{"id":217137,"date":"1962-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962"},"modified":"2017-09-30T11:12:45","modified_gmt":"2017-09-30T05:42:45","slug":"inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962","title":{"rendered":"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1156, \t\t 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 114<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nINDER LAL\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nLAL SINGH\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n08\/02\/1962\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR 1156\t\t  1962 SCR  Supl. (3) 114\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1965 SC 677\t (7)\n RF\t    1966 SC 773\t (20)\n RF\t    1967 SC 808\t (15)\n RF\t    1970 SC1231\t (14)\n E\t    1970 SC2097\t (262,313)\n RF\t    1971 SC1262\t (17)\n\n\nACT:\nElection-Corrupt  Practice-False  Statement in\trelation  to\npersonal   character  or  conduct  of  candidate   Statement\nalleging   purchasing  of  votes-If  relates   to   personal\ncharacter-Representation  of  the People Act,  1951  (43  of\n1951), s. 123 (4).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nRespondent  1  was  declared  elected  to  the\t Legislative\nAssembly.   His election was challenged, inter alia, on\t the\nground\tthat he had committed the corrupt practice under  S.\n123 (4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 of  making\nfalse  statements in relation to the personal  character  or\nconduct of Respondent 2, a defeated candidate The statements\nwere  contained\t in  a\tpamphlet  issued  by  the  agent  of\nRespondent  1 with his consent.\t Among other statements\t the\npamphlet  contained a false statement that the Respondent  2\nwits  \"purchaser of the opponents of the Congress  by  means\n(if  money\".   Respondent  1 contended\tthat  the  statement\nrelated to the public or political character of Respondent 2\nand  not  to his private character and did not\tfall  within\ntake mischief of s. 123 (4).\nHeld,  that the statement related to the personal  character\nof  Respondent 2 and Respondent 1 was guilty of the  corrupt\npractice  under\t s.  123  (4) of  the  Act.   The  offending\nstatement amounted to an allegation that Respondent 2 bought\nthe  votes  of\tthe opponents of the  Congress\tby  offering\nbribes.\t  Bribery  was\titself a  corrupt  practice  and  an\nallegation  of bribery involved moral turpitude and  clearly\nand   unequivocally  affected  the  private   character\t  of\nRespondent 2.\n 115\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 280 of 1961.
\nAppeal\tby special leave from the judgment and\torder  dated
\nAugust\t2, 1960, of the Rajasthan High Court in D. E.  Civil
\nMisc. (Election) Appeal, No. 1 of 1960.\n<\/p>\n
G.S. Pathak, A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. N. Andley and P.
\nL. Vohra, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
G. C. Mathur, for the respondent No. 2.\n<\/p>\n
1962.\tFebruary 8. The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR., J.-This appeal by special leave arises\t out
\nof  an election petition filed by the appellant\t challenging
\nthe validity of the election of respondent No. 1, Lal  Singh
\non  several  grounds.  The appellant is an  elector  in\t the
\nChittorgarh  Constituency and the election which led to\t the
\npresent petition was held in March. 1957, for the  Rajasthan
\nLegislative  Assembly  from  the said  constituency.   As  a
\nresult\tof  the election, respondent No. 1 was\tdeclared  to
\nhave been duly elected on the 11th March, 1957.\t He  secured
\n7272  votes  whereas  respondent  No.  2  Laxman  Singh\t s\/o
\nMaharawal Sir Bijey Singh secured 7261 votes and  respondent No.  3 Chhoga
\nlal secured 569 votes.\tThe  appellant’s  case
\nwas that respondent No. 1’s election wag invalid inasmuch as
\nhe  had\t practiced corrupt practices at the  said  election.
\nAccording  to  the appellant, respondent No. 1\tprocured  or
\nabetted or attempted to procure either by himself or by\t his
\nagents\tor by other persons with his connivance or  that  of
\nhis agents the reception of invalid votes and as a result of
\nthe  said  votes,  the\tresult\tof  the\t Election  had\tbeen
\nmaterially  affected  The  appellant stated  in\t detail\t the
\nmanner\tin which the said invalid votes bad  been  procured.
