{"id":237388,"date":"1984-01-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-01-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984"},"modified":"2018-03-30T09:51:30","modified_gmt":"2018-03-30T04:21:30","slug":"daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984","title":{"rendered":"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 621, \t\t 1984 SCR (2) 419<\/div>\n
Author: S M Fazalali<\/div>\n
Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nDAULAT RAM CHAUHAN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nANAND SHARMA\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT16\/01\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nBENCH:\nFAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA\nMISRA RANGNATH\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR  621\t\t  1984 SCR  (2) 419\n 1984 SCC  (2)\t64\t  1984 SCALE  (1)81\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1985 SC  24\t (2)\n\n\nACT:\n     Representation of\tthe People  Act 1951  (43 of  1951 )\nSections 82(b), 86 and 123(2). Election Petition-allegations\nof corrupt  practices against  two candidates-Candidates not\nimpleaded as  parties to election petition-Election petition\nwhether liable to be dismissed\n     Corrupt Practices-Allegations  of-To be  proved like  a\ncriminal charge without admitting of any doubt.\n     Practice & Procedure .\n     Pleadings in  Election Petitions-Allegations of corrupt\npractice-Necessity to be clear and specific.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent  filed an  Election Petition challenging\nthe election  of the  appellant who  was declared elected to\nthe State  Assembly on\tthe ground  that the  appellant, his\nelection agent\tand  other  persons  along  with  two  other\ncandidates   made libelous  slogans at a rally and displayed\npamphlets to alienate the- voters 1. from the respondent and\nthis constituted  a corrupt  practice within  the meaning of\nsection 123  of the  Representation of The People Act, 1951.\nupholding the . . respondent's contention the High Court set\naside the election.\n     In the  appeal to\tthis Court,  a preliminary objection\nwas raised  on behalf  of the  appellant that  since the two\ncandidates  who\t were  alleged\tto  have  committed  corrupt\npractices  had\t not  been  made  parties  to  the  Election\nPetition, the  petition should have been dismissed in limine\nfor non\t compliance with  the requirements  of section 82(b)\nread with section 86 of the Act.\n     Over-ruling the preliminary objection:\n^\n     HELD: 1.  The combined  effect  of\t section  82(b)\t and\nsection 86  of the  Act is  that once allegations of corrupt\npractice are made against a candidate it is incumbent on the\nElection petitioner to join him as a party and failure to do\nso would  lead to  the dismissal  of the  Election  Petition\nunder section  86. .  But before section 82(b) or section 86\ncould come  into play it must be proved that the allegations\nof corrupt  practice made  against the candidate amounted to\ncorrupt practices  as  contemplated  by\t the  provisions  of\nsection 123. [423 F-G]\n     2. Section\t 82(b) contains\t the salutary  provision  of\naudi alteram  partem and requires that an allegation must be\nproved to the hilt in the presence of the Person\n420\naffected, failing  which the  election petition\t will  stand\ndismissed. [426E-F]\n     3. Tn  order that an act of the candidate may amount to\na corrupt  practice ,  it must\tbe committed  either by\t the\ncandidate himself, his agent OF by any other person with the\nconsent\t of   the  candidate   or  his\telection  agent.  An\nallegation  of\tcorrupt\t practice  must\t be  proved  like  a\ncriminal charge without admitting of any doubt. [424 C]\n     4 The  Election Petition  must  contain  the  following\npleadings:  (1)\t  Direct  and  detailed\t nature\t of  corrupt\npractices as  defined in  the  Act,  (2)  details  of  every\nimportant  particularly\t  ex.  the  time,  place,  names  of\npersons, use  of words\tand expressions,  etc. (3)  that the\ncorrupt practices were indulged in by the candidate himself,\nor his authorised agent or any other person with his express\nor implied consent. [428 E-F]\n     5. A person may, due to sympathy or on his own, support\nthe candidature of a particular candidate but unless a close\nand direct nexus is proved between the act of the person and\nthe consent  given to  him by  the candidate or his election\nagent? the  same would\tnot amount  to a pleading of corrupt\npractice as  contemplated by law. It cannot be left to time,\nchance or  conjecture for  the court to draw an inference by\nadopting an  involved process  of reasoning.  The allegation\nmust be\t  clear\t and specific that the inference. Of corrupt\npractice will admit of no doubt or qualm. [428 G-H]\n     In\t the  instant  case,  it  was  shown  that  the\t two\ncandidates who participated in the rally might. have shouted\nlibelous, slogans.  