1970 (9) TMI 127 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the pamphlet constituted undue influence under Section 18(1)(a) of the Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952.
2. Whether the pamphlet was published, distributed, and disseminated with the respondent's connivance.
3. Whether the result of the election was materially affected by the pamphlet.
4. Whether undue influence was exercised by other means, including threats and communal appeals.
5. Whether the nomination papers of certain candidates were wrongly rejected or accepted.
6. Whether the exclusion of elected members of Legislative Assemblies of Union Territories from the Electoral College was valid.
7. Whether Sections 21 and Part III of the Act and Rules 4 and 6(3)(e) of the Rules were ultra vires the Constitution.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Pamphlet Constituting Undue Influence:
The pamphlet in question contained scurrilous and vulgar allegations against the personal character of Shri Sanjeeva Reddy. The court examined whether such a pamphlet could constitute undue influence under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act, which refers to Section 171C of the Indian Penal Code. It was argued that mere propaganda against a candidate does not amount to undue influence unless it interferes with the free exercise of the electoral right at the stage of casting the vote. The court concluded that the pamphlet did not constitute undue influence as it did not interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right but was merely an attempt to influence the choice of the voters.

2. Publication, Distribution, and Dissemination with Connivance:
The court examined evidence to determine whether the pamphlet was published, distributed, and disseminated with the respondent's connivance. Witnesses for the petitioners claimed that the pamphlet was widely distributed in the Central Hall of Parliament and by post, while witnesses for the respondent denied any involvement. The court found that the pamphlet was indeed distributed but concluded that there was no evidence to prove that the respondent had any connection with its publication or distribution. The court noted that the evidence was conflicting and partisan, and there was no independent corroboration to support the petitioners' claims.

3. Material Effect on Election Result:
The court considered whether the result of the election was materially affected by the distribution of the pamphlet. Witnesses for the petitioners claimed that the pamphlet influenced their voting decisions, but the court found that only two witnesses explicitly stated that they changed their vote because of the pamphlet. The court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove that the pamphlet materially affected the election result, given the large number of votes received by the winning candidate.

4. Other Means of Undue Influence:
The court examined other allegations of undue influence, including threats and communal appeals. Witnesses claimed that certain individuals, including ministers, threatened voters with adverse consequences if they did not vote for the respondent. The court found that the evidence was conflicting and lacked independent corroboration. The court concluded that the petitioners failed to prove these allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

5. Rejection and Acceptance of Nomination Papers:
The court examined whether the nomination papers of certain candidates were wrongly rejected or accepted. The nomination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, Shri Charan Lal Sahu, and Shri Yogi Raj were rejected for non-compliance with the requirements of the Act and Rules. The court found that the rejections were justified. The nomination papers of the respondent and other candidates were accepted, and the court found no evidence of irregularities in their acceptance.

6. Exclusion of Union Territories from Electoral College:
The court examined whether the exclusion of elected members of Legislative Assemblies of Union Territories from the Electoral College was valid. The court concluded that the term "States" in Article 54 of the Constitution does not include Union Territories, and therefore, their exclusion was valid.

7. Constitutionality of Sections 21 and Part III of the Act and Rules 4 and 6(3)(e):
The court examined the constitutionality of Sections 21 and Part III of the Act and Rules 4 and 6(3)(e) of the Rules. The court found that these provisions were within the legislative competence of Parliament and did not violate the Constitution. The court held that the rules were necessary for the smooth conduct of elections and were not arbitrary or unreasonable.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioners failed to prove the allegations of undue influence and other irregularities beyond a reasonable doubt. The election of the respondent was upheld, and the petitions were dismissed. The court directed that each party bear its own costs due to the extensive evidence led on the issue of pamphlet distribution and the conflicting nature of the evidence.