\nThe  appellant\tfurther pleaded that respondent No.  1,\t his
\nagents\tand other persons with the connivance of  respondent
\nNo. 1 or that of his agents published such
\n116<\/span>
\nstatements of facts (Exts. 3 & 6) which were false and which
\nthey  either believed to be false or did not believe to\t “be
\ntrue,  in relation to the personal character or\t conduct  of
\nrespondent No.2 which were likely to prejudice the  prospect
\nof  respondent\tNo. 2 at the election.\tIt is on  these\t two
\ngrounds\t that the appellant claimed a declaration  that\t the
\nelection  of respondent No. 1 was invalid.  He also  claimed
\nthat  respondent  No.  2 should be  declared  to  have\tbeen
\nvalidly elected.\n<\/p>\n
Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement supporting\t the
\npetition  but he did not appear before the Tribunal  at\t the
\nhearing.   Respondent  No. 3 did not appear  at\t all,  while
\nrespondent  No.\t 1 denied all the allegations  made  by\t the
\nappellant and contended that the election petition filed  by
\nthe appellant should be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t pleadings  of the parties,  the  Election  Tribunal
\nframed as many as 26 issues.  In substance it held that\t the
\nseveral allegations made by the appellant in respect of\t the
\nreceipt\t of  invalid votes bad not been proved\tand  so\t the
\nfirst  ground  on  which respondent  No.  1’s  election\t was
\nchallenged  by appellant, could not succeed.  In  regard  to
\nthe  second ground on which respondent No. 1’s election\t was
\nchallenged  by the appellant, the Tribunal held that Ext.  3
\nhad been published by the agent of respondent No. 1 but\t not
\nwith  his  express  consent and in regard  to  Ext.  6,\t the
\nTribunal  was not satisfied that, it had been  published  by
\nrespondent  No.\t 1’s  agent.  That is how  even\t the  second
\nground\tmade  by  the appellant disputing  the\tvalidity  of
\nrespondent No. 1’s election did not succeed.  In the result,
\nthe election petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Against the said decision, the appellant preferred an appeal
\nin  the Rajasthan High Court.  The High Court confirmed\t the
\nfinding of the Tribunal on the first point in regard to\t the
\nreceipt\t of invalid votes.  It is true that the\t High  Court
\nwas not
\n117<\/span>
\nsatisfied  with\t the  approach adopted by  the\tTribunal  in
\ndealing with this part of the case and it thought that\tsome
\nof  the\t reasons  given by the Tribunal in  support  of\t its
\nconclusions were not satisfactory.  Even, so, the High Court
\nfelt  that the final conclusion of the Tribunal was, on\t the
\nwhole,\tcorrect\t and need not be reversed.   Thus  both\t the
\nTribunal  and the High Court have recorded findings  against
\nthe appellant on the first part of his case.
\nIn regard to the second contention raised by the  appellant,
\nthe  High  Court has accepted the finding  of  the  Tribunal
\nabout  the  publication of Ext. 3. In regard  to  the  other
\ndocument Ext. 6, the High Court has reversed the  conclusion
\nof  the\t Tribunal and hold that the said document  had\tbeen
\npublished for the benefit of respondent No. 1 and  differing
\nfrom the view taken by the Tribunal, the High Court has hold
\nthat the Publication of both the pamphlets was with  consent
\nof  respondent\tNo. 1 and so was outside the purview  of  s.
