9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Corrupt practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Validity of the second respondent's nomination paper based on age. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Corrupt Practices under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: The primary issue was whether the appellant's use of the "Dhruva star" symbol in election pamphlets constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section prohibits appeals to vote or refrain from voting based on religion, race, caste, community, or language, and the use of religious symbols for electoral gains. The Tribunal initially rejected the allegations of corrupt practices, including the distribution of leaflets with the "Dhruva star," and found no evidence of bribery or undue influence. However, the High Court reversed this decision, concluding that the appellant's use of the "Dhruva star" symbol, described with religious qualities, amounted to an appeal to religious sentiments, thus constituting a corrupt practice. The Supreme Court examined whether the "Dhruva star" could be considered a religious symbol. It noted that the star was an election symbol allotted by the Election Commission to the Swatantra Party and that its description in pamphlets included attributes like "eternal," "firm," "guide," "determined," and "one devoted to religion." The Court found that these qualities, while noble, did not have religious significance unique to Hinduism and were not likely to arouse religious sentiments among voters. The Court emphasized that the mythological figure Dhruva, associated with the star, was not considered a deity in Hindu religion and that his qualities were not exclusive to Hinduism. It concluded that the High Court erred in interpreting the use of the "Dhruva star" as an appeal to religious sentiments. 2. Validity of the Second Respondent's Nomination Paper Based on Age: The second issue concerned whether the second respondent's nomination paper was improperly accepted due to his age. The Tribunal initially held that the second respondent had not attained the age of 25 at the date of scrutiny, affecting the election result. However, the High Court reversed this finding, concluding that the second respondent had completed 25 years of age before the date of scrutiny and was duly qualified to contest the election. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding on the second respondent's age, noting that the evidence, including school certificates, supported the conclusion that he was of eligible age. The Court found no grounds to challenge this finding. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decisions of the High Court and the Election Tribunal, and dismissed the election petition. The Court concluded that the use of the "Dhruva star" did not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act and upheld the validity of the second respondent's nomination paper based on age. The appellant's election was thus upheld.
|
