9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance of Section 81(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (R.P. Act). 2. Non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act. 3. Non-compliance of Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act. 4. Non-compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act. 5. Allegation of corrupt practices under Section 123(3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act. Summary: Non-compliance of Section 81(1) of the R.P. Act: The issue was whether the election petition filed on 16.4.1990 was within the 45 days limitation period from the date of election of the returned candidate as required by Section 81(1). The High Court and its office were closed on 14.4.1990 and 15.4.1990. The Supreme Court held that Section 10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applies, allowing the petition to be filed on the next working day, i.e., 16.4.1990, thus complying with Section 81(1). Non-compliance of Section 81(3) of the R.P. Act: Section 81(3) requires the election petition to be accompanied by as many copies as there are respondents. The argument was that the copy must satisfy Section 83(1) requirements. The Supreme Court held that the copy must conform to the petition as presented in the court, not necessarily satisfying Section 83(1). Since the election petition and its copies were identical, there was no non-compliance of Section 81(3). Non-compliance of Section 83(1) of the R.P. Act: The Supreme Court examined whether the election petition contained a concise statement of material facts and full particulars of any corrupt practice as required by Section 83(1). The Court found that the requisite consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, an essential part of the corrupt practices under Section 123, was not pleaded. Thus, the petition lacked the necessary particulars to constitute a cause of action for corrupt practices. Non-compliance of Section 99 of the R.P. Act: The High Court did not give notice to Bal Thackeray, Pramod Mahajan, or any other person alleged to have committed corrupt practices, as required by Section 99. The Supreme Court held that the absence of such notice vitiated the final order under Section 98 declaring the election void. The High Court must comply with Section 99 before making a final order under Section 98. Allegation of Corrupt Practices under Section 123(3) and (3A) of the R.P. Act: The specific allegation against the appellant was that he stated, "the first Hindu State will be established in Maharashtra" in a speech on 24.2.1990. The Supreme Court held that this statement, while despicable, did not amount to an appeal for votes on the ground of religion and thus did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) or (3A). The Court found the High Court's trial to be misdirected and based on irrelevant material, leading to an erroneous judgment. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's finding of corrupt practices against the appellant and declared his election void. The appeal was allowed with costs, resulting in the dismissal of the election petition.
|
