{"id":146772,"date":"1972-03-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-03-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972"},"modified":"2019-03-26T01:07:39","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T19:37:39","slug":"raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972","title":{"rendered":"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1302, \t\t 1972 SCR (3) 841<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAJ NARAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSMT.  INDIRA NEHRU  GANDHI AND ANR.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT15\/03\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nMATHEW, KUTTYIL KURIEN\n\nCITATION:\n 1972 AIR 1302\t\t  1972 SCR  (3) 841\n 1972 SCC  (3) 580\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1975 SC2299\t (434)\n RF\t    1976 SC1187\t (6)\n RF\t    1991 SC1557\t (13,18)\n\n\nACT:\nRepresentation\tof  the People Act,  1951--Section  86(5)--Scope-\n--Pleadings  relating to corrupt Practice--Better Particulars  of\ncharges may he introduced by amendment of pleadings.\nElection   Petition--Interrogatories--code  of\tCivil\tProcedure\n1908--Order  XI r. 1-Interrogatories must have\treasonable  close\nconnection with \"any matters   in question.\"\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nWhile a\t  corrupt practice has got to be strictly proved it  does\nnot follow that\t    a  pleading\t in an election\t petition  should\nreceive a strict construction.\t   The object of section 86(5) of\nthe Representation of the People Act,\t1951,  is to see  that\ta\nperson accused of a corrupt practice must know precisely what  he\nis  accused  of so that he may have the opportunity to\tmeet  the\nallegations made against him.  If the accusation made is nebulous\nand  is capable of being made use of for establishing  more  than\none  charge or if it does not make out a corrupt practice at  all\nthen  the charge fails at the threshold.  So long as  the  charge\nlevelled  is  beyond doubt, s. 86(5) is satisfied; rest\t is  mere\nrefinement;  they either pertain to the region of particulars  or\nevidence.  Under s. 86(5), if corrupt practice is alleged in  the\n' petition, the particulars of such corrupt practice may  amended\nor  amplified  for ensuring a fair and effective trial\tthat  is,\nmore  and  better particulars of the charge may be  given  later,\neven after the period of limitation; but if a corrupt practice is\nnot  previously alleged in the petition, an amendment which  will\nhave  the  effect of introducing particulars of\t such  a  corrupt\npractice, will not be permitted, after the period of  limitation,\nbecause, it would tantamount to making a fresh petition. [847 G]\nThe appellant, in his election petition, challenging the validity\nof the election of respondent No. 1, alleged that the  respondent\nobtained the assistance of K when he was still a Gazetted Officer\nin  the Government of India for the furtherance of the\tprospects\nof her election and that K organised the electioneering work  for\nher  during  the  entire period even before  the  filing  of  the\nnomination paper.  The petition did not set out specifically that\nwhen  the  respondent  obtained the assistance of K,  she  was\ta\n\"candidate\",  nor did it state the date on which K was\tentrusted\nwith  the  electioneering work.\t The respondent filed  an  appli-\ncation\tunder 0. XI, Code of Civil Procedure, for  sitting  aside\nthe  interrogatories served on her by the appellant.   The  trial\ncourt  set aside some of the interrogatories and struck\t out  the\nissues\trelating to corrupt practice on the basis that the  facts\nstated\tin  the petition did not disclose  the\tcorrupt\t practice\nwhich  were  the subject matter of the issues.\t The  Court  also\ndismissed  the appellant's application for amending the\t election\npetition,  on  the ground that the appellant was seeking  to  add\nmaterial  facts\t and hence they could not be accepted  after  the\nperiod of limitation for filing the election petition.\nHELD  (i) that the trial court was not justified in striking  out\nthe issues relating to corrupt practice.  The allegations in  the\npetition bring\n 842\nout  all ingredients of the corrupt practice alleged  though\nthey  are lacking in better particulars such as the date  on\nwhich  the  respondent became a candidate and  the  date  on\nwhich K was entrusted with the responsibility of  organising\nthe  electioneering work of the respondent.  The absence  of\nthese particulars does not per, se invalidate 'the charge.\n[1849\t  G]\nHarish\tChandra Bajpai v. Triloki Singh,<\/a> [1957] S.C.R.\t370;\nSainant N.     Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernandez and ors.\netc.  [1969] 3 S.C.R. 603 and Hardwari Lal v. Kanwal  Singh,<\/a>\n[1972] S.C.C. 214, referred to.\n(ii) that  the\tquestion as to when K's\t resignation  became\neffective   has\t to  be\t examined  with\t reference  to\t his\nconditions  of\tservice and this having not  been  done\t the\nconclusion  of\tthe trial judge in this regard\thad  to\t be,\nignored. [852) D-E]\nRaj  Kumar v. Union of India, [1968] 3 S.C.R. 857,  referred\nto.\nQuaere\t: Whether a government servant's resignation can  be\naccepted  with effect from an earlier date and whether\tsuch\nan  acceptance\thas any validity in  considering  a  corrupt\npractice under s. 123(7).\n(iii)\t  that\tthe  amendments asked for should  have\tbeen\nallowed. election petition is not liable to be dismissed  in\nlimine because full particulars of corrupt practice  alleged\nare  not  set  out.   If an objection  was  taken,  and\t the\ntribunal was of the view that the full particulars have\t not\nbeen set out, the petitioner has to be given in\t opportunity\nto amend or amplify the particulars. [853 B]\nShri Balwan Singh v. Shri Lakshmi Narain and ors.<\/a>, [1960]  3\nS.C.R. 91, referred to.\n(iv) that  the\ttrial court was right in  striking  out\t the\ninterrogatories.  The interrogatories served must have reasonable\nclose  connection with\tany matters in question.\" Questions  that\nmay  be\t relevant during cross examination  are\t not  necessarily\nrelevant as interrogatories. [853 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.  108\t and
\n109 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
Appeals by special leave from the orders dated November\t 27.
