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

PETITIONER: MITHILESH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI R. VENKATARAMAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) MISRA RANGNATH OZA, G.L. (J) DUTT, M.M. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2371            1988 SCR  (1) 525  1987 SCC  Supl.  692     JT 1987 (4)   111  1987 SCALE  (2)780

ACT:      The Presidential  and Vice-Presidential  Ekctions  Act, 1952-s. 18(1)(a)-Read  with r. 34, OXXXIX, and r.6, O.XXIII, of the  Supreme Court  Rules, 1966 Plea for setting aside an election on  the ground  of commission  of offence of ’undue influence’-Petition liable  to be  rejected if  it does  not contain  a   specific  averment  that  either  the  returned candidate himself had committed any act of ’undue influence’ or  any  other  person  had  committed  any  act  of  ’undue influence’ with his consent.

HEADNOTE: %      Part III  of  the  Presidential  and  Vice-Presidential Elections Act,  1952 sets out the provisions relating to the settlement of disputes regarding elections to the offices of the President and the Vice-President of India. Section 14(3) thereof  requires   that  an   ekction  petition  should  be presented in accordance with the provisions of that Part and of the  rules made  by this  Court under  Art.  145  of  the Constitution. The  rules so made are contained in O.XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966. Rule 34 thereof provides that subject to the provisions of that order or any Special order or directions  of the  Court, the  procedure on  an election petition shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure in proceedings before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction, which  procedure is set out in O.XXIII. Rule 6 of o.XXIII  states inter  alia  that  the  plaint  shall  be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action.      Respondent No.  1 was declared elected as the President of India  at an  election held in July, 1987. The petitioner who had  contested in the said election as a candidate filed this petition  questioning the  validity of  the election of respondent No.  1 and  praying for a declaration that he was the successful candidate at that election.      Rejecting the petition, ^      HELD: In  the circumstances  of this case the Court has

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

no choice except to reject the petition as required under r. 6 of O.XXIII of 526 the Supreme  Court Rules,  1966 as  it does not disclose any cause of A action. [537B]      (i)  Section   18  of   the  Presidential   and   Vice- Presidential  Elections  Act,  1952  is  exhaustive  of  the grounds on  which the election of the President or the Vice- President can be declared void. An election may be set aside under cl.(a)  of s.  18(1) if  it is  established  that  the offence of  bribery or  undue  influence,  as  explained  in Chapter IXA  of the  Indian Penal Code had been committed by the returned  candidate or by any person with the consent of the returned  candidate. In  order to succeed on the grounds mentioned in  s. 18(1)(a)  it has to be established that the offence of  bribery or undue influence had been committed at the election  by the  returned candidate  himself; or by any person with his consent. [530G-H: 531A-R]      (ii) The  manner in which the present petition has been drafted is  not in accordance with the Rules. Ordinarily the petition should  state in  a narrative  form succinctly  and clearly all  the facts  as-may be  necessary to  enable  the respondents and  the Court  to understand  the case  of  the petitioner. This is not the case here. The first part of the petition contains  13 questions and the answers given by the petitioner to  those questions.  A reading  of all  these 13 questions and answers given there to be the petitioner shows that the  only ground on which the petitioner wished to call in question  the election  of the 1st respondent is that the issue of a whip by the Congress (I) Party to its legislators on the eve of the ekction asking them to cast their votes in favour of  the 1st  respondent was in the nature of a threat amounting to undue influence which is one of the two grounds set out in s. 18(1)(a). The allegations made in this part of the  petition   suggest  that   the  specific  case  of  the petitioner is  that the  said act  of the influence had been committed by  the members of the Congress(I) Party. There is no allegation  that any act amounting to undue influence was committed either by respondent No. 1 himself or by any other person with  his consent.  Even in  the second  part of  the petition which  is entitled  ’Notable points’  and the third part of  the petition  containing  grounds  to  declare  the election of  the returned  candidate as  void  there  is  no averment that  either the  returned  candidate  himself  had committed any act of undue influence or any other person had committed any  act of  undue  influence  with  his  consent. [532A-E]      (iii) At  the hearing after getting the entire petition read out the Court asked the petitioner to point out whether there was any allegation that the lst respondent had himself committed any undue influence or 527 any other  person with the consent of the 1st respondent had committed such an act or any allegation which required to be tried and  the petitioner was not able to point out any part of the  petition in  which such an allegation had been made. In view  of this infirmity we have not found it necessary to examine whether  the issuing  of the  whip by  any political party amounts  to undue influence vitiating an election even when such  an act  is committed by the returned candidate or with his consent by some other person. [536G-H; 537A]      (iv) The  petitioner did not appear to be quite serious about his  case. At  one stage  he contended  having himself filed the  petition before  the Court that this Court had no competence to  hear the  case and at another stage he wanted

