9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the election petition. 2. Whether the election was vitiated by corrupt practices under Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Reliefs and costs. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Maintainability of the Election Petition The High Court held that the election petition was maintainable, a finding that was not challenged by the appellant. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed this finding. Issue 2: Corrupt Practices under Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 The primary allegation was that the appellant, as the Chief Editor of the newspaper "Chandrika," was responsible for publishing articles and cartoons that promoted ill-will and hatred between different classes of citizens, specifically targeting the Janasangh and the Muslim League. The High Court found the appellant guilty based on the presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867, which was contested in the Supreme Court. Legal Aspect: - Section 7 of the Press Act: The Supreme Court emphasized that the presumption under Section 7 applies only to the "Editor" as defined in the Act, i.e., the person who controls the selection of the matter published in a newspaper. - Definition of Editor: The appellant was listed as the Chief Editor, but the newspaper named V.C. Aboobaker as the Editor, who had filed the necessary declarations under the Press Act. The role of Chief Editor is not recognized under the Press Act. Factual Aspect: - Appellant's Role: Evidence showed that the appellant did not control the editorial content of "Chandrika." He was primarily involved in fundraising and was busy with election duties, leaving no time for editorial work. - Testimonies: Witnesses, including P.W. 2 (Aboobaker), confirmed that the appellant had no role in the day-to-day editorial functions. The editorial responsibilities were solely managed by Aboobaker and his team. Key Findings: - Presumption under Section 7: The Supreme Court concluded that the presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act could not be applied to the appellant as he did not fulfill the role of an editor. - Evidence of Corrupt Practices: The Supreme Court found that the petitioner failed to provide clear and cogent evidence that the appellant had knowledge or consented to the publication of the offending articles and cartoons. The allegations were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Issue 3: Reliefs and Costs The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment that had set aside the appellant's election and disqualified him from contesting elections for six years. The election petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, and the appellant was awarded costs. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found that the appellant was not the editor of "Chandrika" and had no control over its editorial content. The presumption under Section 7 of the Press Act was not applicable, and the petitioner failed to prove the corrupt practices alleged under Section 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Consequently, the High Court's judgment was overturned, and the appellant's election was upheld.
|