\n1971 and December 22, 1971 of, the Allahabad High Court it,.
\nApplications  Nos.  A- 112 and A- 141 in  Election  Petition
\nNo. 5 of 1971, respectively.\n<\/p>\n
S.   V.Gupte,.\t J.  P.\t Goyal,\t K.  N.\t Tripathi,   R.\t  C.
\nSrivastava,  .S.’  S.  Khanduja, and R. A.  Gupta,  for\t the
\nappellant (in both the appeals)
\nC,  K. Daphtary, S. C. Khare, Yogeshwar Prasad, S. K.  Bagga
\nand S.Bagga, for respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals).
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde, J. These. appeals by special leave arise from the election
\npetition filed by be, appellant challenging the validity, of  the
\nelection-of respondent No. 1 (who will hereinafter be referred to
\n 843<\/span>
\nas  the\t respondent) to the Lok Sabha from Rae\tBareilly  consti-
\ntuency, in the General Election to the Lok Sabha held in-  March.
\n1971.\n<\/p>\n
After the pleadings of the parties were completed and the  issues
\nframed, the appellant applied to the court under Order Xi of  The
\nCivil  Procedure,  Code for leave to deliver  interrogatories  in
\nwriting\t for the examination of the respondent.\t  The  respondent
\nobjected to the same on the ground that the provisions of 0.  XI.
\nC.P.C.\t cannot\t be  applied  to  election  petitions.\t In   her
\nobjection-statement, the respondent reserved her right to  object
\nto the interrogatories\t sought\t to be served at a  later  stage.
\nThe application filed by the   appellant  for  leave  ‘to   serve
\ninterrogatories\t on  the respondent was heard by  Broome  J.  The
\nlearned Judge by his order dated September 14, 1971 overruled the
\nobjections of the respondent and directed as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Accordingly I allow the application A-29 and grant
\n\t      leave to the petitioner to deliver the accompanying
\n\t      interrogatories  for the examination of  respondent
\n\t      No. 1. The affidavit in reply shall be filed by  4-
\n\t      10-1971.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  respondent appealed against that order to this  Court  after
\nobtaining  special leave.  That appeal was withdrawn  during  the
\ncourse of the hearing.\n<\/p>\n
During\tthe  pendency  of that appeal, the  respondent\tfiled  an
\napplication before the High Court under rule 7, Order Xi.  C.P.C.
\npraying\t that the interrogatories served on her may be set  aside
\nas  they were “unreasonable, vexatious,\t oppressive,  unnecessary
\nand  irrelevant”.  As many as 31 interrogatories had been  served
\non the respondent.  All these interrogatories related to Issues 1
\nto 3. The appellant objected to each one of them.  At the hearing
\nof  that petition, it appears it was contended on behalf, of  the
\nrespondent that the allegations in the election petition did  not
\nafford\tany  basis for Issues 1 to 3. Consequently  the\t interro-
\ngatories  served  were irrelevant as well  as  unnecessary.   The
\nentire\targument  before the trial judge proceeded on  the  basis
\nthat  the,  facts  stated in the petition did  not  disclose  the
\ncorrupt practices which were the subject-matter of Issues 1 to 3.
\nThe learned judge accepted that contention and set aside some  of
\nthe   interrogatories  served  on  the\trespondent.    Proceeding
\nfurther,  he struck out Issues 1 to 3. Thereafter  the\tappellant
\napplied to that court for amendment of paragraphs 2 and 5 of  the
\nelection  petition  by giving better  particulars.   The  learned
\njudge  rejected that application on the sole ,round that  by  the
\namendment  in  question,  the appellant was  seeking  to  add  to
\nmaterial  facts\t and  hence, they cannot-be  accepted  after  the
\nperiod\tof limitation for filing the, election, petition.   Civil
\nAppeal, No. 108 of 1972 is
\n844<\/span>
\ndirected  against  the order setting  aside  the  interrogatories
\nserved\t.and the striking out of Issues 1 to 3 and  Civil  Appeal
\nNo.  109 of 1972 arises from the order rejecting the  application
\nseeking permission to amend the election petition.
