Holding

An appeal to vote made by religious leaders does not constitute a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) unless it is based on the candidate's own religion, and the petition lacked the requisite material facts, rendering it non‑maintainable.

Summary

The appellant challenged the election of Ranjit Singh Talwandi, alleging that religious leaders had appealed to voters to support him, which was claimed to be a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The Supreme Court examined whether such an appeal, made by religious leaders, fell within the prohibition of appeals based on the candidate's religion. It held that the word "his" in Section 123(3) requires the appeal to be on the basis of the candidate's own religion, which was absent here; the appeal was a general religious endorsement, not a negative appeal, and therefore did not constitute a corrupt practice. Moreover, the election petition failed to aver the material facts required under Section 83(1)(a) and CPC provisions, rendering it a petition that disclosed no cause of action. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as untenable, and the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s order.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal made by religious leaders to vote for a candidate amounts to a corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
Whether the election petition disclosed a cause of action under Section 83(1)(a) of the Act and the relevant CPC rules.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order VII Rule 11, s. Order VI Rule 16
Representation of the People Act, 1951s. 123(3), s. 83(1)(a)

Subjects

Representation of People Actcorrupt practiceelection petitionreligious appealSection 123(3)cause of actionCivil Procedure Codeelectoral law

Judgment

A HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN
v.
RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI AND ORS.

APRIL 28, 2005

B [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., G.P. MATHUR AND
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, JJ.]

Representation of People Act, 1951-Sections 123(3), 83(/)(a)-Appeal
C made by Religious leaders to the public to vote in favour of their candidate-
Election petition alleging corrupt practice-Maintainability of-On facts held:
Making ofsuch appeal would not amount to corrupt practice within the meaning
of Section 123(3) since appeal to vote not made on the ground of religion of
their candidate nor appeal to refrain from voting made on the ground of
religion of the opposing candidate-Election petition not disclosing a cause
D of action-Hence not maintainable-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-0rder
7, Rule JJ(a), Order 6, Rule 16.

Words and Phrases- 'his '-Connotation of-Jn the context of Section
123(3) of Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.

E The question which arose for consideration in the present appeal is
whether an appeal made to the public by certain Religious leaders under
their symbols to cast vote in favour of their candidate amounted to corrupt
practice under Section 123(3) of Representation of People Act, 1951.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
F HELD : 1.1. The religion forming the basis of the appeal to vote or
refrain from voting for any person, must be of that candidate for whom
the appeal to vote or refrain from voting is made. The word 'his' used in
sub-Section (3) of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951
is significant and cannot be ignored or equated with the word 'any' to be
G brought within the net of sub-Section (3). When the appeal is to vote on
the ground of 'his' religion for the furtherance of the prospects of the
election of that candidate, that appeal is made on the basis of the religion
of the candidate for whom votes are solicited. On the other hand,, when
the appeal is to refrain from voting for any person on the ground of 'his'
religion for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, that
II 952
HARMOHJNDER SINGH PRADHAN v. RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI 953

appeal is based on the religion of the candidate whose election is sought A
to be prejudicially affected. The first is a positive appeal and the second
a negative appeal. (957-8-D-EI
Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and Ors.,
(19961 1 SCC 130 and Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik v. Purshottamdas
Ranchhoddas Patel, 11969) 1 SCC 455, relied on. ij

-- 1.2. There is no averment made in the election petition that the said
appeal was made in the name of the religion of respondent No. 1. It is not
the case of the appellant that there was any negative appeal made at any
time by respondent No. 1 or on his behalf, that is to say, an appeal to voters
c
I

to refrain from voting for the appellant on the ground of his religion.
[957-F-G]

2. A distinction has to be drawn between an appeal simpliciter to
vote or to refrain from voting made by religious leaders which may benefit
any particular candidate and an appeal to vote or to refrain from voting
on the ground of religion emanating from religious leaders and D
attributable to the candidate within the meaning of Section 123(3) of the
Act. The former is not vulnerable while the latter is. All that the election
petition alleges is that certain religious leaders, held in r~verence by the
voters, issued an appeal to vote in favour of respondent No. 1. The appeals
forming the gravamen of the charge of corrupt practice do not carry in it
the element of an appeal to vote for any person on the ground of religion.
E I

[957-H; 958-8)

3. Necessary averment of facts constituting an appeal on the ground
,,,,. of 'his religion' to vote or to refrain from voting would be material facts
within the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-Section (1) of Section 83 of the F
Act. If such material facts are missing, they cannot be supplied later on,
after the expiry of period of limitation for filing the election petition and
the plea being deficient, can be directed to be struck down under Order
VI Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if such plea be the
sole ground of filing an election petition, the petition itself can be rejected
as not disclosing a cause of action under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order G
VII C.P.C. (958-C-D)
~·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8315 of200l.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.5.2003 of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court in E.P. No. 7 of 2002. H;
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] 3 S.C.R.