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

51 Judges  to hear his petition when the maximum permissible strength of  this Court  is about one-half of tha number and the existing  strength of  this Court is less than one-third of that  number. While we expect every conscientious citizen eligible  to  file  an  election  petition  to  question  an election on  the grounds  prescribed by  the Act,  we do not wish that  any petitioner should make use of this Court as a forum to  file a petition without giving adequate thought to its contents and also to the provisions of law governing the case merely to seek some cheap publicity. [537C-E]      Charan Lal  Sahu v.  Neelam Sanjeeva  Reddy,  l1978]  3 S.C.R. 1 and Charan Lal SaJlu & O.R.S. v. Giani Zail Singh & Anr., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 6; relied on.

JUDGMENT:      ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Election Petition No. 1 of 1987.      Election Petition  under Section  16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of  Part  III  of  the  Presidential  and  Vice-Presidential Elections Act 1952      Petitioner-in-person (Mithilesh Kumar).      K. Parasaran, Attorney General T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, Krishnamurthy  Swami   and  Miss   A.  Subhashini   for  the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      VENKATARAMIAH, J.  The above  petition is  filed by the petitioner, Shri Mithilesh Kumar under the provisions of the Presidential and  Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952 (Act No. 31  of 1952)  (hereinafter referred  to  as  ’the  Act’) calling in  question the validity of the election of Shri R. Venkataraman, the 1st respondent herein as the 528 President of  India at  the election  held in July, 1987 for electing  the   President  of   India  and   praying  for  a declaration that  he is  the successful  candidate  at  that election. There  were  three  candidates  at  the  election, namely, Shri  R. Venkataraman-respondent  No. 1,  Shri  V.R. Krishna Iyer-respondent  No. 2  and Shri Mithilcsh Kumar-the petitioner. The  result of  the  election  was  declared  on 16.7.1987 by the Returning officer for Presidential Election 1987-respondent  No.  4,  declaring  Shri  R.  Venkataraman- respondent No. 1 as the President of India.      The Act  was passed in the year 1952 for the purpose of regulating certain matters relating to or connected with the elections to  the offices  of the  President and  the  Vice- President  of  India.  Part  II  of  the  Act  contains  the provisions relating to the conduct of Presidential and Vice- Presidential elections  and Part III of the Act sets out the provisions relating  to the settlement of disputes regarding elections to  the offices  of the  President and  the  Vice- President of  India. Section  14 of the Act provides that no election should  be called  in question except by presenting an  election   petition  to   the  authority   specified  in subsection (2)  and the authority having jurisdiction to try an election  petition under  the Act  is  specified  as  the Supreme Court  of India  by sub-section (2). Sub-section (3) of section  14 of the Act requires that an election petition should be  presented  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  India  in accordance with the provisions of Part III of the Act and of the rules  made by  the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of the Constitution of India. Order XXXIX of the Supreme Court Rules,  1966 (hereinafter  referred to as ’the Rules’) made under  Article 145 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling it in this behalf by the Supreme Court

