KRISHAN CHANDER y,
RAM LAL August 10, 1973
[P. JAGANMOHAN ReEppy anp S. N. Dwivept, JJ.)
Representation of the People Act, 1951—Ss, 82(a) & (b) and 86— Directory or mandatory—Impleading of defeated candidates against whom cor- rupt practices were alleged—Whether s. 82 violates article 14 of the Constitution.
In his election petition challenging the election of the respondent the appellant alleged that the respondent and three other defeated candidates committed various corrupt practices within the meaning of sub-sections (1) to (7) of s. 123 of the Representation of the Pzople Act, 1951. The respondent raised a preliminaty objection that the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the provisions of section 82 of the Act inasmuch as the defeated candidats against whom allegations of corrupt practice had been made had not been joified as rarties to the petition. The High Court upheld the objection and dismissed the petition.
In appeal to this Court it was contended that: (i) since ihe affidavit filed by the appeliant in support of the election petition merely stated that the allegations contained in the relevant paragraphs were based on information received and had not stated what the sources of information were, that part of the petition in which the allegations of corrupt practices were made could not form th: basis of a triable issue; (ii) while section 82(a) was mardatory 8.82(b) was directory and as such the petition could not be dismissed: (iii) 8.82(b) was violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal.
HELD : (i) The provision for setting out the sources of information in an affidavit was not a requisite prescribed under r. 94-4 of the Conduct of Flection Rules, 1961. There was nothing in the affidavit in Form 25 under this rule which required the petitioner to state the scurce or sources of Kis information. When there wre specific rules under the Act no other rules were applicable. If the petition and the affidavit conformed to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder, it could not be said that because the source of information had not been given, the allegations made in the petition had to be ignored, (353E—F]
” Smt. Sahedrobat Rai v. Ram Sineh Aharwar & Ors. A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 1079, Amulva Chandra Bhaduri v. Satish Chandra Giri & Ors. A.1.R. 1932
Cal. 285 and Wasudeoraoji v. 4. D. Mani A.I.R. 1951 Nag. 26, held inapplicable.
(ii) Section 82(2) enjoins that, anart from the returned candidate whose - election was challenged, any other candidat- against whom any allegaticns of corrupt practices were made shou'd be joined as partiec to the petitien Section 86 read ‘with s82 makes both cls. (a) and ‘bY of s82 manda‘orv and non compliance with these requirements renders the petition to be dismissed. In view of these provisions, it was incumbent unon the High Court where the allegation was that the recuirements of s. 8? were not complied with, to d-termin= that issue as a preliminary issue. [353A—D]
Charan Lal Sobu v. Nandkishore Bhatt & Ors, C.A. No. 2411 of 1972 dated August 1, 1973, referred to.
Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal & Ors. A.I.R. 1964S. C. 1366, held inapplicable,
(iii) An election petition cannot b= split uo in such a manner as to maintain it in resnect of allegations of corrunt nractices onlv against some persons and not against other persons who wete required to be made necessary parties.
——_ si
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ~ £1974] 1 s.cR. . . . : - “if A person who was not a‘party and against whom ‘corrupt practices had been proved at the trial, natura! justice required that he should also be afforded an opportunity to contest that finding. Article 14 bad no application becaus: the object of s. 82 was one and indivisible and a person coming to the court had to come with clean hands and not attempt to prevent a tull and complete enquiry or thwart fair trial by picking and choosing the parties to the petition. [357C—F] _ ve ; tae
Civic APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal. No. 2384 of B 1972, . ‘ : : :
Appeal by special leave under section 116A of the Representa- ~ tion of Peoples Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated the 2nd
August 1972 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Election Petition No. 4 of 1972. .