\nIssue  No. 2 had not been pressed before the trial court nor  was
\nit  pressed  before us.\t Therefore we need not\tconsider  whether
\nthat issue should be restored.\tIssue No. 3 is largely consequen-
\ntial to Issue No. 2 though a portion of that issue bears on Issue
\nNo.  1.\t Hence at present we are only concerned with Issue No.\t1
\nand  that portion of the third issue which has a bearing on Issue
\nNo.  1.\t Both  those aspects will be covered if issue  No.  1  is
\nrecast thus
\n\t      “Whether respondent No. 1 obtained and procured the
\n\t      assistance  of Yashpal Kapur in furtherance of  the
\n\t      prospects\t of  her election while he  was\t still\ta
\n\t      Gazetted\tOfficer in the service of  Government  of
\n\t      India.  If so, from what date ?”\n<\/p>\n
\t      We can now leave out of consideration Issue No. 3.
\nThe  main question to be decided in these appeals is whether  the
\nallegations made in the election petition can be said to disclose
\nthe corrupt practice which is the subject matter of Issue .No. 1.
\nSection 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (lo  be
\nhereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) begins by saying that  “The
\nfollowing  shall  be  deemed  to be  corrupt  practices\t for  the
\n,purposes of this Act”.\n<\/p>\n
Sub-s.\t(7)  of\t s. 123 to the extent material\tfor  our  present
\npurpose reads :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempt-
\n\t      ing  to  obtain or procure by a  candidate  or  his
\n\t      agent or, by any other person with the consent of a
\n\t      candidate\t or  his election agent,  any  assistance
\n\t      (other than the giving of vote) for the furtherance
\n\t      of the prospects of that candidate’s election, from
\n\t      any  person  in the service of the  Government  and
\n\t      belonging to any of The following ‘classes, namely
\n\t      (4)   gazetted officers;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  appellant’s contention is that the respondent after she  be-
\ncame  a\t candidate  in\tThe election  in  question  obtained  the
\nservices
\n845<\/span>
\nof  Yashpal  Kapur when he was still a gazetted\t officer  in  the
\nGovernment  of India for the furtherance of the propects  of  her
\nelection.   In\torder to establish that plea, he must  plead  and
\nprove
\n\t      (1)   That  the respondent obtained the  assistance
\n\t      of Yashpal Kapur when he was a gazetted officer;
\n\t       (2)  That  the assistance obtained by her was  for
\n\t      the  furtherance of the prospects of her\t election
\n\t      and
\n\t      (3)   That  she obtained that assistance after  she
\n\t      became a candidate.\n<\/p>\n
\t      A\t candidate  is defined in s. 79(b)  of\tthe  Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t      That section says :\n<\/p>\n
\t      ”\t  candidate’  means,  a person who  has\t been  or
\n\t      claims  to have been duty nominated as a\tcandidate
\n\t      at any election and any such person shall be deemed
\n\t      to  have\tbeen a candidate as from the  time  when,
\n\t      with  the\t election in prospect, he began\t to  hold
\n\t      himself out as a prospective candidate.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent became a candidate within the first part of  79(b)
\nwhen she was nominated on February 1, 1971.  But if she had  held
\nherself\t out  as  a prospective candidate with\tthe  election  in
\nprospect before her nomination, she must be deemed to have become
\na candidate from the date she so held out.\n<\/p>\n
In  order lo establish his plea, the appellant has  to\testablish
\nthat  the assistance of Yashpal Kapur was obtained when he  still
\nwas  a government servant and at the time such an assistance  was
\nobtained, the respondent had become a candidate.
