1960 (2) TMI 65 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices in the election.
2. Adequacy of particulars in the election petition.
3. Jurisdiction and power of the Election Tribunal to review its own orders.
4. Impact of procedural defects on the validity of the election petition.
5. Evaluation of evidence regarding the alleged corrupt practices.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices in the Election:
The appellant contested the U.P. Legislative Assembly election and was declared elected. A voter (first respondent) challenged the election, alleging that the appellant and/or his agents committed corrupt practices by hiring vehicles to convey women voters to polling stations, which materially affected the election results.

2. Adequacy of Particulars in the Election Petition:
The first respondent's petition lacked specific details about the hiring of vehicles, such as the date, place, and names of the parties involved. The appellant contended that the absence of these particulars rendered the petition defective. The High Court, however, held that the omission did not cause prejudice to the appellant and that the petition substantially complied with Section 83(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act, which requires full particulars of corrupt practices.

3. Jurisdiction and Power of the Election Tribunal to Review its Own Orders:
Initially, the Election Tribunal struck out the allegations due to insufficient particulars. However, upon review, it reversed its decision, allowing the petition to be amended to include more details. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's power to review its own orders and confirmed the amendment. The appellant did not appeal this decision.

4. Impact of Procedural Defects on the Validity of the Election Petition:
The Supreme Court noted that the Representation of the People Act does not mandate the dismissal of a petition for lacking particulars under Section 83. Instead, Section 90(5) allows the Tribunal to order amendments to ensure a fair trial. The Court emphasized that an election petition should not be dismissed in limine for procedural defects if the parties proceed to trial and evidence is led on the issues raised.

5. Evaluation of Evidence Regarding the Alleged Corrupt Practices:
The High Court found that the corrupt practice of hiring a vehicle to convey voters was established through evidence, including the testimony of the Presiding Officer and other witnesses. The Tribunal's dismissal of the petition was overturned by the High Court, which declared the appellant's election void. The Supreme Court, upon review, agreed with the High Court's assessment of the evidence, noting that the Tribunal had erred in rejecting credible testimony on fanciful theories.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to declare the election void due to proven corrupt practices. The Court emphasized the importance of providing full particulars in election petitions but clarified that procedural defects should not automatically lead to dismissal if they do not cause material prejudice and if the parties proceed to trial.