- Appellant appeared in-person, 7 Cc D. N. Mukherjee and N. R. Chaudhury, for the respondent, . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGANMOHAN Repby, J.—The appellant is a voter on the electorai
‘rol of Karmal Assembly Constituency. He challenged the election
-held on March 11, 1972, for the membership of the Haryana Vidhan D. Sabha from Karnaj Constituency. At that election 16 candidates filed y their nominations which were declared as valid nominations. Out of _ these, eight candidates withdrew their candidature. The respondent and seve, others were the contesting candidates. After the polling on
March 11, 1972, counting took place on March 12, 1972 and the
_respondent was declared elected having poled 17719 votes, the other - candidates Shanti Devi polled 16857 votes, Balwan Singh 1602 votes, E
Piyare Lal 1243 votes, Kali Ram 1203 votes, Kalu Ram 616. votes,
Radhey Sham 542 votes and Kashmira Singh 180 votes.
_. The appellant filed a petition on April 24, 1972, challenging the election of the respondent Ram Lal on the allegations, inter alia, that the respondent, his election agent and other persons with his consent, had committed various corrupt practices detailed in the petition asp falling within the meaning of sub-ss. (1): to (7) of s. 123 of the Re- | presentation of the Peopte Act—hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.
For the purposes of this appeal, the various allegations made against the respondent in the election petition are mot relevant. It is only necessary to state that certain allegations of corrupt practices were made in paragraphs 11 & 12 of the petition against Piyare Lal, Kali
‘Ram and Kalu Ram. -The petition was verified by the appellant as Cc ‘ ‘required under the Ru'es. The appellant also filed an affidavit in which he stated that paragraphs 11 °& 12 among other paragraphs were
‘based on information received and were believed to be true. The : respondent filed a written statement on September 25, 1972, contest- AY ing the allegations of various corrupt practices made by the appellant and further raised some pre iminary objections one of which was thatthe petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the pro- H -visions of s, 82 of the Act.inasmuch as the persons against whom alle-
‘gations of corrupt practice have been made such as Pivare Lal Kall
Ram and Kalu Ram had not been joined as respondents to the petition.
KRISHAN CHANDER v. RAM LAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 35%
The appellant, however, averred in reply that Ram Lal respondent alone was required to be made a party, and it was not necessary to. implead any other candidate or candidates as the allegations of corrupt practice were levelled against the successful candidate and not against. other candidates, The learned Judge who tried the petition, after hearing the petitioner in person and the respondent’s counsel, framed. the following two issues :
1. Whether it was necessary for the petitioner to implead Sarvshri Ram Piare, Piyare Lal, Kali Ram, Kalu Ram and Kashmira Singh as parties to the petition in view of the allegations i in paras 9, 10, 11, 12 and 20 of the election petition ?
2. If Issue No. 1 is found in favour of the respondent, what is the effect of non-impleadment of those persons as respondents to the petition ?
It was conceded by the respondent’s counsel that there was noimputation of any corrupt practice against Shanti Devi, Balwan Singh and Radhey Sham and accordingly there was no necessity to implead them. It was, however, urged that Comrade Ram Piare and the reraaining four candidates, namely, Piyare Lal, Kali Ram, Kalu Ram and Kashmira Singh, having been charged with committing corrupt practices set out in the aforesaid paragraphs were necessary parties. The | arned Judge held that Comrade Ram Piare had withdrawn his candidature before the prescribed date, therefore, he was not a necessary party to the petition, nor was there any al'egation against him that he was prevailed upon to withdraw by bribery, receipt of gratification or reward which would constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 of the Act. Even in respect of Kashmira Singh the allegation that he was persuaded to retire from the contest and sit silent in the election if he could not help the respondent could not amount to corrunt practice. The Court, however, came to the conclusion that the petitioner had in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the petition made allegations of corrupt practices against Piyare Lal, Kali Ram and Kalu Ram and in view of these allegations failure to implead them as parties to the petition contravened the ma-datory provisions’ of s. 82 of the Act. In this view the election petition was dismissed. Against this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal before us.