\nNow  let us turn to the averments in the election petition  which
\nalone  is relevant for finding out whether the\tcorrupt\t practice
\nreferred  to in Issue No. 1 is made out.  Relevant averments  are
\nsaid to be in paragraphs 2, 5 and 6. They read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “2 That the respondent No. 1 Shrimati Indira  Nehru
\n\t      Gandhi and the respondent No. 2 Swami Advaita  Nand
\n\t      were also candidates in the said election from  the
\n\t      22-Rae  Bareili Parliamentary constituency for  the
\n\t      Lok Sabha.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “5  That the said Shri Yashpal Kapur  was\t Gazetted
\n\t      Officer  in  the Government of India,  holding  the
\n\t      post of an officer on Special Duty.  The respondent
\n\t      No.  1 Shrimati Indira Nehru .Gandhi  obtained  and
\n\t      procured\t,the assistance of the said Shri  Yashpal
\n\t      Kapur  for the furtherance of the prospects of  her
\n\t      election from the 8-L1061Sup.Cl\/73
\n\t      846<\/span>
\n\t      constituency  aforesaid inasmuch as the  said  Shri
\n\t      Yashpal Kapur was a gazetted officer in the service
\n\t      of the Government of India when his assistance  was
\n\t      obtained\tand  procured (a corrupt  practice  under
\n\t      section 123(7) of the R.P. Act, 1951 was\tcommitted
\n\t      by  the  respondent  No. 1  Shrimati  Indira  Nehru
\n\t      Gandhi.\tThe  said  Shri\t Yashpal  Kapur\t on   the
\n\t      directions   of\tShrimati  Indira   Nehru   Gandhi
\n\t      organised\t the electioneering work for her  in  the
\n\t      constituency  as\ther  election  agent  during  the
\n\t      entire  period from even before the tiling  of  the
\n\t      nomination paper the filing(?) the counting and the
\n\t      declaration  of  the result of the  election.   The
\n\t      election\tof the respondent No. 1 is liable  to  be
\n\t      declared\tvoid on the ground of the  commission  of
\n\t      this  corrupt practice under section  100(1)(b)  of
\n\t      ‘the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    That as the petition’s candidature was  being
\n\t      supported\t not only by Samyukta Socialist Party  to
\n\t      which  the petitioner belonged but also by the  Jan
\n\t      Sangh, the Indian National Congress (Organization),
\n\t      Bhartiya\tKranti Dal and the Swatantra Parties  and
\n\t      since the candidature of respondent No. 1, Shrimati
\n\t      Indira  Nehru  Gandhi was being  supported  by  the
\n\t      Muslim  Majlis,  Muslim League  and  the\tCommunist
\n\t      Party of India  (it  was\tapprehended  by\t Shrimati
\n\t      lndira Nehru    Gandhi and her election agent  Shri
\n\t      Yashpal Kapur   that  an overwhelming  majority  of
\n\t      Hindu   voters  migh  cast  their\t votes\tfor   the
\n\t      petitioner  against Shrimati Indira  Nehru  Gandhi.
\n\t      It  was accordingly decided by them to  induce  the
\n\t      respondent No. 2 Swami Advaitanand to also stand as
\n\t      a candidate in the election.  The said Shri Yashpal
\n\t      Kapur, the election agent of Shrimati Indira  Nehru
\n\t      Gandhi  offered and paid a sum of Rs.  50,000\/-  to
\n\t      the  respondent No. 2 Swami Advaitanand as  a  gift
\n\t      with the object of directly including him to  stand
\n\t      as  a candidate at the said Selection.   The  offer
\n\t      and payment of the amount of Rs. 50,000\/- was  made
\n\t      by the said Shri Yashpal Kapur to Swami Advaitanand
\n\t      on the 28th January 1971 in the town of Rae Barlow.
\n\t      A\t corrupt practice of ‘bribery under  section  123
\n\t      (1)  (A)\t(a) was thus committed\tby  Shri  Yashpal
\n\t      Kapur,  election agent of Sm.  Indira Nehru  Gandhi
\n\t      and her election is therefore liable to be declared
\n\t      void under section 100 (1 ) of the R.P. Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is true that the election petition nowhere\tspecifically  say
\n,as to when the appellant became a “candidate”.\t\t  But  it
\nis clear
\n847<\/span>
\nfrom a reading of paragraphs 5 and 6 that according to the appel-
\nlant,  the  respondent became a “candidate” even before\t she  was
\nnominated  on  February 1, 1971.  The petition proceeds\t on  that
\nbasis.\t It is not clear from the petition that how  long  before
\nher  nomination ,he respondent held herself out as a  prospective
\ncandidate.  But all the same, it is obvious from those\taverments
\nthat the respondent is alleged to have obtained the assistance of
\nYashpal\t Kapur\twhen he continued to be a gazetted.  officer  for
\norganizing her electioneering work.  The expression “electioneer-
\ning”  is  explained in Universal English Dictionary  as\t “act  of
\ncanvassing for votes, speaking in public and otherwise\tpromoting
\nthe election of a particular candidate for Parliament”.
\nReference  to Yashpal Kapur as an election agent on a date  prior
\nto  the date when he was appointed as such-his nomination Lis  an
\nelection  agent could not have been done before February 1,  1971
\nis clearly a misnomer but that is irrelevant.  The in paragraph 5
\nof  the election petition that Yashpal appellants  organised  the
\nelectioneeing work in the constituency a at the direction of  the
\nrespondent even before her nomination and agent the reference  to
\nher  candidature in January in paragraph shall that according  to
\nthe petitioner ‘the respondent was a “candidate” even before  her
\nnomination  and.  further  that she obtained  the  assistance  of
\nYashpal Kapur when he was still a gazetted officer.  There is  no
\ngainsayirng   the  fact\t that  the  election  petition\twas   not
\nartistically drawn LIP.\t That unfortunately is the case with most
\nof our pleadings.  But if the petition is read reasonably, as  it
\nshould it is clear that the allegation of the petitioner is  that
\nthe service of Yashpal Kapur were obtained by the respondent when
\nshe  had already become a candidate and when she so obtained  his
\nassistance,  Yashpal Kapur was still a gazetted officer.’  It  is
\ntrue (hat one of the ingredients of the corrupt practice  alleged
\ni.c. that when ‘the respondent obtained the assistance of  Kapur,
\nshe  was a candidate is not specifically set out in the\t petition
\nbut  from  ‘the\t allegations  made,  it\t flows\tas  a\tnecessary
\nimplication.   While  a corrupt practice has got to  be\t strictly
\nproved\tbut  from that it does not follow that a pleading  in  an
\nelection  preceding should receive a strict  construction.   This
\nCourt  has held that even a defective charge does not  vitiate\ta
\ncriminal  trial unless it is proved that the same has  prejudiced
\nthe  accused.  If a pleading on a reasonable  construction  could
\nsustain\t the action, the court should accept  that  construction.