But there  is nothing  to show that they\nwere election  agents or  workers of  the appellant  or that\nthey participate  or shouted  slogan with  the express\tarid\nimplied consent of the appellant. Whenever there is a rally,\ncrowd or  a gathering  a number of persons participate. That\nby itself  would. not  give rise  to an inference that their\nparticipation or  presence was at the-instance of the person\nin  whose  favour  the\tcrows  gathered\t or  the  rally\t was\norganised. [429 C-D] .\n     Udhav Singh  v. Madhav  Rao Scindia,<\/a>  [1976] 2 S. C. R.\n246; Haji  C .\tH. Mohammad  Koya v.  T.R.S.M.A.  Muthukoyd,\n[1979] 1 S.C.R. 664 and Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George\nFernandez & ors., [1969] 3 S.C.R. 603; referred to.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 453 of
\n1983,
\n     From the  Judgment and  order dated  the 28th December,
\n1981 of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Election Petition
\nNo. 112o 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     Shanti Bhushan,  N. M.  Ghatate and S. V. Deshpande for
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
     M.C. Bhandare, T. Sridharan, Ms. S. Bhandare and Ms. CK
\nSucharita for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
421<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . A
\n     FAZAL ALI,\t J. This election appeal is directed against
\na judgment  dated December  28, 1982  of the Single Judge of
\nthe Himachal  Pradesh High  Court, who\twas assigned  as  an
\nelection Judge under the provisions of the Representation of
\nthe People  Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ac-t’). The
\nappeal arises  out of  an election  to the  Himachal Pradesh
\nLegislative Assembly  from the\tSimla constituency. The poll
\nwas held  on May 19, 1982 and the result was declared on May
\n21, 1982  whereby the  appellant was  declared elected\tby a
\nmargin of 2745 votes. The respondent, Anand Sharma, filed an
\nelection petition in the High Court challenging the election
\nof the\tappellant on  the ground  that\tthe  appellant)\t was
\nguilty\tof   indulging\tin   several  corrupt  practices  as
\nenvisaged by  the provisions  of the  Act. The\tHigh  Court,
\nafter giving  though the  entire evidence of the parties and
\nconsidering the\t documents, came  to the conclusion that the
\nallegations of\tcorrupt practices against the appellant were
\nfully proved  and accordingly  set aside his election, hence
\nthis appeal  to this  Court by the elected candidate, Daulat
\nRam Chauhan.  We  may  also  mention  here  that  two  other
\ncandidates, besides  others, K.D.  Satish and  Pooran  Chand
\nSood  (hereinafter   referred  to  as  `Batish’\t and  ‘Sood’
\nrespectively) were also in the field but they had withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Shanti Bhushan, appearing for the appellant, raised
\na  preliminary\t objection  which,   according\tto  him,  if
\naccepted, was sufficient to dismiss the election petition of
\nthe respondent\tin limine.  We had  decided to\tgo into\t the
\nvalidity of  the preliminary  objection because\t if  it\t was
\naccepted  then\tthe  election  petition\t would\thave  to  be
\ndismissed and  it would\t not be necessary to hear the appeal
\non merits  but if  the preliminary  objection was  overruled
\nthen the appeal would have to he heard on merits .\n<\/p>\n
     The only  important point raised by the counsel for the
\nappellant before  us is\t that  as  the\telection  petitioner
\n(respondent) had  alleged that\tBatish and  Sood,  committed
\ncorrupt practices  with the consent of the appellant and yet
\nthey were  not made  parties to\t the election  petition, the
\nHigh Court  should have\t dismissed the\telection petition fn
\nlimine under  the provisions  of s.82(b)  read\twith s.86 of
\nthe Act.  It is\t not disputed before us that Batish and Sood
\nwere candidates\t for election  to the Simla constituency and
\nthat they  were not  made parties  to the  election petition
\nfiled by the respondent in the High Court Section 82(b) runs
\nthus:\n<\/p>\n
422<\/span><\/p>\n
     ”82. Parties to the petition
\n\t  A petitioner\tshall join  as\trespondents  to\t his
\n\t  petition.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) any  other candidate  against whom allegations
\n     of corrupt practice are made in the petition.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Section 86\t provides that where there is a violation of
\ns. 82, the High Court shall dismiss the petition.\n<\/p>\n
     The  dominant  question  for  consideration  is  as  to
\nwhether or  not the  respondent had  alleged that Batish and
\nSood indulged in corrupt practice as defined in s.123 of the
\nAct. Mr.  Bhandare, appearing  for the\trespondent,  however
\nsubmitted that\tthe allegations\t made against  the aforesaid