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

of India  contains the  provisions relating  to the election petitions filed  under Part  III of the Act. Section 14-A of the Act  provides  that  an  election  petition  calling  in question an  election may be presented on one or more of the grounds specified  in Sub/section  (1)  of  section  18  and section 19  to the  Supreme Court by any f candidate at such election or  in the case of Presidential election, by twenty or more  electors joined  together as petitioners and in the case of  Vice-Presidential election, by ten or more electors joined as petitioners. Such petition may be presented at any time after  the date  of the  publication of the declaration containing the name of the elected candidate at the election under section  12 of  the Act but not later than thirty days from the  date of  such publication.  Section is  of the Act provides that  subject to  the provisions of Part III of the Act rules  made by  the Supreme Court of India under Article 145 of  the Constitution  of India  may regulate the form of election petitions, the manner in which 529 they are  to be  presented, the  persons who  are to be made parties thereto,  the procedure  to be adopted in connection therewith and  the circumstances  in which  petitions are to abate and  to be  withdrawn and in which new petitioners may be substituted  and may  require security  to be  given  for costs. Rule  3 of order XXXIX of the Rules prescribes that a court-fee stamp of the value of rupees two hundred and fifty shall be  paid on  the election  petition and  the  election petition will be signed by the petitioner or petitioners, if they are  more than  one, or  a duly authorised advocate-on- record on  his or their behalf. Rule 4 of order XXXIX of the Rules provides  that the  petition  shall  be  divided  into paragraphs, numbered  consecutively,  each  paragraph  being confined to  a distinct portion of the subject, and shall be printed or  typed legibly  on one side of standard petition- paper, demy-foolscap  size or  of the  size of 29.7 cm. x 21 cm. Or on paper of equally superior quality. Rule 5 of order XXXIX of  the Rules  requires that  the petition shall state the right  of the  petitioner under  the Act to petition the Court and  briefly set forth the facts and grounds relied on by  him   to  sustain   the  reliefs  claimed  by  him.  The allegations of  fact contained  in  the  petition  shall  be verified by  an affidavit  to  be  made  personally  by  the petitioner or  by one  of the petitioners, if there are more than one  as provided  under rule  6 of  order XXXIX  of the Rules. The  grounds on  which the  election of  the returned candidate at  the  Presidential  or  the  Vice  Presidential election can  be declared  void are set out in section 18 of the Act Section 18 of the Act reads thus:-           " 18(1). If the Supreme Court is of opinion,-                (a) that  the offence  of  bribery  or  undue           influence at  the election  has been  committed by           the returned  candidate or  by any person with the           consent of the returned candidate; or                (b) that  the result of the election has been           materially affected-                (ii) by  the improper reception or refusal of           a vote; or                (ii)   by   any   non-compliance   with   the           provisions of  the Constitution  or of this Act or           of any rules or orders made under this Act; or                (iii)  by   reason  of   the  fact  that  the           nomination of any 530           candidate (other  than the  successful candidate),           who has  not withdrawn  his candidature,  has been