\n100(2)\tof the Representation of the People Act 1951 (43  of
\n1951) (hereinafter called the Act).  Having thus found\tthat
\nthe  two  pamphlets  had  been published  by  the  agent  of
\nrespondent  No.1  and  with  his  consent,  the\t High  Court
\npreceded to examine the question as to whether the  material
\nallegations  made  against  respondent No.  2  by  the\tsaid
\npamphlets were true or false.  The High Court bold that\t the
\nsaid  material\tallegations were false and it came  to\tthe-
\nconclusion that they were calculated to effect prejudicially
\nthe  prospects of the election of respondent No.2. The\tHigh
\nCourt  was however, not satisfied that the said\t allegations
\nhad  relation  to  the\tpersonal  character  or\t conduct  of
\nrespondent  No. 2 and so it held that the  corrupt  practice
\nalleged\t by  the appellant against respondent No. 2  on\t the
\nstrength  of the said two pamphlets under s. 123(4)  of\t the
\nact  had  not been proved., The result was that\t though\t the
\nHigh Court differed from the Election Tribunal in regard  to
\nsome of the findings recorded
\n118<\/span>
\nby   the  Tribunal  on\tthe  second  ground,  its   ultimate
\nconclusion was the same as that of the Tribunal.  The appeal
\npreferred by the appellant was accordingly dismissed.  It is
\nagainst this order that the appellant has come to this Court
\nby Special leave.\n<\/p>\n
In  this appeal, the only question which we are called\tupon
\nto  consider  is  whether  the\ttwo  pamphlets\tjustify\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe  appellant that  respondent\t No.  1\t has
\ncommitted a corrupt practice under s. 153(4).  The  question
\nas   to\t whether  respondent  No.  1’s\telection  has\tbeen
\nmaterially  assisted  by the receipt of\t invalid  votes,  is
\nconcluded  by concurrent finding of’ fact  recorded  against
\nthe  appellant\tand  so we have not allowed  Mr.  Sastri  to
\ndispute the correctness of that finding.\n<\/p>\n
Before dealing with the short point raised for our  decision
\nunder  s. 123(4) of the Act, it is necessary to set out\t the
\nmaterial  portion of the pamphlets on which the\t appellant’s
\ncase of corrupt practice is based.  The relevant portion  in
\nthe  pamphlet  Ext.  3 to which objection is  taken  by\t the
\nappellant reads thus .-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)  Enemy of Democracy?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (2)   Agent  of the foreigners strangling\t the
\n\t      freedom of Bharat?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (3)   Supporter\tand  collaborator   of\t the
\n\t      conspiracy of Pakistani attack on Bharat?
\n\t      (4)   Bringer  of tyrannical rule of Rajas  in
\n\t      Rajasthan?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (5)   Destroyer  of  Hindu  Muslim  unity\t  by
\n\t      raising the slogan of Ram Rajya?
\n\t      (6)   Purchaser\tof  the\t opponents  of\t the
\n\t      Congress by means of Money?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      119<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      “Maharawal  of Dangarpur, Shri  Laxman  Singh,
\n\t      who  was\tdefeated  in the  last\telection  by
\n\t      thousands\t of votes, has come to\tmislead\t the
\n\t      people  of Chittor, has come to push back\t the
\n\t      backward district of Chittor by 100 years, has
\n\t      come  to destroy the peace and tranquility  of
\n\t      Chittor under cover of communal  organisation,
\n\t      has  come\t to provide means to the  public  to
\n\t      spend  their  hard earned\t money\ton  drinking
\n\t      orgies,  has  come  to  intensify\t again\t the
\n\t      tyranny  of Raja Maharajas in  Rajasthan,\t has
\n\t      come  to\tmake  a\t gift  of  Kashmir  to\t the
\n\t      aggressor Pakistan, has come to enslave  India
\n\t      again  by\t collaborating\twith  Pakistan\t and
\n\t      Pakistan’s  friends.  He is a friend  of\tRaja
\n\t      Maharajas\t and  an enemy\tof  cultivators\t and
\n\t      laborers.\t   He\twants  to  grant   land\t  to
\n\t      Bhooswamis  and thereby oust  the\t cultivators
\n\t      and wants to establish once more his pagent by