\npersons did  not amount\t to corrupt practice as contemplated
\nby s.123  because from\tthe averments made by the respondent
\nthere is nothing to show that these two persons had indulged
\nin corrupt  practice either  at the  instance  or  with\t the
\nconsent of the appellant, or his election agent.\n<\/p>\n
     In view of the arguments of the parties the matter lies
\nwithin a very narrow compass because Mr. Shanti Bhushan with
\nhis usual  ingenuity and  brevity has invited us to consider
\nthe effect  of the  allegations\t made  in  para\t 16  of\t the
\nelection petition  read with para 4, which according to him,
\nis a  sort of  an index\t to para  16.  It  appears  that  an
\nadditional issue  regarding the allegation contained in para
\n16 was raised in the High Court in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whether any allegations of corrupt practices have
\n     been made\tin the\tpetition against Sarva Shri Kali Das
\n     Batish  and   Puran  Chand\t Sood  who  were  admittedly
\n     candidates at the election. If so, to what effect ?”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     However, this additional issue was later on not pressed
\non behalf  of the  respondent and  it was  conceded that the
\ncourt may  take it  as established  that no  allegations  of
\ncorrupt practices were made against Batish and Sood. In this
\nview of\t the matter,  the High\tCourt without going into the
\nissue decided  it against the appellant. The counsel for the
\nappellant submitted that once an issue was raised it was not
\nopen to\t the parties to make any concession as, according to
\nlaw, the  issue had  to be  tried whether pressed or not. In
\nsupport of  his contention,  the earned counsel relied on a,
\ndecision of this Court
\n423<\/span>
\nin Udhav  Singh v.  Madhav Rao\tScindia<\/a> where the Court made
\nthe A  following observations  while interpreting section 82
\nof the Act:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Behind this\tprovision is a fundamental principle
\n     of\t natural   justice  viz.,   that  nobody  should  be
\n     condemned unheard. A charge of corrupt practice against
\n     a candidate,  if  established,  entails  serious  penal
\n     consequences It  has the  effect of  debarring him from
\n     being a  candidate at  an election\t for a\tconsiderably
\n     long period  That is  why, s.82(b) in clear, peremptory
\n     terms, obligates  an  election-petitioner\tto  join  as
\n     respondent to  his petition,  a candidate\tagainst whom
\n     allegations of  any corrupt  practice are\tmade in\t the
\n     petition.\tDisobedience  of  this\tmandate,  inexorably
\n     attracts s.86 which commands the High Court, in equally
\n     imperative language, to.-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  “dismiss  an\telection  petition  which  does\t not
\n\t  comply with the provisions of section 82.”
\n\t  The  respondent  cannot  by  consent,\t express  or
\n     tacit,  waive  these  provisions  or  condone-  a\tnon-
\n     compliance\t with\tthe  imperative\t  of  s.82(b)\tEven
\n     inaction,\tlatches\t  or  delay   on  the  part  of\t the
\n     respondent in  pointing out  the lethal  defect of non-
\n     joinder cannot  relieve  the  Court  of  the  statutory
\n     obligation cast  on it  by s.86.  As soon\tas the\tnon-
\n     compliance with  s.82(b) comes  or is  brought  to\t the
\n     notice of\tthe court,  no matter  in what manner and at
\n     what stage,  during the pendency of the petition, it is
\n     bound to dismiss the petition in unstinted obedience to
\n     the command of s. 86.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     This  Court  further  hold\t that  once  allegations  of
\ncorrupt practice  were\tmade  against  a  candidate  it\t was
\nincumbent on  the election petitioner to join him as a party
\nand failure  to\t do  so\t would\tautomatically  lead  to\t the
\ndismissal of his petition under s. 86. There can be no doubt
\nthat this  is the combined effect of s.82(b) and s.86 of the
\nAct. I\tBut before  s.82(b) or\ts.86 could come into play in
\nthe instant  case, ‘  it must  be proved  whether or not the
\nallegation of corrupt practices made against Batish and Sood
\namounted  to   corrupt\tpractice   as  contemplated  by\t the
\nprovisions of  s.123 of the Act. It was thus argued that the
\nallegations made  in para  16 come within s.123(2) which may
\nbe extracted thus
\n424<\/span>
\n\t  ” 123.  Corrupt practices-The\t following shall  be
\n     deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this
\n     Act:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or
\n     indirect interference  or attempt\tto interfere  on the
\n     part of.  the candidate  or his  agent, or of any other
\n     person  with  the\tconsent\t of  the  candidate  or\t his
\n     election agent  with the free exercise of any electoral
\n     right :”\n<\/p>\n
