9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of the nomination paper of Ram Kishen. 2. Allegations of corrupt practices by the returned candidate and his election agent. Detailed Analysis: Rejection of the Nomination Paper of Ram Kishen: The first issue concerns the rejection of Ram Kishen's nomination paper by the Returning Officer. Ram Kishen was registered as a voter in the Harda Tehsil, not in the Khategaon Tehsil. He produced a certificate from the Tehsildar of Harda, which was not a certified copy of the electoral roll but merely a gist of the entry based on an affidavit. Section 33(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, mandates that a candidate registered in a different constituency must produce a certified copy of the electoral roll or relevant entries. Ram Kishen failed to comply with this requirement, and the Returning Officer's rejection of his nomination paper was justified. The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the nomination paper was wrongly rejected, affirming that the rejection was appropriate. Allegations of Corrupt Practices: The second issue involves allegations of corrupt practices against the returned candidate and his election agent, specifically related to oral speeches connected with the Jan Sangh's manifesto on cow slaughter. The High Court found that the returned candidate and his agent made speeches in 19 villages, claiming that voting for Congress was equivalent to committing the sin of gohatya (cow slaughter) and that the Congress candidate, Shrimati Manjulabai, ate beef. The court examined evidence related to speeches made in two villages, Khategaon and Kannod. Witnesses testified that the returned candidate and his election agent made statements implying that voting for Congress would result in divine displeasure or spiritual censure, thus constituting undue influence under Section 123(2)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The court found the witnesses credible and concluded that the corrupt practice was established. The court emphasized that the statement about committing the sin of gohatya if voting for Congress was an attempt to induce voters to believe they would be objects of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. This fell within the scope of Section 123(2)(ii), making the returned candidate guilty of corrupt practices. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed with costs, upholding the High Court's decision to set aside the election of the returned candidate due to the established corrupt practices. The court did not express an opinion on the allegation that the Congress candidate ate beef, as she did not appear to deny this claim.
|