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

         wrongly accepted; or                (c) that  the nomination of any candidate has           been wrongly  rejected or  the nomination  of  the           successful candidate has been wrongly accepted;           the Supreme  Court shall  declare the  election of           the returned candidate to be void.                (2) For  the purposes  of this  section,  the           offences of  bribery and  undue  influence  at  an           election have  the same  meaning as in Chapter IXA           of the Indian Penal Code."      Section 19  of the Act sets out the grounds for which a candidate other  than the returned candidate may be declared to have been elected. Section 19 of the Act reads thus.           "19. Grounds  for which a candidate other than the           re turned  candidate may  be declared to have been           elected. If  any person who has lodged an election           petition has,  in addition  to calling in question           the election  of the returned candidate, claimed a           declaration that he himself or any other candidate           has been  duly elected and the Supreme Court is of           opinion that  in fact the petitioner or such other           candidate received  a majority of the valid votes,           the  Supreme  Court  shall,  after  declaring  the           election of  the returned  candidate to  be  void,           declare the petitioner or such other candidate, as           the case may be, to have been duly elected:                Provided that  the petitioner  or such  other           candidate shall not be declared to be duly elected           if  it   is  proved  that  the  election  of  such           candidate would  have been void if he had been the           returned  candidate   and  a   petition  had  been           presented calling in question his election."      Section 18  of the  Act is exhaustive of the grounds on which the  election of  the President  or the Vice-President can be  declared void. Under section 18(1)(a) an election of the President  or of  the Vice-President may be set aside if it is  established that  the offence  of  bribery  or  undue influence, as explained in Chapter IXA of the Indian Penal 531      Code had been committed by the returned candidate or by any person  with the  consent of  the returned candidate. In order  to  succeed  on  the  grounds  mentioned  in  section 18(1)(a) of  the Act  it has  to  be  established  that  the offence of  bribery or undue influence had been committed at the election  by the  returned candidate  himself; or by any person with his consent. Originally when the Act was enacted section 18(1)(a) of the Act read thus:-           " 18(1). If the Supreme Court is of opinion-                (a) that  the offence  of  bribery  or  undue           influence at  the election  has been  committed by           the returned  candidate or  by any person with the           connivance of the returned candidate: or           ................................................."      The word  ’connivance’ in  section 18(1)(a)  of the Act was substituted  later on by Parliament when the former Part III of  the Act  was substituted  by the present Part III of the  Act  by  the  Presidential  and  the  Vice-Presidential Elections (Amendment) Act, 1977 to bring it in line with the provisions of  section 123(1)  and (2) of the Representation of the  People Act,  1951,  which  contain  the  grounds  of bribery and undue influence which would vitiate the election to either  House of  Parliament or to the Houses or House of the State  Legislatures as  the case  may be.  Clause (b) of section 18(1) of the Act contains three grounds the proof of any of  which would  result in  the election  being declared

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

void provided  it is  established that  the  result  of  the election has  been materially  affected thereby, namely, (i) the improper  reception or  refusal of  a vote;  or (ii) any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the Act  or of  any rules  or orders  made under the Act; or (iii) wrongful acceptance of the nomination of any candidate (other than the successful candidate), who has not withdrawn his candidature.  Clause (c)  of section  18(1) of  the  Act provides that  if the  nomination of  any candidate has been wrongly  rejected   or  the  nomination  of  the  successful candidate has  been wrongly  accepted, the  election of  the returned candidate  is to  be declared  void. These  are the only grounds on which the election of the returned candidate can be declared void under the Act. Section 19 of the Act as stated already  contains grounds  for declaring  a candidate other than the returned candidate as duly elected.      It should  he stated  at the  outset that the manner in which the 532      present petition  has been drafted is not in accordance with the  Rules. Ordinarily  the petition  should state in a narrative form  succinctly and  clearly all the facts as may be necessary  to enable  the respondents  and the  Court  to understand the  case of the petitioner. This is not the case here. The  first part  of the petition contains 13 questions and the  answers given by the petitioner to those questions. A reading  of all  these  13  questions  and  answers  given thereto by  the petitioner  shows that  the only  ground  on which the petitioner wished to call in question the election of the  1st respondent  is that  the issue  of a whip by the Congress (I)  Party to  its legislators  on the  eve of  the election asking  them to  cast their  votes in favour of the 1st respondent  was in  the nature  of a threat amounting to undue influence  which is  one of the two grounds set out in section 18(  I)(a) of  the Act. The allegations made in this part of  the petition  suggest that the specific case of the petitioner is  that the said act of undue influence had been committed by the members of the Congress (I) Party. There is no allegation  that any act amounting to undue influence was committed either  by respondent  No. ]  himself, or  by  any other person  with his  consent. Even  in the second part of the petition  which is  entitled ’Notable  points’  and  the third part of the petition containing grounds to declare the election of  the returned  candidate as  void, there  is  no averment that  either the  returned  candidate  himself  had committed any act of undue influence or any other person had committed any  act of  undue influence with his consent. The fourth part  of the petition contains grounds to declare the petitioner as  duly elected. It is alleged in this part that by reason of the issue of the whip by the Congress (I) Party and/or by other parties the votes which would have been cast in his  favour had been grabbed by the other candidates. The fifth part  of the  petition contains  the reliefs sought by the petitioner  and the last part contains the prayer for an interim order  directing the staying of the oath ceremony of the returned candidate which had been fixed to take place on the 25th  of July,  1987. There is no reference to any other ground mentioned  in section  18 of  the Act on the basis of which the election can be set aside.      After the  petition was  presented to this Court notice was issued  to the  respondents and  also to  the  Attorney- General of India as pro- 533 tion is  liable to be rejected at this stage itself since it does not  disclose any  cause of  action. Rule  34 of  order