The petitioner who argued the appeal in person contends, inter’ alia, firsty, that as the affidavit filed by him in support of the election petition merely stated that the allegations contained in paragraphs 11 and 12 were based on information received and he had not stated what the sources of information were, that part of the petition in which the allegations of corrupt practices were made against Pivare Lal, Kali Ram and Kalu Ram cannot form the basis of a triable issue.. Consequently the allegations against the respondent should have been enquired into; secondly, that the learned Judge should have on the pleadings framed and tried all issues arising out of the petition and not merely issues confined to a preliminary point. ‘Where issues of fact and law arise out of a petition it is contended that evidence should have been recorded and findings given in respect of all those issues; thirdly, the appellant submits that while s. 82(a) is mandatory, s
352 SUPRZME COURT REPORTS [1974] 1 s.cr.
82(b) is directory, as such the petition cannot be dismissed; fourthly, the allegations in paragraphs 11 & 12 of the petition did not constitute corrupt practice inasmuch as the.allegations, only state that money was paid, but there was no express averment that it was acccpted by the persons concerned; and lastly, it was contended that s. 82(b) is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution in that it was harsh and woud result in the dismissal of the petition in which allegations of corrupt practices were made against the successful respondent who committcd them, merely because proper allegations were not made against the persons who were not elected.
In support of his first contention the appellant has referred to decisions rendered under O. VI r. 15 and O. XIX r. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. These decisions, in our view, have no relevance and do not support the submission of the appellant that in the affidavit in support of the petition if he has not stated the sources of information on which the several allegations in the petition are based, those allegations cannot be deemed to have been made. Order VI r. 15(2) States that the person verifying shall specify, by reference to numbered paragraphs of the pleadings, what he verifies on his knowledge and what he verifies upon information received and believed to be true. This provision, as we shall presently show, is no different to that required to be stated on an affidavit by the proviso to s. 83(1) read with r.94A and Form 25 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Order XIX r. 2 has no relevance as that deals with evidence being given on affidavit and if either party insists the Court may order the ‘deponent to attend for cross-examination. .
At the outset it may be stated that the provision for setting out the sources of information where the allegations have been verified as having been made on information and knowledge of the petitioner is nota requisite prescribed under r. 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, which are applicable to the filing of an election petition. Under sub. s. (1) of s. 83 an election petition has to contain a cenvise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies; it has to sei forta ful-particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of cach such practice and shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for the verification of the pleadings, pro-vided that where the petitioner a’leges any corrupt practice. the petition shall al-o be accomvanied: bv aa affidavit in the prescribed form jn support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the vart'culars thereof. The affidavit in Form 25 prescribed under r. 94-A is as follows :
“Too... the petitioner in the accompanving election petition calling in question the election of Shri/Shrimati. ... (resnondent Ro .... in the said petition) make solemn affirmation on oath and say—
KRISHAN CHANDER v. RAM LAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 353
(a) that the statements made in paragraphs... .of the accompanying clection petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of *...... and the particulars of such corrupt practice mentioned in paragraphs........ ot the same petition and in paragraphs. . . .of the Schedule annexed thereto are true to my knowledge;
_.(b) that the statements made in paragraphs... .of the said petition about the commission of the corrupt practice of *....0, the particulars of such corrupt practice given in paragraphs... , of the said petition and in paragraphs...... of "e Schedule annexed thereto are true to my information.
c) (d)
(e) Signature of deponent
_ Solemnily affirmed/sworn by Shri/Shrimati.... at .... this.... day of...... 19 ..., Before me *Here specify the name of mms the corrupt practice. Magistrate of the first class /Notary /Commissioner of Oaths. ”
There is nothing in this form which requires the petitioner to state under cl. (b) of Form 25 the source or sources of his information The appellant has referred us to O. 11 r. 13 of the Supreme Court Rules as also to r. 12 of the Punjab High Court Ru’es, in which when the deponent in the affidavit filed in support of the petition states that he has made the allegations in the paragraph or paragraphs speci fied on information, he is required also to disclose the sources of in formation. But when there are specific Rules made under the Act which govern the election petitions, no.other Rules are applicable. Nor is the disclosure of the source of information a requisite undef O. VI r. 15(2) C.P.C. On this ground alone the submission of the appellant can be rejected. But as he has cited several cases, a few of them may be examined to show that they do not help him.
