9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 2. Examination of evidence regarding the issuance of Hukamnama. 3. Analysis of speeches and publications appealing to religious sentiments. 4. Verification of the election petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. Allegations of Corrupt Practice: The appellant challenged the election of Respondent No. 3 to the Punjab Legislative Assembly on the grounds of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant alleged that Respondent No. 3 and his agents appealed to voters on religious grounds, specifically invoking Sikh religion, which is considered a corrupt practice under the Act. 2. Examination of Evidence Regarding the Issuance of Hukamnama: The appellant alleged that Hukamnamas were issued by Akal Takht, urging voters to support Respondent No. 3. The High Court initially dismissed these allegations, doubting the veracity of the evidence and emphasizing that the appellant failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court, however, considered the historical and religious significance of Hukamnamas and the unique position of Akal Takht among Sikhs. The Court concluded that even if the documents were not technically Hukamnamas, they were represented as such, influencing the electorate. 3. Analysis of Speeches and Publications Appealing to Religious Sentiments: The appellant provided evidence of speeches and publications, including articles in Akal Times, which propagated that voting against Respondent No. 3 would be against Sikh religion. Witnesses testified that speeches made by prominent figures like Shri Parkash Singh Badal and Sant Harchand Singh Longowal at election meetings emphasized the religious duty of Sikhs to vote for Respondent No. 3. The Supreme Court found this evidence credible, especially in the absence of rebuttal from key figures like Shri Parkash Singh Badal. 4. Verification of the Election Petition: A point was raised about the improper verification of the petition, arguing that the source of information was not mentioned. The Supreme Court referred to Section 83 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and previous case law, concluding that while the source should ideally be indicated, the objection was not raised at the initial stage. Therefore, the Court did not find it necessary to dismiss the petition on this ground. Conclusion: The Supreme Court found Respondent No. 3 guilty of corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, as the evidence demonstrated an appeal to religious sentiments. Consequently, the election of Respondent No. 3 was set aside, and the seat was declared vacant. The findings were forwarded to the President of India for appropriate action under Section 8A of the Act. The appeal was allowed, and Respondent No. 3 was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.
|