\n\t      exploitation    of   the\t hard\tlabour\t  of
\n\t      cultivators.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  other pamphlet contains substantially the same  portion
\nand so it need not be reproduced.\n<\/p>\n
It is urged for the appellant that in describing  respondent
\nNo.  2 as the agent of foreigners strangling the freedom  of
\nBharat. the personal character of respondent No. 2 has\tbeen
\nfalsely and adversely criticised.  The same comment is\tmade
\nin  respect  of the description of respondent No. 2  as\t the
\nsupporter  and collaborator of the conspiracy  of  Pakistani
\nattack\ton Bharat and in support of this argument,  reliance
\nhas  been  placed on the further statement in  the  pamphlet
\nthat respondent No. 2 had come to make a gift of Kashmir  to
\nthe  aggressor\tPakistan and had come to  enslave  India  by
\ncollaborating  with Pakistan and Pakistan’s friends.  It  is
\nalso  argued  that  describing\trespondent  No.\t 2  as\t the
\npurchaser  of  the  opponents of the Congress  by  means  of
\nmoney, attracts the provisions of 123 (4).   It is mainly on
\nthese three allegations in the
\n120<\/span>
\npamphlet  that\tthe  case of the  appellant  rests  and\t the
\nargument  is that by making these allegations,\tthe  private
\ncharacter of respondent No. 2 has been falsely vilified\t and
\nthat  the  said vilification was  reasonably  calculated  to
\nprejudice the prospects of his election.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t other\thand, for respondent No. 1  Mr.\t Mathur\t who
\nappeared amicus curaie at our request has contended that the
\nthree allegations, though false, cannot be said to touch  or
\neffect\tthe  private character of respondent No. 2.  He\t has
\nargued\tthat in dealing with s. 123 (4), it is necessary  to
\nmake a distinction between the personal or private character
\nor  conduct  of\t a candidate and  his  public  or  political
\ncharacter.   Mr.  Mathur’s  contention is  that\t though\t the
\ncriticism  made\t against respondent No. 2  by  the  impugned
\npamphlet may be extravagant, unreasonable. and false, it  is
\nnevertheless  criticism made against him in his\t public\t and
\npolitical  character  and  as such, a.\t123  (4)  cannot  be
\ninvoked.\n<\/p>\n
It is, therefore, necessary to determine the true scope\t and
\neffect of the relevant provision in a. 123 (4).\t Section 123
\ndeals  with  corrupt  practices and  amongst  them,  is\t the
\ncorrupt\t practice  specified by subjection (4).\t  That\tsub-
\nsection reads thus :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The  publication by a candidate or his  agent
\n\t      or  by any other person, of any  statement  of
\n\t      fact  which  is  false, and  which  he  either
\n\t      believes to be false or does not believe to be
\n\t      true, in relation to the personal character or
\n\t      conduct  of any candidate, or in\trelation  to
\n\t      the candidature, or withdrawal, or  retirement
\n\t      from  contest,  of  any  candidate,  being   a
\n\t      statement\t reasonably calculated to  prejudice
\n\t      the prospects of that candidates election.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It would thus be seen that the publication in question\tmust
\nbe by a candidate or his agent or by any other person ;\t the
\nsaid publication should be
\n 121<\/span>
\nin regard to a statement of fact which is false and which he
\neither believes to be false or does not believe to be true ;
\nthat  it  must have relation to the  personal  character  or
\nconduct\t of  the candidate, or should have relation  to\t the
\ncandidature  with  drawl or retirement from contest  of\t any
\ncandidate  and\tthat  it should be  a  statement  reasonably
\ncalculated  to prejudice the prospects of  that\t candidate’s
\nelection.   All the requirements of this subsection,  except
\none, are held to have been satisfied by the High Court.\t The
\nonly  requirement  of  the sub-section which  has  not\tbeen
\nsatisfied according to the High Court is that the  statement
\nhas  no\t relation to the personal character  or\t conduct  of
\nrespondent  No. 2. Mr. Sastri contends that this finding  of