In Amulya Chandra Bhaduri v. Satish Chandra Giri and others(*) what was considered was whether the affidavit in support of the petition under the Contempt of Courts Act, 12 of 1926, disclosed the sources of information in respect of the allegations made in the petition for contempt of Court. It was observed that in cases of this nature, as is well known, the practice of the Court was to enable the . parties concerned to know what are the points they have got to answer -m a charge of contempt and the practice has a'ways been that the Opposite parties, namely, the parties charged with contempt cannot be called upon to answer to anything which is not set out specifically in the grounds used before the Courts at the time when the Rule was
(1) ALR, 1932 Cal. 255, (Q) ALR. (1951) Nag. 26.
354 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1974] 1 s.cr.
issued, Wasudeoraoei v. A. D. Mani(*) is also a case under the Contempt of Courts Act. 1926, and does not support the submission of the appeitant. There is nothing in these decisions which state that the affidavit in support of an election petition should itself disclose the sources of information. The clection petition under s. 83 (1) (b) itself must contain alt the particulars that are necessary and in the affidavit in support of that petition the petitioner is required to say which of the aliegations made in various paragraphs of the petition are true to his knowledge and which of them are true to his information. If any sources of information have not been ser out and the respondent cannot answer them without particulars, he can always apply for betier particulars. If the petition and the affidavit conform to the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder, it cannot be said that because the sources of information have not been given, the allegations made in the petition have to be ignored.
The decision in Smt. Sahodrabai Rai v. Ram Singh Aharwar and others(1) states nothing further than that under the Representation of the People Act, details of corrupt practice or averments too compendious for being included in the election petition may be set out in the schedules or annexures to the election petition. The law requires that even though they are outside the election petition, they must be signed and verified, but such annexures or schedules are then treated as integrated with the election petition and copies of them mus! be served on the respondents if the requirement regarding service of the election petition is to be wholly complicd with. No doubt it was observed in this case that the trial of election petition has to follow as far as may be the provisions of the Code cf Civil Procedure. But these observations were made in respect of the need to furnish along with the plaint copies of all the documents filed with the plaint when summoning the defendants, The Court observed that the plaintiff is required to file one copy of the documents and not as many copies as there are defendants in the case. It is clear that the documents which are filed with the plaint have to be accomvanied bv one copy of the documents. This is because the covy is compared with the original and the copy is endorsed by the clerk of court and the document is sometimes returned to the party to be produced into Court later. The cony takes the place of the document concerned and is not to be sent out to the parties with the plaint. The election law does not provide anything diffe~ rent. This case also does not assist the appellant.
It is unnecessary for us to refer to other decisions which are not germane to the contentions urged before us. In our view. there is no defect in the election petition. There is no force in the submission that because the source of information had not been disclosed the allegations of corrupt practices made in the petition have to be ignored. It may also be pointed out that the lovical result of the contention urged by the appellant that the affidavit is defective, if accepted, would make the election petition itse’f not maintainable for having filed a defective affidavit. On this ground itself the petition could be rejected. but such is not the position in law and in our view the election petition does not suffer trom any defect on this score.
(1) ALR. [1968] S.C. 1079, fp)
KRISHAN CHANDER ¥. RAM LAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 355
The next submission bf the appellant that all issues should have been framed and tried instead of only one issue on the preliminary point is equal.y without force. Section 82(2) enjoins who the parties to the petition should be, and among those, apart from the returned candidate whose election is challenged, any other candidate. against whom any allegations of corrupt practices are made in the petition should be joined. If this requirement is not fulfilled, sub-s. (1) of s. 86 makes it mandatory for the High Court to dismiss the election petition for non-compliance with the provisions of s. 82 of the Act. The contention of the appellant that while cl. (a) of s. 82 is mandatory, cl. (b) of that section is only directory, is not tenable because reading s. 86 with s, 82 makes both cls. (a) and (b) of the latter section mandatory and non-compliance with the requirements thereof visits the petitioner with the penalty of having his petition dismissed. In view of these provisions, it is incumbent upon the High Court, where the allegation is that the requirements of s. 82 are not complied with, to determine that issue as a preliminary issue. If the respondent has made out his case on that issue, the Court is left with no option but to dismiss the petition for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 82. This Court has held in Charan Lal Sahu vy, Nandkishore Bhatt & Ors(') that non-compliance with the provisions of s. 117 of the Act which is one of the sections mentioned in sub-s. (1) of s, 86 merits dismissal of the election petition.