\nThe  courts  are reluctant to frustrate an  action  on\ttechnical
\ngrounds.   The\tcharge of corrupt practice in an election  ‘Is\ta
\nvery  serious charge.  Purity of election is the very essence  of
\nreal  democracy.  The charge in question has been denied  by  the
\nrespondent.   It  has  yet to be proved.  It may or  may  not  be
\nproved.\t The allegations made by the appellant may ultimately the
\nproved to be wholly devoid of truth.  But
\n848<\/span>
\nthe question is whether the appellant should be refused an oppor-
\ntunity to prove his allegations ? Should the court refuse to  en-
\nquire  into  those allegations merely because  the  appellant  or
\nSomeone\t who prepared his brief did not know the language of  the
\nlaw.   We have no hesitation in answering those questions in  the
\nnegative.  The implications of the rule of law are manifold.
\nIt  was contended on behalf of the respondent that  the\t relevant
\nprovisions  of the Act precluded the appellant from  proving  his
\nallegations.   Therefore let us look at those provisions  in  the
\nAct i.e. Clauses (a) and (b) of S. 83(1) and cl. (5) of s. 86 for
\nfinding\t out  whether the charge has to be  rejected  in  limine.
\nSection 8 3 (1 ) (a) and (b) read
\n\t      “(1) An election petition-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)   shall  contain  a concise  statement  of  the
\n\t      material facts on which the petitioner relies;\n<\/p>\n
\t      (b)   shall  set\tforth  full  particulars  of  any
\n\t      corrupt  practice\t that  the  petitioner\t alleges,
\n\t      including\t as full a statement as possible  of  the
\n\t      names  of\t (the parties alleged to  have\tcommitted
\n\t      such corrupt practice and the date and place of the
\n\t      commission of each such practice.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Sub-s. (5) of s. 86 prescribes :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The High Court may upon such terms as to costs and
\n\t      otherwise as it may deem fit, allow the particulars
\n\t      of any corrupt practice alleged in the petition  to
\n\t      be  amended or amplified in such manner as  may  in
\n\t      its  o pinion be necessary for ensuring a fair  and
\n\t      effective trial of the petition but shall not allow
\n\t      any  amendment of the petition which will have  the
\n\t      effect  of  introducing particulars  of  a  corrupt
\n\t      practice not previously alleged in the petition.”
\nFrom  these  two provisions, it follows that if\t the  allegations
\nmade regarding a corrupt practice do not disclose the constituent
\nparts  of  the\tcorrupt practice alleged, the same  will  not  be
\nallowed\t to  be proved and further those  allegations  cannot  be
\namended\t after\tthe period of limitation for filing  an\t election
\npetition-,  but\t the court may allow particulars of  any  corrupt
\npractice alleged in the petition to be amended or amplified.  The
\nscope  of these provisions has been considered in  several  deci-
\nsions  of  this\t Court.\t The leading decision on  this\tpoint  is
\nHarish\tindra Bajpai v. Trilok Singh(1).  It is not necessary  to
\ngo  to\tthat  decision as the ratio of that  decisions\thas  been
\nelaborately
\n(1)  [1957] S.C.R. 370.\n<\/p>\n
849<\/span><\/p>\n
explained  by this Court in Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v.  George
\nFernandez and ors. etc.(1). Dealing with the scope of ss. 83  and
\n86(5), this Court observed that s. 83 requires that the\t petition
\nmust  contain a concise statement of the material facts on  which
\nthe  petitioner\t relies and the fullest possible  particulars  of
\nthe,   corrupt\t practice   alleged.\t‘Material   facts’    and
\n‘particulars’ may overlap but the word ‘material’ shows that  the
\nground of corrupt practice and the facts necessary to formulate a
\ncomplete  cause, of action must be stated.  The function  of  the
\nparticulars  is\t to  present as full a picture of  the\tcause  of
\naction as to make the opposite party understand the case he  will
\nhave  to meet.\tUnders. 86(5), if corrupt practice is alleged  in
\nthe  petition,\tthe particulars of such corrupt practice  may  be
\namended\t or  amplified for ensuring a fair and\teffective  trial,
\nthat  is, more and better particulars of the charge may be  given
\nlater,\teven  after the period o’ limitation; but  if  a  corrupt
\npractice is not previously alleged in the petition, an\tamendment
\nwhich  will have the effect of introducing particulars of such\ta
\ncorrupt\t practice  will\t not be permitted, after  the  period  of
\nlimitation,  because,  it  would tantamount  to\t making\t a  fresh
\npetition.  The same view was taken by this Court in Hardwari  Lal
\nv. Kanwal Singh<\/a>(3).  From these decisions, it follows that  facts
\nstated\tin the petition relating to any corrupt practice must  be
\nsufficient  to constitute a cause of action.  In other words  the
\nfacts must bring out all the ingredients of the corrupt\t practice