A U.U. Lalit, Ashok Kumar Singh and Ms. S. Janani with him for the
Appellant.

Jaspal Singh, Mrs. Jayshree Anand, Karunakar Mahalik and Ashwani
Bhardwaj with him for the Respondents.

B The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, CJ. This appeal under Section I l6A of the
.....
Representation of the People Act,_ 1951 (hereinafter 'the Act' for short) putS
in issue an order passed by the designated Election Judge of the High Court,
whereby an election petition filed by the appellant has been directed to be
C dismissed at the threshold as disclosing no cause of action.

The sole ground on which the election of respondent No. 1 was sought
to be challenged and set aside, is that the respondent No. l had committed
the corrupt practice within the meaning of sub-Section (3) of Section 123 of
D the Act, which reads as under :

"I 23. Corrupt practices - The following shall be deemed to be
corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act:-
xxx xxx
(3) The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any other person
E with the consent of a candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain
from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste,
community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols
or the use of, or appeal to, national symbols, such as the national flag
or the national emblem, for the furtherance of the prospects of the
F election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of
any candidate:

[Provided that no symbol allotted under this Act to a candidate
shall be deemed to be a religious symbol or a national symbol for the
purposes of this clause.]"
G The said corrupt practice is said to have been committed by respondent
No. I in the public meetings held on 1.2.2002, 3.2.2002, 8.2.2002 and
9.2.2002. The relevant part of the averments made .in this regard in the
election petition are extracted and reproduced hereunder:
-
"Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, had specifically named all the
H
HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN"· RANJEET SINGH TALW.ANDI [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ.] 95 5

religious leaders including Sant Mahesh Muni ji, Bore"'.ale, Sant Balbir A
Singh, Lamman Jattpura, Sant Zora Singh, Badni Kalan, Nanaksar
thath, Sant Niranjan Singh Ji Vaid, Sant Avtar Singh, Badni Kalan,
Sant Bir Singh, Madoke, Member, SGPC, Sant Atma Singh, Dhurkot,
Member, SGPC and Sant Bharpoor Singh Banni Wale. He had called
upon the people to cast their votes in furtherance to the wishes of
their respective leaders and to keep their symbols high by letting his B
son - Sh. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi, to win from 54 - Raikot Assembly
Constituency. Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi himself was the
president of SGPC, the supreme body of the Sikhs thus committing
corrupt practice under Section 123(3).

That thereafter, the above appeal was got published by respondent
c
No. I in Daily Ajit, a Punjabi newspaper published from Jalandhar in
the issue dated 12.2.2002, photocopy of which is attached as Annexure
P-2. A translated copy of the said appeal is attached herewith as
Annexure P-2. The above appeal was issued by various religious
leaders under their symbols, to the public and particularly to their D,
followers for casting their votes in favour of the respondent No. I
and is corrupt practice under Section 123(3)."

"That Jathedar Jagdev Singh Talwandi, the father of respondent
No. I along with the respondent No. I, in several public meetings
held on 8.2.2002 and 9.2.2002, announced that all the religious leaders E
of the area have appealed to the public to cast their votes in favour
of respondent No. I and as such, the people should vote in accordance
with the wishes of the said leaders, under whose religion/symbols,
the said people are followers."

According to the election petitioner (appellant herein), such appeals F
for casting votes amount to corrupt practice under Section 123(3) of the Act.
These appeals made at the public meetings were followed by publication in
daily newspapers carrying on with them the names of the religious leaders
making the appeal.
GI
English translation of the appeals published in Gurumukhi respectively
in the newspapers dated 5.2.2002 and 12.2.2002 have been filed, which read
as under:
"APPEAL

Appeal is made to the intellectual voters of Raikot Assembly H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A Constituency to vote and elect the candidate of Shiromani Akali Dal-
BJP - BSP S. RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI son of the former
President, Shiromani Gurudwara Prabandhak Committee-Jathedar
Jagdev Singh Talwandi for all round development of the area and
spearheading the religious works."

B "APPEAL

CAST YOUR PRECIOUS VOTE AND ELECT S. RANJEET
SINGH TALWANDI THE EDUCATED, HONEST, GUARDIAN OF
RIGHTS AND TRUTH AND PEOPLE FRIENDLY CANDIDA TE
-
OF SHI ROMANI AKAU DAL (BADAL), BJP-BSP FROM RAIKOT
C ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY."

Below the two appeals, names of certain religious heads, to whom the
appeals are attributed, have also been published.