     It is  manifest that  in  order  that  an\tact  of\t the
\ncandidate concerned  may amount\t to an allegation of corrupt
\npractice, it  must be  committed  either  by  the  candidate
\nhimself, his  agent Or\tby any other person with the consent
\nof  the\t candidate  or\this  election  agent.  In  order  to
\ndetermine whether  the\tingredients  of\t s.  123  have\tbeen
\nfulfilled in  the present  case, it may be necessary to wade
\nthrough the  contents of  para 6,  the relevant\t portions of
\nwhich may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “16. That  after the conclusion. Of the meeting, a
\n     rally was\torganised by  the respondent,  which  passed
\n     through the  main bazar  of Simla\ttown. In  the  rally
\n     also, the\tfollowing. .  persons of the Bhartiya Janata
\n     Party participated:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
…………………………………………………..\n<\/p>\n
     6. shri Kali. Dass Batish\n<\/p>\n
     16. Shri Puran Chand Sood
\n     The persons  in  the  rally  including  the  respondent
\nraised the following slogans :-\n<\/p>\n
     `INDIRA KAISI HAI PHULAN DEVI JAISI HAI’
\n     `DESH KA NETA KAISA HO ATTAL BIHARI JAISA HO’
\n     `JITEGA BHAI JITEGA DAULAT RAM CHAUHAN JITEGA’ .. , . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The  aforesaid   libelous\tslogans\t and  displaying  of
\npamphlets  were\t  made\tto  alienate  the  voters  from\t the
\npetitioner.”\n<\/p>\n
     An analysis  of the aforesaid extracts shows that there
\nis no  i clear\tand specific allegation-that Batish and Sood
\ntook active  part in  raising libelous slogan and displaying
\nthe pamphlets with the express
\n425<\/span>
\nimplied consent\t of the\t appellant or of his election agent.
\nIt is  common knowledge\t that whenever there is a rally or a
\ncrowd  or  a  gathering,  a  number  of\t persons  attend  or
\nparticipate in\tthe same  but that  by itself would not give
\nrise to\t an irresistible  inference that their participation
\nor presence  was at  the instance  of the  person  in  whose
\nfavour the  crowd gathered  or the  rally was organised. Mr.
\nShanti Bhushan\thowever stressed  the fact  that  the  words
\n“persons in  the rally\tincluding the  respondent raised the
\nlibelous slogan” would lead to an inevitable conclusion that
\nthe persons  who participated in the rally raised the slogan
\nwith the  express ar  implied consent  of the appellant. We,
\nare, however,  unable to  draw this  inference because it is
\nwell settled  that an allegation of corrupt practice must be
\nproved like  a criminal\t charge\t without  admitting  of\t any
\ndoubt. C
\n     In Haji C.H. Mohammad Koya v. T.K.S.M.A. Muthukoya<\/a> this
\nCourt made the following observations:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is well settled by long course of decisions of
\n     this Court\t that such practices must be clearly alleged
\n     with all  the necessary  particulars and  proved not by
\n     the standard  of  preponderance  of  probabilities\t but
\n     beyond reasonable doubt “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     In these  circumstances, therefore,  before s.82  could
\napply it  was incumbent\t on the part of respondent to allege
\nthat the  appellant had\t given his consent to Sood or Batish
\nfor raising  the slogan.  There is also no allegation in the
\npassage, extracted  above, that\t Batish or Sood had obtained
\nthe consent of the appellant or his election agent.\n<\/p>\n
     Realising\tthe   futility\tand   the  frailty   of\t his
\narguments Mr.  Shanti Bhushan  tried to\t call into  aid\t the
\naverments made\tin para\t 4 of  the  election  petition,\t the
\nrelevant portion of which may be extracted thus:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That the respondent, his election agent and other
\n     persons with  the consent\tof  the\t respondent  or\t his
\n     election agent have committed several corrupt practices
\n     with the  full knowledge and consent of tile respondent
\n     and  his\telection  agent,  which\t have  prejudicially
\n     affected  the   election\tof   the   petitioner….The
\n     catalogue\tof   corrupt  practices\t  committed  by\t the
\n     respondent, his  election agent  and other persons with
\n     the consent of the respondent and his election agent
\n426<\/span>
\n     is detailed hereinafter.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Even if  this allegation  is taken\t at its\t face value,
\nthere is no mention at all about Sood or Batish having taken
\nthe consent  of\t the  appellant\t for  indulging\t in  corrupt
\npractices. Strong  reliance was placed on the second part of
\nthe recitals  which disclose  that there  was a catalogue of
\ncorrupt practices  committed by\t the appellant, his election
\nagent and  other persons  as detailed  in the  petition. The
\nlearned counsel for the appellant wants us to read para 4 in
