1995 (12) TMI 340 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an implied admission of the averment in the election petition of Prof. Kapse s presence and conduct at the meeting of Sadhvi Reethambara at Thane on 21.5.1991 can be read in his written statement on the ground of non-traverse by virtue of Order 8 Rule 5(1) C.P.C.? Held that - The evidence led in support of the election petition which has already been discussed does not prove the commission of any corrupt practice either under sub-section (3) or sub-section (3A) of Section 123. On the other hand, Prof. Kapse and Pramod Mahajan have appeared as witnesses and denied the allegation. There is thus no legal evidence to support the allegation of corrupt practice based on the alleged speech of Pramod Mahajan. The finding of the High Court accepting the allegation and holding that a corrupt practice is proved, is clearly untenable and must be set aside. The finding of High Court that corrupt practices are proved is based essentially on the understanding of the manifesto of the B.J.P. which is not even pleaded as the basis of the allegation, and its erroneous assumption that there are admissions that appeals were made in the name of Hindu religion which is the religion of the appellant. This is wholly untenable. There is also no legal evidence to prove the allegation of corrupt practice. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant and notice that the High Court s judgment is based on certain notions and impressions instead of the material on record, cannot be treated as baseless. It is surprising how the election was set aside on such scanty material. Consequently, the appeal of the returned candidate as well as the appeals of the notices are allowed. Appellant Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse and the notice Pramod Mahajan will get their costs throughout from the respondent (election petitioner). The other notice Sadhvi Reethambara will bear her own costs since she did not appear as a witness to personally rebut the allegation made against her.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election of Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse.
2. Allegations of corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
3. Denial of opportunity to Sadhvi Reethambara to prove absence of consent.
4. Implied admission of presence and consent by Prof. Kapse.
5. Allegations based on the speech of Pramod Mahajan.
6. Reliance on BJP manifesto and alleged admissions.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Validity of the election of Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse:
The High Court declared the election of Prof. Kapse void under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, based on allegations of corrupt practices. The Supreme Court reviewed whether the High Court's findings were justified based on the evidence presented.

2. Allegations of corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The allegations were based on speeches made by Sadhvi Reethambara and Pramod Mahajan. The High Court found these speeches to constitute corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A). The Supreme Court focused on whether these findings were supported by evidence and whether the necessary consent of the candidate was proven.

3. Denial of opportunity to Sadhvi Reethambara to prove absence of consent:
The Supreme Court emphasized that under Section 99 of the R.P. Act, a noticee has an independent right to show cause why they should not be named as guilty of corrupt practices. The High Court denied Sadhvi Reethambara the opportunity to plead and prove the absence of Prof. Kapse from her meeting, which was crucial to her defense. This denial was deemed sufficient to vitiate the inquiry under Section 99.

4. Implied admission of presence and consent by Prof. Kapse:
The High Court construed the pleadings to imply an admission of Prof. Kapse's presence and consent at the meeting on 21.5.1991. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the written statement contained specific denials of the allegations. The Court held that the High Court erred in reading an implied admission and that Prof. Kapse should have been allowed to lead evidence to prove his absence from the meeting.

5. Allegations based on the speech of Pramod Mahajan:
The High Court relied on a police report (Exhibit J) to find that Pramod Mahajan's speech constituted a corrupt practice. However, the Supreme Court noted that the evidence from the police report and the testimony of the police officer (PW-4) was insufficient to prove the allegations. The Court found no substantive evidence to support the claim that Pramod Mahajan's speech appealed for votes on the ground of religion or promoted enmity between different classes of citizens.

6. Reliance on BJP manifesto and alleged admissions:
The High Court's judgment referenced the BJP manifesto and alleged admissions by the appellant and Pramod Mahajan. The Supreme Court highlighted that the manifesto was not pleaded as a basis for the allegations, and there were no admissions in the depositions of the appellant or Pramod Mahajan. The Court held that the High Court's reliance on the manifesto and perceived admissions was misplaced and unsupported by the record.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's findings of corrupt practices were based on insufficient evidence and erroneous interpretations of the pleadings and testimonies. The appeals of Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse and Pramod Mahajan were allowed, and the election of Prof. Kapse was upheld. The order naming Sadhvi Reethambara under Section 99 was set aside due to the denial of her right to defend herself. The respondent (election petitioner) was ordered to pay the costs of Prof. Kapse and Pramod Mahajan, while Sadhvi Reethambara was to bear her own costs.