Averments so made have been denied in the written statement. It has
D also been urged that what is alleged in the election petition, does not amount
to corrupt practice.

The learned designated Election Judge framed issues, some of which
were taken up for hearing as preliminary issues. Arguments were advanced
by the. learned counsel for the parties before the High Court on an assumption,
E if no evidence were produced and the averments made in the election petition
• were taken as correct, would it amount to corrupt practice?

Shri U.U. Lalit, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted
that the High Court was not justified in dismissing the election petition in
F limine and the petition should have been set down for trial. On the other
hand, Shri Jaspal Singh, the learned senior counsel for respondent No. I has
submitted that the High Court is justified in dismissing the election petition
as disclosing no cause of action, inasmuch as the averments made in the
election petition even if substantiated, would not amount to corrupt practice
and any evidence beyond the material facts averred in the election petition,
G would not be admitted.

The question arising for decision in this appeal is no more res integra
as the point is covered by several decided cases, the most instructive one
being Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo v. Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte and
Ors., [1996] I SCC 130. The emphasis is laid on the word 'his' as it occurs
H in Section 123(3) of the Act which word was not to be found in the original
HARMOHINDER SINGH PRADHAN v. RANJEET SINGH TALWANDI [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ.] 957

draft of the provision as enacted but came to be inserted into the text of the A
provision by the Act 40 of 1961. Reference has been made to the Parliamentary
debates and the reasons ascribed by the then Law Minister for the amendment
while mQving the Bill in the Parliament. The Court has then held that the
word 'his' used in sub-Section (3) of Section 123 of the Act must have
significance and it cannot be ignored or equated with the word 'any' to be
brought within the net of sub-Section (3). The religion forming the basis of B
the appeal to vote or refrain from voting for any person, must be of that
candidate for whom the appeal to vote or refrain from voting is made. This
is clear from the plain language of sub-Section (3) and this is the only
manner in which the word 'his' used therein can be construed. When the
appeal is to vote on the ground of 'his' religion for the furtherance of the C
prospects of the election of that candidate, that appeal is made on the basis
of the religion of the candidate for whom votes are solicited. On the other
hand, when the appeal is to refrain from voting for any person on the ground
of 'his' religion for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate, that
appeal is based on the religion of the candidate whose election is sought to
be prejudicially affected. Thus, for soliciting votes for a candidate, the appeal D
prohibited is that which is made on the ground of religion of the candidate
for whom the votes are sought; and when the appeal is to refrain from voting
for any candidate, the prohibition is against an appeal on the ground of the
religion of that other candidate. The first is a positive appeal and the second
a negative appeal. Sub-Section (3) clearly indicates the particular religion on E
the basis of which an appeal to vote or refrain from voting for any person is
prohibited under sub-Section (3).

So is the view taken by this Court in Kanti Prasad Jayshanker Yagnik
v. Purshottamdas Ranchhoddas Patel, [1969] l SCC 455.
F
In the case before us, the election petition nowhere mentions the religion
of respondent No. I. There is no averment made in the election petition that
the said appeal was made in the name of the religion of respondent No. I.
It is not the case of the appellant in his election petition that there was any
negative appeal made at any time by respondent No. I or on his behalf, that
is to say, an appeal to voters to refrain from voting for the appellant on the G
ground of his religion.

There is yet another re~on why the averments made in the election
petition are deficient. The appeals are said to have been made by certain
religious leaders. A distinction has to be drawn between an appeal simp/iciter H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] 3 S.C.R.

A to vote or to refrain from voting made by religious leaders which may benefit
any particular candidate and an appeal to vote or to refrain from voting on
the ground of religion emanating from religious leaders and attributable to
the candidate within the meaning of Section 123(3). The former is not
vulnerable while the latter is. All that the election petition alleges is that
B certain religious leaders, held in reverence by the voters, issued an appeal to
vote in favour of respondent No. I. The appeals forming the gravamen of the
charge of corrupt practice do not carry in it the element of an appeal to vote
for any person on the ground of religion. ·-
Necessary averment of facts constituting an appea! on the ground of
C 'his religion' to vote or to refrain from voting would be material facts within
the meaning of Clause (a) of sub-Section (I) of Section 83 of the Act. If such
material facts are missing, they cannot be supplied later on, after the expiry
of period of limitation for filing the election petition and the plea being
deficient, can be directed to be struck down under Order VI Rule 16 of the
>
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and if such plea be the sole ground offiling :--
D an election petition, the petition itself can be rejected as not disclosing a
cause of action under Clause (a) of Rule 11 of Order VII of the Code.

No fault can be found with the view taken by the learned designated
Election Judge of the High Court. The appeal is devoid of any merit and is
dismissed with costs.
E
D.G. Appeal dismissed.

--· \'

r•
-·,.