\nalleged.  If the facts stated fail to satisfy the hat  requirement
\nthen  they  do not give rise, to a triable issue. Such\ta  defect
\ncannot\tbe cured by any amendment after the period of  limitation
\nfor filing the election petition. But even if all the  material
\nfacts  are  stated in the election petition. For a  proper  trial
\nbetter\tparticulars may still be required. If  those  particulars
\nare   not  set\tout  in\t the  election\tpetition,  they\t may   be
\nincorporated   into the election petition with the permission  of
\nthe court even after the period of limitation. The controversy in
\nthis  case is whether the election petition discloses a cause  of
\naction for trying Issue\t No.   1.   We\tthink\tit   does.   The-
\nallegations  made in paragraphs 2, .5 and 6 of the  petition,  if
\nread together do show that the allegation against the  respondent
\nis that she obtained the assistance of Yashpal Kapur, a\t gazetted
\nofficer,   to\tsupport\t her  candidature   by\t organising   her
\nelectioneering\t work.\tThese  allegations  bring  out\tall   the
\ningredients  of\t the  corrupt practice alleged\tthough\tthey  are
\nlacking\t in  better  particulars such as the date  on  which  the
\nrespondent became a candidate and the date on which Yashpal Kapur
\nwas   entrusted\t with  the  responsibility  of\t organizing   the
\nelectioneering\twork  of  the respondent. The  absence\tof  those
\nparticulars  does not per se invalidate the charge. They  can  be
\nSupplied even now with the permission of the Court. In this con-
\n(1) [1969] 3 S.C.R. 603.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1972] S.C.C.  14.\n<\/p>\n
850<\/span><\/p>\n
nection\t it  is necessary to mention that the respondent  in  her
\nwritten\t statement did not say that the allegations  in\t question
\ndid not raise a triable issue.\tNo such objection appears to have
\nbeen taken at the time of the framing of the issues or in any  of
\nher pleadings.\tIt seems that the objection was taken up for  the
\nfirst\ttime when the petition to set aside  the  interrogatories
\nwas  heard.  We are saying all these only ,to show as to how  the
\nparties understood the allegations at the earlier stages, of  the
\nproceedings.\n<\/p>\n
Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and  for
\nreaching a just decision.  An action at law should not be equated
\nto a game of chess.  Provisions of law are not mere formulaes  to
\nbe observed as rituals.\t Beneath the words of a provision of law.
\ngenerally speaking,, there lies a juristic principle.  It is  the
\nduty ‘ of the court to ascertain that principle and implement it.
\nWhat  then is the principle underlying s. 86(5)?  In our  opinion
\nthe  aim  of that section is to see that a person  accused  of\ta
\ncorrupt\t practice  must know precisely what he is accused  of  so
\nthat  he  may have the opportunity to meet the\tallegations  made
\nagainst\t him.  If the accusation made is nebulous and is  capable
\nof being made use of for establishing more than one charge or  if
\nit  does not make out a corrupt practice at all then  the  charge
\nfails at the very threshold.  So long, as the charge levelled  is
\nbeyond\tdoubt.\ts. 86(5) is satisfied; rest is\tmere  refinement.
\nThey  either  pertain to the region of particulars  or\tevidence.
\nThat section is not designed to interdict a mere clumsy\t pleading
\nlike  the petition before us.  The purpose of that section is  to
\nsee  that  every  charge of corrupt practice  should  be  brought
\nbefore\tthe court before the prescribed period of limitation  and
\nnone  thereafter  so  that  the trial of  the  case  may  not  be
\nconverted  into a persecution by adding more and more charges  or
\nby converting one charg another as the trial proceeds.\tThe  best
\nillustration of the problem that s. 86(5) tries to meet is  found
\nin,  Hardwatri\tLal’s  case (supra).   The  allegations\t made  in
\nparagraph 16 of the petition ,therein were as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “That the respondent committed the corrupt practice
\n\t      of obtaining and procuring or- attempting to obtain
\n\t      and  procure the assistance for the furtherance  of
\n\t      the  prospects of his election from the  following,
\n\t      persons  who are in the service of  the  Government
\n\t      and belonging to the prohibited classes within  the
\n\t      meaning of section 123 (7)     of the Act-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      1.    Shri  Chand Ram Rathi, Lecturer in\tPolitical
\n\t      Science, Government College, Gurgaon.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       2.Shri Gulab Singh, B.A.B.Ed., Govt.  High  School
\n\t      Jharsa (Gurgaon).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      851<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      3.    Pt. Bhim Singh, Asstt.  Sub-inspector, Police
\n\t      Security Lines, Lytton Road, New Delhi.