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

XXXIX of  the Rules  provides that subject to the provisions of order  XXXIX  of  the  Rules  or  any  special  order  or directions of  the  Court,  the  procedure  on  an  election petition shall follow, as nearly as may be, the procedure in proceedings before the Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. Order XXIIl of the rules contains the rules of pleadings in  cases filed under the original jurisdiction of this Court.  Rule 6  of order XXIII of the Rules states that the plaint  shall be  rejected where  it does not disclose a cause of action or where the suit appears from the statement in the  plaint to  be barred by any law. It is stated in the preliminary  objections   of  the  1st  respondent  and  the preliminary submissions  of the  Attorney General  of  lndia that since  no where in the election petition the petitioner has stated  that the  offence of  undue influence  had  been committed by  the 1st respondent or by any other person with his consent  and since  no other ground specified in section 18 of the Act has been pleaded, the petition is liable to be rejected under  rule 6  of order  XXIII of  the  rules  even assuming that  all that  the petitioner  has stated  in  his petition is true.      After the  preliminary objections of the 1st respondent and the  preliminary submissions  of the Attorney-General of India were  filed, the  case was taken up for hearing on the said preliminary objections and preliminary submissions. The petitioner Shri  Mithilesh  Kumar  (in  person),  Shri  T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri K.  Parasaran, learned  Attorney-General of  India were heard.      The issue  which arises  for consideration in this case is whether  the election  petition is  liable to be rejected under rule  6 of order XXIII of the Rules on the ground that it does not disclose any cause of action.      The question  of law involved in this case is no longer res integra.  In Charan  Lal Sahu  v. Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, [1978] 3  S.C.R. 1  the  petitioner  in  that  petition  had questioned the election of Shri Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy as the President of India. In that decision this Court held that it was obligatory  upon the Court to reject a petition outright and not  to waste any more time upon a plaint or petition if the  provisions   of  law  bar  or  are  shown  to  bar  the proceedings. The  Court proceeded  to hold  that it  was not even necessary  to issue  notice to  any opposite  party  or parties in such a case. The next decision in Charan Lal Sahu & others v. Giani Zail Singh & Another, [198412 S.C.R. 6 534  deals  with facts  which are very close to the facts of the present case.  In A  the said  case  two  issues  arose  for consideration: (i) can the election of a candidate to the of fice of  the President  of India be challenged on the ground that he  is not  a suitable  person for holding that office; and (ii)  whether the  averments in  that election petition, assuming them  to be true and correct, disclose any cause of action for  setting  aside  the  election  of  the  returned candidate on  the ground  stated in  section 18(1)(a) of the Act. This  Court observed  in  that  case  that  the  rights arising out  of elections, including the right to contest or challenge an  election, were not common law rights, but they were creatures  of the  statutes which created, conferred or limited those  rights. Therefore,  for deciding the question whether an  election can be set aside on any alleged ground, the court has to consult the provisions of law governing the particular election.  The Court  has to  function within the framework of that law and cannot travel beyond it. The Court proceeded to  observe in the above decision thus at Pages 22

