1975 (4) TMI 141 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Allegations of corrupt practices under Section 123(2), (3), and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
2. Technical objections regarding the affidavit and particulars in the election petition.
3. Admissibility of evidence, specifically tape recordings and transcripts.
4. Specific speeches made by the appellant and their compliance with Section 123.
5. Order for costs awarded by the High Court.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Allegations of Corrupt Practices:
The appellant was accused of committing corrupt practices as defined in Section 123(2), (3), and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The allegations included making speeches that induced voters to believe they would face divine displeasure if they voted for the rival candidate, Chagla, and promoting enmity between Muslims and Hindus based on religion.

2. Technical Objections:
The appellant's counsel argued that the allegations under Section 123(3) and 123(3A) were not supported by the required affidavit as per Section 83(1) of the Act. The Court noted that the High Court had recorded that the issue was given up by the appellant's counsel. Furthermore, the affidavit did not have any defect of form, and the objection based on the alleged want of particulars was not entertained as it was deemed to have been given up.

3. Admissibility of Evidence:
The evidence consisted of tape recordings, transcripts, shorthand notes, and witness statements. The High Court held that tape recordings were admissible as documents under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, provided the voice was identified, accuracy was proven, and relevance was established. The Court emphasized that tape recordings were reliable as they were prepared and preserved by an independent authority (the police), and their authenticity was not disputed by the appellant.

4. Specific Speeches:
- 27-2-1972 Speech: The appellant made statements implying that Chagla was not a true Muslim and urged voters to vote for him instead of Chagla. The High Court held this to be a violation of Section 123(3).
- 29-2-1972 Speech: The appellant threatened rebellion if Muslim personal law was amended and implied that Chagla supported such amendments. This was held to be a violation of Section 123(3A).
- 2-3-1972 Speech: The appellant attacked Chagla's faith and advocated for Muslim personal law, which was held to be a violation of Section 123(3) and 123(3A).
- 6-3-1972 Speech (Bara Imam Road): The appellant accused Chagla of playing with religious affairs and threatened rebellion against the government, violating Section 123(3) and 123(3A).
- 6-3-1972 Speech (Saifi Jubilee Street): The appellant attacked Chagla's family and religious practices, urging Muslims to unite against him. This was held to be a violation of Section 123(3).
- 6-3-1972 Speech (Chowki Mohalla Underia Street): The appellant attacked Chagla's religious faith and practices, urging voters to refrain from voting for him. This was held to be a violation of Section 123(3).

5. Order for Costs:
The High Court ordered the appellant to pay Rs. 12,000 to the petitioner and Rs. 3,000 to Chagla. The Supreme Court found the order for costs to be severe and set aside the Rs. 3,000 awarded to Chagla, reducing the costs awarded to the petitioner from Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 6,000. The appellant was also ordered to pay the costs of respondents 1 and 2 in the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed with modifications to the order for costs. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's findings that the appellant had committed corrupt practices under Section 123(2), (3), and (3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, through his speeches. The Court emphasized the importance of maintaining the spirit of secular democracy and preventing divisive appeals based on religion during elections.