\n\t       4 .Ch. Chhatar Singh, M.A.B.T., Teacher, V.&  P.O.
\n\t      Bharai via Bahadurgarh, District Rohtak.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      5.    Ch.\t Mukhtiar  Singh,  Inspector  of  Police,
\n\t      Delhi-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.    Ch. Raghbir Singh, M.A., B.T., Bahadurgarh.
\n\t      The  respondent has written letters under\t his  own
\n\t      signatures   to  the  above   Government\t servants
\n\t      soliciting their help and assistance in furtherance
\n\t      of the prospects of his election.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  were all the material facts stated in the petition.   From
\nthose averments, it was not possible to make out from whom  among
\nthe government servants mentioned, the returned candidate alleged
\nto  have obtained or procured assistance for the  furtherance  of
\nthe  prospects of his election and who are those from whom he  is
\nalleged\t to have attempted to obtain and procure  the  assistance
\nfor  the said purpose.\tThat petition was also silent as  regards
\nthe  type of assistance obtained or procured or attempted  to  be
\noil gained or procured.\t In that case, it was necessary to  state
\nthe  type of assistance obtained or procured or attempted  to  be
\nobtained or procured because a candidate can take the assistance.
\nof government servants in certain respects.  The allegations made
\nin the petition were so elastic that it could have been used  for
\nestablishing  multitude\t of  charges,  leaving\tit  free  to  the
\npetitioner  to pick and choose the charge he is in a position  to
\nestablish.  That was an intolerable position for his opponent. In
\nsubstance. the petitioner therein had merely quoted the\t relevant
\nprovision  of law; he bad failed to state the material fact,,  Lo
\nbring  out the charge sought to be levelled.  He had cast a  wide
\nnet.   This is not so in the case before us.  Herein all the  in-
\ngredients  of the corrupt practice viz. (1) that  the  respondent
\nobtained  the  assistance of Kapur; (2) Kapur  was  a  government
\nservant\t and  (3) his services were obtained in\t support  of  the
\ncandidature of the respondent by organising her election compaign
\nare mentioned in the petition.\tThe question when the  respondent
\nbecame a candidate is merely a matter of evidence.
\nFor the reasons mentioned above, we think that the learned  judge
\nwas not justified in striking out Issue No. 1. On the other hand.
\nhe should have reframed that issue, as mentioned earlier.  Before
\nleaving-  this\tquestion, it is necessary to  mention  one  other
\nfact.  Yashpal Kapur appears to have tendered his resignation  to
\nthe  office  he was holding on January 13, 1971.   The\tcertified
\ncopy  of  the  notification produced  shows  that  the\tPresident
\naccepted his resignation on the 25th of January ’71 and the  same
\nwas
\n852<\/span>
\ngazetted  on February 6, 1971.\tThe order of the President  shows
\nthat  he  accepted Yashpal Kapur’s resignation with  effect  from
\nJanuary 14, 1971.  The learned trial judge without examining  the
\ntrue  effect  of the President’s order has abruptly come  to  the
\nconclusion  that Yashpal Kapur’s resignation became effective  as
\nfrom January 14, 1971.\tThis conclusion, in our opinion, requires
\nre examination.\t It is necessary to examine whether a  government
\nservant’s resignation can be accepted with effect from an earlier
\ndate.  At any rate whether such an acceptance has any validity in
\nconsidering a corrupt practice under S. 123(7).\t If such a course
\nis  permissible,  it might enable the government  to  defeat  the
\nmandate\t of  S.\t 123(7).  The question as to  when  a  government
\nservant’s resignation becomes effective came up for consideration
\nby  this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India(1).   Therein  this
\nCourt ruled that when a public servant has invited by his  letter
\nof  resignation the determination of his employment, his  service
\nnormally  stands terminated from the date on which the letter  of
\nresignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and, in  the
\nabsence of any law or statutory rule governing the conditions  of
\nhis  service, to the contrary, it will not be open to the  public
\nservant\t to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by  the
\nappropriate  authority.\t  Hence the question as to  when  Yashpal
\nKapur’s\t resignation  became effective will have to  be\t examined
\nwith  reference to his conditions of service.\tThis  examination
\nhaving\tnor been done, the conclusion of the learned trial  judge
\nthat it became effective on January 14, 1971, has to be ignored.