\nthe High Court is erroneous in law.\n<\/p>\n
It would be noticed that in prescribing the requirement that
\nthe  false  statement should have relation to  the  personal
\ncharacter of the candidate, a distinction is intended to  be
\ndrawn  between the personal character of the  candidate\t and
\nhis public or political character.  The provision postulates
\nthat if a false statement is made in regard to the public or
\npolitical   character  of  the\tcandidate,  it\t would\t not
\nconstitute  a  corrupt\tpractice even if  it  is  likely  to
\nPrejudice the prospects of that candidate’s ‘election.\tThis
\nassumption  is\tpresumably  based on  the  theory  that\t the
\nelectorate being politically educated and mature, would\t not
\nbe  deceived  by  a false criticism against  the  public  or
\npolitical  character  of  any  candidate.   The\t public\t and
\npolitical  character of a candidate in open to\tpublic\tview
\nand  public criticism and even if any false  statements\t are
\nmade about the political views of a candidate or his  public
\nconduct or character, the electorate would be able to  judge
\non the merits and may not be misled  the allegations  by any
\nfalse allegations in that behalf.  It is on this theory that
\nfalse  statements of fact effecting the public or  political
\ncharacter of a candidate are not brought
\n122<\/span>
\nwithin\tthe  mischief  of ss. 123(4).\tIn  order  that\t the
\nelections   should  be\tfree,  it  is  necessary  that\t the
\nelectorate  should  be\teducated on political  issues  in  a
\nfearless  manner and so, the Legislature thought that  full
\nand  ample  scope  should  be left  for\t free  and  fearless
\ncriticism  by  candidates against the public  and  political
\ncharacter of their opponents.\n<\/p>\n
But  the  position with regard to the  private\tor  personal
\ncharacter  of the candidate is very different.\t Circulation
\nof false statements about the private or personal  character
\nof  the candidate during the period preceding  elections  is
\nlikely\tto  work  against the  freedom\tof  election  itself
\ninasmuch as the effect created by false statements cannot be
\nmet by denials in proper time and so the Constituency has to
\nbe   protected\tagainst\t the  circulation  of\tsuch   false
\nstatements  which  are likely to effect the  voting  of\t the
\nelectors.   That  is  why it is for the\t protection  of\t the
\nconstituency  against  acts  which would  be  fatal  to\t the
\nfreedom\t of  election  that the\t statute  provides  for\t the
\ninclusion of the circulation of false statements  concerning
\nthe  private  character\t of  a\tcandidate  amongst   corrupt
\npractices.   Dissemination  of false  statements  about\t the
\npersonal character of a candidate thus constitutes a corrupt
\npractice.\n<\/p>\n
Though\tit is clear that the statute wants to make  a  broad
\ndistinction  between public and political character  on\t the
\none  hand and private character on the other, it is  obvious
\nthat a sharp and clear-cut dividing line cannot be drawn  to
\ndistinguish  the  one  from the\t other,\t In  discussing\t the
\ndistinction  between  the private character and\t the  public
\ncharacter, sometimes reference is made to the “‘man  beneath
\nthe  politician” and it is said that if a statement of\tfact
\naffects\t the man beneath the politician it  touches  private
\ncharacter  and\tif it affects the politician.  It  does\t not
\ntouch  his  private  character.\t There\tmay  be\t some  false
\nstatements   of\t fact  which  clearly  affect  the   private
\ncharacter of
\n123<\/span>
\nthe  candidate\t;  if, for instance, it\t is  said  that\t the
\ncandidate is a cheat or murderer there can be no doubt\tthat
\nthe  statement\tis in regard to his  private  character\t and
\nconduct\t and  so if the statement is shown to be  false,  it
\nwould  undoubtedly be a corrupt practice Similarly,  if\t the
\neconomic policy of the party to which the candidate  belongs
\nor  its\t political  ideology is falsely\t criticised  and  in
\nstrong\twords  it  is suggested that  the  said\t policy\t and
\nideology  would cause the ruin of the country, that  clearly