Before dealing with the third and fourth submissions, it is necessary to see what the allegations made by the petitioner in paragraphs 11 and 12 are, The following are the allegations in respect of these
' ‘paragraphs :
“11. That through Sh. Sardha Ram, President, Municipal Karamchari Dal, Karnal and Sh. Prithvi Raj President, Distt, Municipal Subordinate Employees Union, Karnal the respondent Sh. Ram Lal and Sh. Hargobind Senior Vice President, Municipal Committee, Karnal induced Sh. Piara Lal a caste brother of Mr. Sardha Ram to stand at the election for the Karnal Assembly Constituency for that deal Sh. Sardha Ram was promised that he would not be dismissed again even if his appeal had been dismissed by the learned Commissioner Ambala Division and Sh. Prithvi Raj would
- be given extension of his service. It was further promised by the respondent at the house of Sh. Piara Lal Ward No. 9, Jundie gate, Karnal that he would bear the entire election expenses of Si. Piara Lal for the purpose and he was paid Rs. 3000 for standing in the elections in advance as gift by the respondert on 10th Feb. 1972. It was further agreed upon that the Jan Sangh workers would also work for Sh. Piara Lal. He was actually suovlied workers and loud speaker fitted Rikshaw for propaganda work. So this indncement to Sh. Piara Lal to stand at the election is a corrupt practice in the meaning of the section 123(1)(A)(a) of the Representation of People Act and election is void. ,
~ GY CANO. 2411 of 1972 decided on August 1, 1973.
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [197411 scr.
12. That the respondent Sh. Ram Lal accompanied by his agents Sh, Sunder Lal Dnawan, Sh. Baidev Raj Anand and also Sh. Prithvi Raj Anand Officiating Health Officer, Municipal Committee, Karnal, went to the house of Sh. Kali Ram resident of Sadar Bazar, Karnal and offered him Rs. 2000/- as inducement to stand as candidate at the election, they turtner oftered him tnat the entre election expenses and substantial workers would also be supplied by Sh. Ram Lal and his party as the Congress nominee belonged to Jat community of the Chief Minister of Jats always have been torturing the Harijans, Sh. Kali Ram on 10th Feb. 1972 took them to the house of Sh, Kalu Ram resident of Jawahar Market, Karnal where Sh..Kalia was sitting with his friends Sh. Ved Parkash and Sh. K. K, Marwaha and after discussions Sh. Kaiu said that the respondent everytime makes Sh. Piara Lal stand at the elections and why he did not come to him first as Sh. Piara Lal was not superior or more influential in Jhimers of Karnal. Upon this it was settled that Sh. Kalu should also stand and for that purpose he was also paid Rs, 2000/- on the spot and so was Sh. Kali Ram paid Rs. 2000/-. Next day ie, on 11-2-1972 Sh. Kali Ram accompanied by Kalu filed. their nomination papers and they both praised that they would not withdraw their candidature come what may and from next morning i.e. from 12-2-1972 both of them were given loud speaker fitted Rikshaw and workers for propaganda sake till 9th March, 1972. This gratification and offer to the persons to stand in elections and with promise on their part not to withdraw till end of elections is a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(1)(A) (a) (B). So election is void.”
