1995 (12) TMI 439 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against the setting aside of election due to corrupt practices.
- Allegation of corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act based on speeches made by political leaders.
- Failure to comply with Section 99 of the Act in naming individuals responsible for corrupt practices.
- Interpretation of consent in relation to speeches made by leaders of political parties.
- Decision on the effect of defects in the judgment and whether a remand is necessary.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against the setting aside of an election due to alleged corrupt practices under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The appellant, a candidate of a political party, was accused of appealing to voters on the grounds of Hindu religion through speeches made by leaders of the party. The High Court initially set aside the election based on speeches made by leaders of the alliance supporting the appellant, without giving notice under Section 99 of the Act to the leaders responsible for the speeches. The Court emphasized the importance of complying with Section 99 before naming individuals responsible for corrupt practices.

The judgment highlighted the necessity of proving consent in cases where corrupt practices are attributed to individuals other than the candidate or their agent. It was emphasized that consent must be explicitly pleaded and proved, even in the case of leaders of political parties, to declare an election void under Section 100(1)(b) for corrupt practices committed by such leaders. The Court noted that consent could be implied from circumstances such as the candidate's conduct, but it should not be presumed solely based on the position of being a party leader.

Ultimately, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and dismissing the election petition. It was concluded that a remand was unnecessary in this case, as the allegations against the appellant were not substantiated, and the defects in the judgment regarding compliance with Section 99 were deemed significant. The appellant was awarded costs throughout from the respondent.