\nwould  be  criticism,  though  false,  against\tthe   public
\ncharacter  of the candidate and his political party  and  as
\nsuch,  it would be outside the purview of the statute.\t But
\nthere  may  be\toases on the  border-line  where  the  false
\nstatement may affect both the politician and the man beneath
\nthe politician and it is precisely in dealing with cases  on
\nthe border-line that difficulties are experienced in  deter-
\nmining\twhether the impugned false statement  constitutes  a
\ncorrupt practice or not.  If, for instance, it is said\tthat
\nin his public life, the candidate has utilised his  position
\nfor the selfish purpose of securing jobs for his  relations,
\nit may be argued that it is criticism against the  candidate
\nin his public character and it may also be suggested that it
\nnevertheless  affects his private character.  Therefore,  it
\nis  clear  that in dealing with\t corrupt  practices  alleged
\nunder  is.  123(4) where we are concerned  with\t border-line
\ncases,\twe will have to draw a working line  to\t distinguish
\nprivate character from public character and it may also have
\nto be borne in mind that in some cases, the false  statement
\nmay  affect  both the private and the  public  character  as
\nwell.\n<\/p>\n
In  the present case, we are satisfied that  the  allegation
\nmade in the pamphlet that respondent No. 2 is a purchaser of
\nthe  opponents\tof the Congress by means  of  money  clearly
\nattracts the
\n124<\/span>
\nprovisions  of\tss. 123(4).  In plain terms,  the  statement
\namounts\t to  an allegation that respondent No.\t2  buys\t by
\noffering bribes the votes of the opponents of’ the Congress.
\nBribery\t is  itself a a corrupt practice and if it  is\tsaid
\nagainst a candidate that the practices the corrupt  practice
\nof  buying  the votes of the opponents of  the\tCongress  by
\nmeans of bribery, that clearly and unequivocally affects his
\nprivate\t  character.   Offering\t a  bribe  in  an   election
\nintroduces  an element of moral turpitude and it  cannot  be
\ndenied that a person who offers bribe loses reputation as an
\nindividual in the eyes of the public.  The statement alleges
\nthat the bribes are offered by respondent No. 2 for the pur-
\npose of election and in that sense it may be that it is\t his
\npublic\tcharacter which is falsely criticised.\t But,in\t our
\nopinion,  it  would be idle to contend that it\tis  a  false
\nstatement  only against the public character  of  respondent
\nNo. 2. Having regard to the moral turpitude involved in\t the
\noffering   of\tthe bribe,  the\t statement   in\t  question
\nundoubtedly   affects\this  private  character\t  as   well.
\nUnfortunately,\tin dealing with this point, the\t High  Court
\ndoes  not appear to have considered this statement  at\tall.
\nIt  has dealt with this problem in very general\t terms.\t  It
\nhas  observed that the impugned statements all refer to\t the
\nMaharawal  as one of those various persons of his class\t who
\nas  a  body appear to be responsible in the opinion  of\t the
\nwriter\tfor  the  political mischiefs  referred\t to  in\t the
\nstatements,  land  that a general reading  of  the  document
\nshows  that  the  attack  upon him is a\t part  of  a  bigger
\nOrganisation  of individuals who do not appear to be as\t the
\nwriter\tthinks,\t well inclined towards the progress  of\t the
\ncountry.   It  is perfectly true that in  dealing  with\t the
\ncontention  that  the  false  statement\t contained  in\t the
\npamphlet amounts to a corrupt practice under as. 123(4),  it
\nis  necessary  to  read\t the  document\tas  a  whole  before
\ndetermining  the  effect  of  any  particular  objectionable
\nstatement.\n<\/p>\n
125<\/span><\/p>\n
But reading the document as a whole, we see no justification
\nwhatever  for the view expressed by the High Court that\t the
\ncriticism  made in the document is, directed against a\tbody
\nof  persons and not against respondent No. 2  himself.\t The
\nfailure of the High Court to deal with the several  specific
\nstatements on which the argument of the appellant is  based,
\nhas introduced a serious infirmity in its final\t conclusion.
