition  that  it is necessary to apprise him also  of  the details  of the specific charges against him in advance.  We have  also  pointed  out that the trial being  of  a  quasi- criminal  nature  and the consequence of  the  named  person being serious, he is entitled to this minimum safeguard. The view  taken  by  the High Court  was,  therefore,  obviously wrong. Unfortunately, the special leave petition filed  even

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

against that order of the High Court came to be dismissed in limine and without a speaking order. We are of the view that for  the  reasons which we have stated  above,  neither  the order  of December, 1 1988 nor the later non-speaking  order of  January 23, 1989 lays down the correct position  of  law and  should  be  deemed  to  have  been  overruled  by  this decision. However, we make it clear that these  observations will  not  in any way affect the validity  of  the  decision rendered  by the High Court in that election petition  being Election  Petition No. 1 of 1988. We further make  it  clear that the law laid down here will operate only prospectively, i.e., to final orders of indictment passed under Section  99 of the Act, hereafter.      17.  In  the view we have taken above,  we  should  set aside the impugned order and the notices issued in each case in pursuance of the said order. However, we are of the  view that  it is not necessary to do so. Instead, we direct  that the  appellants  will appear before the High Court  on  25th March,  1991 and the High Court will on that day or on  such other day as it may deem convenient, issue proper notices to the  appellants in the light of the law laid down  and  then proceed  to  hear and dispose of the notices  in  accordance with law.      The   appeals   are   allowed   accordingly.   In   the circumstances  of  the case, there will be no  order  as  to costs. R.S.S.                                    Appeals allowed.                                                        772