A perusal of the contents of paragraph-11 will show clearly that the respondent had promised Piare Lal at his house that he would bear the entire expenses and in furtherance of that promise had paid Rs. 3000 for his standing in the elections in advance as gift on February 10, 1972. This inducement to Piara Lal to stand at the election has been alleged as a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(1)(A)(a) of the Act. Similarly allegations in paragraph-12 are that the respondent offered to Kali Ram and Kalu Ram on February 10, 1972, Rs, 2000 each to stand as candidates for elections and that on February 11, 1972, Kali Ram accompanied by Kalu Ram filed their nomination papers. This gratification and offer to the persons to stand in elections so that they may later withdraw from the elections to help the respondent was a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(1)(A)(a)(B). In our view, there can be no manner of doubt that the avernments in paragraphs 11 and 12 amount to allegations of corrupt practice. The argument of the appellant that there is nothing in paragraphs 11 and 12 from which it can be gathered that Piare Lal, Kali Ram and Kalu Ram had accepted the gratification, when it is categorically stated that the amounts had been paid to the persons on the snot and that these amounts were paid to induce them to stand for the elections and in pursuance thereto such person or persons stood
KRISHAN. CHANDER ¥. RAM LAL: (Jaga@nmuhan Reddy, J.) 357 for the elections with the object of withdrawing subsequently after the Duusudivu payors Were Mvia Valid, apprars to us to be spacious. The case ot Monan Singh v. Bhanwarlal and others (*) cited by the petitioner has no application, because on tne facts of that case tnere was no express averment that one of the candidates had withdrawn his candidare as a consequence of a promuse made to him by the successful candidate that a job will be secured for him, as such it was held that it did not disclose an allegation of corrupt practice. The High Court, in our view, was right. in holding that paragraphs 11 and 12 conidined allegations of corrupt practices aLeged to have been indulged in by the thee persons named therein. Once an allegation of corrupt practice is made against the candidates who have offered themselves for the elections, sub-s. (b) of s. 82 of the Act applies, and the failure to implead the three persons named in the petition is fatal to the maintainability of the petition.
The last contention that s. 82(b) is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution is equally far-fetched. The provision that non-compliance with any of the provisions of s, 82 makes it obligatory on the High Court to dismiss the petition cannot be said to be discriminatory, merely because substantial allegations against the respondent who had been successful at the elections cannot be tried for non-compliance with those requirements, if other unsuccessful candidates against whom corrupt practices are alleged are not made parties. A petition challenging ‘the election of a successful candidate is required to set out certain | particulars and to join certain persons as necessary parties to that petition, an if it omits to comply with any of the mandatory provisions of the Act the petition is liable to be dismissed under s. 86(1). The petition cannot be split up in a manner as to maintain it in respect of allegations of corrupt practices only against some persons and not against other persons who are required to be necessary parties.
In any election, where a candidate challenges the validity of the election of a successful candidate, and further asks that he be declared duly elected, all contesting candidates must be made parties to the petition. The reason for this provision is obvious, because other candidates who have contested have interest in the result of the election and may even challenge the petitioner’s prayer for his being declared duly elected. Where corrupt practice is alleged the need for maintaining the purity of elections requires that where it appears to the Court that persons whether candidates or not have indulged in corrupt prac~ tice, it should make an equiry in respect of such corrupt practice which has been proved at the trial. This is evident from s. 99 which requires that the Court at the time of making an order under s. 98 should also make an order, naming all persons who have, during the trial, been proved guilty of corrupt practices and also state the nature of those corrupt practices, Where any person against whom corrupt practice is alleged is a party he will naturally have sufficient opportunity to defend himself against such allegation, but a petson who is not a party and against whom corrupt practices have been proved at the trial, aatural ‘justice requires that he be also afforded an opportumty to
() ALR. [1964]S. C. 1366.