\nIf only the High Court had considered whether the allegation
\nthat respondent No. 2 was the purchaser of opponents of\t the
\nCongress  by means of money, we are inclined to\t think\tthat
\nthe High Court would not have brushed aside. the appellant’s
\ncase with the general observations which it has made in\t its
\njudgment.   We are, therefore, satisfied that the  appellant
\nis  right in contending that the false statement of fact  to
\nwhich  we have just referred constitutes a corrupt  practice
\nunder as. 123(4) of the Act.  In that view of the matter, it
\nis  unnecessary\t to  consider  whether\tthe  other  impugned
\nstatements  of\tfact  also ,attract the\t provisions  of\t as.
\n123(4).\n<\/p>\n
In the result we must reverse the finding of the High  Court
\nthat   publication  of\tthe  impugned  pamphlets  does\t not
\nconstitute a corrupt practice under as. 123(4).\t The  result
\nof  this  conclusion  inevitably is  that  the\telection  of
\nrespondent  No.\t 1 must be declared to\tbe  invalid  because
\nthere  is no doubt that the corrupt practice proved in\tthis
\ncase  falls under section 191(b) and is outside the  purview
\nof section 100(2).\n<\/p>\n
That takes to us the question as to whether respondent No. 2
\ncan be declared to have been validly elected at the election
\nin  question.  This question will have to be decided in\t the
\nlight of provisions of section 101(b) of the Act.  The\tsaid
\nsection\t provides, inter alia, that “‘if any person who\t has
\nlodged\ta petition has, in addition to calling\tin  question
\nthe election. of the returned candidate,
\n126<\/span>
\nclaimed a declaration that any other candidate has been duly
\nelected\t and  the Tribunal is of opinion that  but  for\t the
\nvotes  obtained\t by  such  returned  candidate\tby   corrupt
\npractices  such\t other\tcandidate  would  have\tobtained   a
\nmajority  of  the  valid votes,\t the  Tribunal\tshall  after
\ndeclaring the election of the returned candidate to be\tvoid
\ndeclare\t such  other candidate to have been  duly  elected.”
\nThis question has not been considered by the High Court\t and
\nit cannot be decided unless the relevant facts are  examined
\non the merits and that normally would mean our remanding the
\ncase  to  the High Court for the decision of  the  point  in
\naccordance  with law.  We do not, however, propose to  adopt
\nsuch a course in view of the fact that it would be futile to
\ngive  any  further  ‘lease of life to  this  petition.\t The
\nelection which is challenged took place in 1957 and in\tfact
\nwe are now on the verge of fresh elections which would\ttake
\nplace  this month That is why we think it would\t serve\tno
\npurpose\t in sending the matter back for the decision of\t the
\nquestion as to whether on the evidence adduced in the  case,
\nrespondent  No.\t 2  can be declared  to\t have  been  validly
\nelected.\n<\/p>\n
The  result  is, the appeal is allowed and the\telection  of
\nrespondent  No. 1 is get aside.\t Since respondent No. 1\t did
\nnot appear, there would be no order as to costs.
\nAppeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n
127<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 1156, 1962 SCR Supl. (3) 114 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: INDER LAL Vs. RESPONDENT: LAL SINGH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08\/02\/1962 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. SARKAR, A.K. WANCHOO, K.N. CITATION: 1962 AIR 1156 1962 […]<\/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-217137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nInder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 - 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\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\" \/>\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=\"1962-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-09-30T05:42:45+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T05:42:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\"},\"wordCount\":3692,\"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\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\",\"name\":\"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-09-30T05:42:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 - 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\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-09-30T05:42:45+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962","datePublished":"1962-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T05:42:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962"},"wordCount":3692,"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\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962","name":"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-09-30T05:42:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/inder-lal-vs-lal-singh-on-8-february-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Inder Lal vs Lal Singh on 8 February, 1962"}]},{"@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\/217137","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=217137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217137\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}