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

to 24:-                "Nor is  it alleged that the offence of undue           influence was  committed by the returned candidate           himself. The allegation of the petitioners is that           the offence  of undue  influence was  committed by           certain  supporters   and  close   associates   of           Respondent 1  with his  connivance. It  is  patent           that this  allegation, even  if it is true, is not           enough  to  fulfil  the  requirements  of  section           18(1)(a).  What   that  section,   to  the  extent           relevant, requires  is that  the offence  of undue           influence must  be committed  by some other person           with the  ’consent’  of  the  returned  candidate.           There is  no plea  whatsoever in the petition that           undue  influence  was  exercised  by  those  other           persons with the consent of Respondent 1.                It is  contended by Shri Shujatullah Khan who           appears  on   behalf  of   the  petitioners,  that           connivance and  consent are one and the same thing           and that,  there is  no legal  distinction between           the two  concepts. In  support of this contention,           learned counsel  relies upon  the meaning  of  the           word ’connivance’ as given in Webster’s Dictionary           (Third Edition, Volume 1, p 481); Random House (p.           311); Black’s  Law Dictionary  (p. 274); Words and           Phrases (Permanent  Edition, Volume  8A, p.  173);           and Corpus   Juris  Secundum (Volume 15A, p. 567).           The  reliance  on  these  dictionaries  and  texts           cannot carry  the point  at issue any further. The           relevant question for consideration for the 535           decision of  the issue  is whether  there  is  any           pleading in  the petition  to the  effect that the           offence of  undue influence was committed with the           consent of  the  returned  candidate.  Admittedly,           there is  no pleading  of consent.  It is  then no           answer to  say that  the petitioners  have pleaded           connivance   and    according   to   dictionaries,           connivance means  consent. The  plea of consent is           one thing:  the fact that connivance means consent           (assuming that  it does)  is quite  another. It is           not open  to a  petitioner in an Election Petition           to plead in terms of synonyms. In these petitions,           pleadings  have   to  be   precise,  specific  and           unambiguous so as to put the respondent on notice.           The rule  of pleadings that facts constituting the           cause of action must be specifically pleaded is as           fundamental as  it is elementary. ’Connivance’ may           in certain  situations  amount  to  consent  which           explains why  the dictionaries  give ’consent’  as           one of  the meanings of the word ’connivance’. But           it is not true to say that ’connivance’ invariably           and necessarily  means or amounts to consent, that           is to  say, irrespective  of the  context  of  the           given situation.  The two  cannot,  therefore,  be           equated.  Consent  imply  that  parties  ad  idem.           Connivance does not necessarily imply that parties           are of one mind. They may or may not be, depending           upon the  facts of  the situation. That is why, in           the absence  of a  pleading that  the  offence  of           undue influence  as committed  with the consent of           the  returned   candidate,   one   of   the   main           ingredients   of    section    18(1)(a)    remains           unsatisfied.                The importance  of  a  specific  pleading  in