338 °c... SUPREME COURT REPORTS =~ - [1974]: 1's.cr. contest that finding. . In order.to facilitate-him to do so the proviso A ‘
_to clause (b) of sub-s. (1) of s. 99 requires the Court give the person” concerned notice to appear before. the Court and to show cause why he should not be so named. If any person whether he be a candidate at the election or not, is found guilty of. any cormipt practice as pro- vided in s. 123 he will incur a_ disqualification under s- 8-A for @ ~ =* | period of six years from the date on which the order under s, 9¥ takes p - effect, If such are the consequences of being found guuty of corrupt ’ practices in cases where a person is not made a party to the petition, ~ Pa
.and corrupt practice against him is discovered during the trial, then a person who chalenges an election, and with the knowledge that -other candidates have indulged in corrupt practices deliberately omits to make them parties debarring them from any opportunity to defend themselves, he is visited with the penalty of having his petition dis- -¢ missed for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of s. 82. . The concept of fair trial requires that all candidates who are known to the petitioner to have indulged in corrupt practices should be made parties, and this is the reason why s. 82(b) has been enacted. Section
‘82 differs from the proviso to cl. (b) of sub-s. (1) of s, 99 in that . the former contemvlates io‘ning of parties who are known to the- ; ‘petitioner at the time of filing his petition, whereas the latter deals’ p with the cases which are discovered duriag the trial and which were — Not known to the petitioner at the time of filing the petition.
Apart from ensuring the purity of elections, and finality in regard to all election matters, one other consideration seems to be the expedi- tious disrosal of election petitions. Before the amendment of s. 82 E ‘by Act 27 of 1956 the unamended section made it incumbent on a petitioner ‘to join as resPondent to his petitioner ¢andidates who | were duly nominated at the election other than himself, if he was
So noninated.”.. The reason for the amendment of s: 82 has been stated in the notes on clauses to the Amendment Bill No. 33 of - 1955 to be that the section as it stands holds up the trial of an elec- tion petition because of the difficulty in serving a notice on all those’; fp who have been nominated: It is further stated: “Naturally, it is only _ the returned candidate who takes anv interest in contesting the. elec- tion petition. Morcover there is a provision in section 90 which cnables any other candidate to join as a respondent. It is accordinsly vroposcd in this clause that section 82 should be revised so that it is necessary to join as respondents only those candidates who are _ interested prima facie in the outcome of the petition.” After the Gg amendment the candidates under clause (b) of s. 82 are not implead- ed merely because they are necessary parties in an election petition in ‘which a declaration is sought that the election of all or any of the candidate would be void, but are impleaded as parties because there
- are alleeations of corrunt practices against them in the election peti- - tion. Where action is taken under s. 90 and‘ order under s, 98 of the Act dismissing the election petition or declaring the election of all or H any of the returned candidates to be void and/or declaring the petitoner or any other candidate to have been duly elected. would delay
‘the disposal of the election petition, because notice will have to be
—_— |
KRISHAN CHANDER v, RAM LAL (Jaganmohan Reddy, J.) 359 given to all the persons named under the proviso to sub-cl. (ii) of cl.(a) ot sub-s. (1) of s. 99. The provisions of 82(b) would avoid any such delay as they make it obligatory for a person filing an election petition when he makes an allegation of corrupt practice against any candidate to make him a party on pain of the petition being dismissed under s. 86(1) if he omits to do so. It may also be pointed out that a person who offers himself to stand as candidate at an election holds Gut to the voters that if elected he will truly and effectively represent them in the Assembly to which he is elected. The voters of the Constituencies equally expect from their candidates who have offered themselves at the election a high degree if integrity and honesty, and if there are allegations:in an election petition that any of the candidates have indulged in corrupt practices, it would be in consonance with the purity of elections that they should be maade parties and the allegations of corrupt practices enquired into after giving them in opportunity to meet those allegations. Under s. 90 though it is not required that those against whom corrupt practices have been proved should be made parties, yet they are required to be named for the purposes of being debarred from offering themselves as candidates in future. This then is the rationale underlying the mandatory requirements of s. 82(b). In any view of the matter, Art. 14 has no application, because the object of s. 82 is one and indivisible in that it is incumbent on any person coming to Court to challenge an election to come with clean hands and not attempt to prevent a full and complete enquiry or perhaps dictated by his own interests to thwart fair trial by picking and choosing the parties to the petition.
As none of the contentions urged by the appellant has any validity, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
P.BR. Appeal dismissed.