\nFor  the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of  the  trial
\njudge  striking out Issue No. 1 and the last part of  Issue  No.3
\nand restore Issue No. 1 as amended by us.\n<\/p>\n
Now  coming  to the appeal against the’ order  on  the\tamendment
\napplication,  the learned trial judge disallowed  the  amendments
\nsought\ton the sole ground that if those amendments are\t allowed,
\nit  will amount to amending the statement of material  facts  and
\nThe same is not permissible in view of S. 86(5).  We have already
\nfound  that  that conclusion of the learned trial  judge  is  not
\ncorrect.   The\tamendment application was moved even  before  the
\ntrial of the case commenced.  It is not shown how the  amendments
\nsought\tin  respect  of paragraphs 2 and 5 of  the  petition  can
\nprejudice the case of the respondent.  They are merely clarifica-
\ntory in character.  This Court ruled in Shri Balwan Singh v. Shri
\nLakshmi\t Narain\t and ors.<\/a>(2) that an election  petition\t was  not
\nliable\tto  be dismissed in limine because  full  particulars  of
\ncorrupt\t practice alleged were not set out.  It further\t observed
\nthat  if an objection was taken and the tribunal was of the  view
\nthat the full particulars have not been set out, the.  petitioner
\nhad
\n(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R.857.\n<\/p>\n
(2) [1960] 3 S.C. R. 9 1.\n<\/p>\n
853<\/span><\/p>\n
to  be given an opportunity to amend or amplify the  particulars.
\nIt  was\t only in the event of non-compliance with  the\torder  to
\nsupply the particulars that the charge which remained vague could
\nbe  struck out.\t In that case The amendment was sought after  the
\nevidence  was closed in the case.  This Court allowed  the  same.
\nCourts are ordinarily liberal in allowing amendment of\tpleadings
\nunless it results in prejudicing the case of the opposite  party.
\nAny  inconvenience caused by an amendment can always  be  compen-
\nsated  by costs.  We think that the amendments asked for,  should
\nhave  been Allowed and we allow the same.  The election\t petition
\nwill  be accordingly amended and the respondent will be\t afforded
\nan  opportunity to file any additional written statement, if  she
\nso desires.\n<\/p>\n
as 31 interrogatories have been served on the respondent as  men-
\ntioned\tearlier.   Out of them Nos. 24 to 30 have  been\t allowed,
\nHence  we need not consider them.  Interrogatories Nos. 19 to  23
\nrelate to Issue No. 2. Therefore they are rightly struck out.  We
\nnow  come  to  interrogatories Nos.  1 to 18  and  31.\t We  have
\ncarefully examined those interrogatories.  None of them touch the
\ncore  of  the allegations relating to commission of  the  corrupt
\npractice which is the subject matter of Issue No. 1. They  merely
\ntouch the fringe of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
Order XI, r. 1, C.P.C. provides
\n\t      “In any suit the plaintiff or defendant by leave of
\n\t      the  Court may deliver interrogatories  in  writing
\n\t      for the examination of the opposite parties or  any
\n\t      one   or\t more\tof   such   parties   and    such
\n\t      interrogatories when delivered shall have a note at
\n\t      the   foot   thereof   stating   which   of    such
\n\t      interrogatories each of such person is required  to
\n\t      answer;  Provided that no party shall deliver  more
\n\t      than  one set of interrogatories to the same  party
\n\t      without an order for that purpose.\n<\/p>\n
\t      Provided\talso  that interrogatories which  do  not
\n\t      relate to any matters in question in the suit shall
\n\t      be  deemed  irrelevant, notwithstanding  that  they
\n\t      might  be admissible on the oral\tcross-examination
\n\t      of a witness.”\n<\/p>\n
Questions  that may be relevant during cross-examination are  not
\nnecessarily relevant as interrogatories.  The only questions that
\nare  relevant  as  interrogatories are\tthose  relating\t to  “any
\nmatters\t in  question”.\t The interrogatories  served  must  have,
\nreasonably  close connection with “matters in question”.   Viewed
\nthus,  interrogatories\t1  to 18 as well as 31 must  be\t held  to
\nirrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
854<\/span><\/p>\n
In  the\t result Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 is\t allowed  to  the
\nextent mentioned above.\t In other respects the same is dismissed.
\nCivil APpeal No. .109 of 1972 is allowed in full.  In the circum-
\nstances of these cases, we make no order as to costs.
\nK. B. N.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1972 allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
Civil Appeal No. 109 of 1972 allowed.\n<\/p>\n
855<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1972 AIR 1302, 1972 SCR (3) 841 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: RAJ NARAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: SMT. INDIRA NEHRU GANDHI AND ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT15\/03\/1972 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. REDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-146772","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRaj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-25T19:37:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"29 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T19:37:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\"},\"wordCount\":4894,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\",\"name\":\"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-03-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T19:37:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-25T19:37:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"29 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972","datePublished":"1972-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T19:37:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972"},"wordCount":4894,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972","name":"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-03-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T19:37:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/raj-narain-vs-smt-indira-nehru-gandhi-and-anr-on-15-march-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Raj Narain vs Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi And Anr on 15 March, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146772","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=146772"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/146772\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=146772"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=146772"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=146772"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}