9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Petition against Election Tribunal's decision on election petition, Allegation of corrupt practices during election, Determination of agency relationship, Consideration of major corrupt practices under Representation of the People Act, Failure of the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction under Section 99, Allegation of illegal practices, Examination of ballot paper attestation, Direction for reconsideration by the Election Tribunal. Analysis: The judgment pertains to a petition challenging the Election Tribunal's dismissal of an election petition against the first respondent's election to the Bombay Legislative Council. The petitioner alleged that the Tribunal failed to determine corrupt and illegal practices during the election, specifically focusing on the involvement of a Government servant, Dahyalal Mehta, in assisting the first respondent's election campaign. The key contention revolved around whether Dahyalal Mehta, as the President of the District Congress Election Propaganda Board, could be considered an agent of the first respondent under the Representation of the People Act. The Act defines an agent broadly, encompassing various roles related to election activities. The petitioner argued that Mehta's actions, including sending letters to voters on behalf of Congress candidates, constituted a major corrupt practice under Section 123(8) of the Act. Moreover, the petitioner highlighted the potential ratification by the first respondent of Mehta's acts, suggesting a deeper agency relationship. The judgment emphasized the need for the Tribunal to thoroughly assess these aspects to determine if major corrupt practices were committed, which could lead to severe consequences for both the candidate and the agent under Sections 140 and 141 of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner raised concerns regarding illegal practices, specifically Mehta's unauthorized expenditure on election-related activities. The judgment underscored the Tribunal's obligation under Section 99 to investigate and make findings on any corrupt or illegal practices established during the election process. Furthermore, the issue of ballot paper attestation was addressed, with the Tribunal's findings indicating that objections raised by the petitioner were adequately considered and resolved. The judgment clarified that only individuals involved in election work were prohibited from attesting ballot papers, and the Tribunal's factual determination supported the acceptance of the contested ballot papers. In conclusion, the judgment directed the matter back to the Election Tribunal for a comprehensive reconsideration of the alleged corrupt and illegal practices, emphasizing the Tribunal's duty to exercise its jurisdiction effectively under Section 99 of the Act. The decision underscored the importance of ensuring a thorough examination of all relevant aspects to uphold the integrity of the electoral process.
|