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

         these matters  can be  appreciated only  if it  is           realised that  the absence of a specific plea puts           the respondent  at a  great disadvantage.  He must           know what  case he  has to meet. He cannot be kept           guessing whether  the  petitioner  means  what  he           says, ’connivance’ here, or whether the petitioner           has used  expression as  meaning ’consent’.  It is           remarkable   that,    in   their   petition,   the           petitioners have  furnished no  particulars of the           alleged consent,  if what  is meant  by the use of           the word  connivance is  consent. They  cannot  be           allowed to keep their options open until the trial           and adduce  such  evidence  of  consent  as  seems           convenient and comes handy. That is the importance           of  precision   in  pleadings,   particularly   in           election    petitions.    Accordingly,    it    is           impermissible to substitute the word ’consent’ for           the word ’connivance which 536           occurs in the pleadings of the petitioners.                The legislative  history of the statute lends           support to  our view  that  for  the  purposes  of           section 18(1)(a), connivance is not the same thing           as consent. Originally, when the Act was passed in           1952, section  18(1)(a) provided  that the Supreme           Court shall  declare the election of the re turned           candidate void  if  it  is  of  opinion  that  the           offence of  bribery or  undue influence  has  been           committed by  the re  turned candidate  or by  any           person  ’with  the  connivance’  of  the  returned           candidate. This sub-section was amended by section           7 of  the Presidential  and Vice-Presidential Elec           tions (Amendment)  Act S  of 1974, which came into           force on March 23, 1974. The word ’connivance’ was           substituted by the word ’consent’ by the Amendment           Act. If  connivance carried  the same  meaning  as           consent and  if one  was the  same  as  the  other           Parliament would  not have  taken  the  deliberate           step of  deleting the  word ’connivance’  and  sub           stituting it  by the word ’consent’. The amendment           made by  the Amendment  Act  of  1974  shows  that           connivance and  consent connote  distinct concepts           for the purpose of section 18(1)(a) of the Act.                Since, admittedly,  there is  no pleading  in           the Election  Petition that  the offence  of undue           influence was  committed with  the consent  of the           returned candidate,  the petition  must be held to           disclose no  cause of action for setting aside the           election of  the returned  candidate under section           18(1) (a) of the Act."      We have  given above  a fairly  long quotation from the above decision because it contains all the reasons necessary to decide  this case  too. We do not propose to repeat them. They are  applicable to  this case  also.  In  the  petition before us  there is  not even  an allegation that the act of undue influence  had been committed by some persons with the connivance of the 1st respondent. The petition is as bald as it could  be.  At  the  hearing  after  getting  the  entire petition read  out the  Court asked  the petitioner to point out whether there was any allegation that the 1st respondent had himself  committed any  undue  influence  or  any  other person with  the consent of the 1st respondent had committed such an act or any allegation which required to be tried and the petitioner  was not  able to  point out  any part of the petition in  which such an allegation had been made. In view

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

of this infirmity we 537 have not  found it  necessary to examine whether the issuing of  the  whip  by  any  political  party  amounts  to  undue influence vitiating  an election  even when  such an  act is committed by  the returned  candidate or with his consent by some other persons.      In the circumstances, the Court has no choice except to reject the  petition as required under rule 6 of order XXIII of the Rules as it does not disclose any cause of action.      Before concluding we should observe that the petitioner did not  appear to  be quite  serious about his case. At one stage he  contended having himself filed the petition before the Court that this Court had no competence to hear the case and at  another stage  he  wanted  51  Judges  to  hear  his petition when the maximum permissible strength of this Court is about  one-half of  that number and the existing strength of this Court is less than one-third of that number. Rule 20 of order  XXXIX of  the Rules  requires that  every petition calling in  question an  election  to  the  offices  of  the President and  the Vice-President shall be posted before and be heard and disposed of by a Bench of this Court consisting of  not  less  than  five  Judges.  While  we  expect  every conscientious citizen  eligible to file an election petition to question  an election  on the  grounds prescribed  by the Act, we  do not  wish that any petitioner should make use of this Court  as a  forum to  file a  petition without  giving adequate thought  to its contents and also to the provisions of  law  governing  the  case  merely  to  seek  some  cheap publicity. We  regret to  say  that  seeing  one’s  name  in newspapers everyday  has lately  become the worst intoxicant and the  number of  people who  have become victims of it is increasing day  by day.  We, however, refrain from referring to some  other irrelevant and unwarranted statements made by him before  this Court  orally and  in writing.  Perhaps the petitioner who  desired to become the President of India did not understand  the effect  of what  he was saying. We shall leave it at that.      The petition is, therefore, rejected. H.L.C.                                 Petition dismissed. 538