\nconjunction  With   para  16  and  then\t to  arrive  at\t the
\nconclusion that\t libelous slogans  were shouted\t by Sood and
\nBatish with the consent of the appellant. We are however not
\nin a  position to  accept this\tsomewhat complex  process of
\nreasoning. In  our opinion,  such  a  disjointed  scheme  of
\naverring particulars so that one has to read one part of the
\nallegation with\t another and then by joining the two produce
\na particular  result  to  infer\t an  allegation\t of  corrupt
\npractice is  not contemplated by s. 123\t of the Act an is in
\nfact foreign  to  the  principle  of  giving  all  necessary
\nparticulars and\t statement  of\tfacts,\tviz.,  time,  place,
\nmanner, mode an the consent of the candidate or his election
\nagent. Such an approach would naturally suffer from the vice
\nof vagueness.  It is  even against the well settled rules of
\npleadings to  interpret or read such a serious allegation as
\nthat of\t fraud by joining one portion of the allegation with
\nanother and  then connect  the head  of one with the tail of
\nthe other  in order  to present\t a  composite  picture.\t The
\ndanger of  making such\tan approach  would really  amount to
\nbasing the  decision of\t the court  on pure  conjectures  or
\nspeculation and\t is against  the very spirit and tenor of s.
\n82(b) of the Act. This section contains a salutary provision
\nwhich is  that nobody  should be  condemned unheard so as to
\namount of an infraction of the well settled practice of audi
\nalteram partem\t(rules of natural justice) and requires than
\nallegation must be proved to the hilt in the presence of the
\nperson affected,  failing which\t the election petition would
\nstand dismissed. If such a consequence were to follow, it is
\nobvious that the allegations must be interpreted as they are
\nand not by adding or subtracting one from the  other.\n<\/p>\n
     Moreover, the  scheme followed  by the respondent would
\nitself show  that the allegations in para 4 are not meant to
\nbe an  index or glossary for the recitals in para 16 because
\nwherever other\tcorrupt practices  have been averred, it has
\nbeen clearly  mentioned in  those very\taverments  that\t the
\nconsent of  the appellant or his election agent was obtained
\nIn para\t 16, however,  this  is\t completely  absent.  For  –
\ninstance, in  para 18  where the respondent has made a clear
\nallegation
\n427<\/span>
\nregarding the slanderous campaign against him, he has in the
\nclearest possible  terms  mentioned  that  these  acts\twere
\ncommitted by  the appellant,  his election agent and workers
\nwith his  tacit consent.  In this  connection, the  relevant
\nportion of the averment may be extracted thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “That the  respondent, his  workers  and  election
\n     agent did\tnot choose  to rest there and it appears had
\n     deviser well-knit\tand calculated\tslanderous  campaign
\n     against the  petitioner. The  respondent, his  election
\n     agent and\tworkers with  his  consent  to\tfurther\t the
\n     prospects\tof   the  respondent   by  denigrating\t the
\n     petitioner in  the eyes  of people launched a character
\n     assassination……  The  respondent,  this  agent\t and
\n     workers knew  that contents contain in Annexure ‘G’ are
\n     false an  the respondent  does not\t believe  it  to  be
\n     true.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     If, therefore,  the intention  of the respondent was to
\nallege corrupt practice as contemplate by law against Batish
\nan Sood,  the averment\tin para\t 16 should  have been either
\nidentical or of the nature of averments contained in para 18
\n(which is  in respect of other persons). This is yet another
\nreason why  we cannot  accept the  argument  or\t Mr.  Shanti
\nBhushan that  the averments  of par 16 must be read with the
\naverments made in para 4.\n<\/p>\n
     In Samant N. Balakrishna etc. v. George Fernadez & Ors.
\nthis Court pointed out thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t  “But the  corrupt practices  are  view  separately
\n     according as  to who  commits  them.  The\tfirst  class
\n     consist of corrupt practices committed by the candidate
\n     or his  election agent or other person with the consent
\n     of the  candidate or  his\telection  agent.  These,  if
\n     established, void\tthe  election  without\tany  further
\n     condition being fulfilled.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ….      …\t ….\t   …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  In the  scheme of  election law  they are separate
\n     corrupt practices\twhich cannot  be said to grow out of
\n     the  material   facts  related   to   another   person.
\n     Publication of  false statements  by an  agent  is\t one
\n     cause of  action,\t publication of\t false statements by
\n     the candidate is quite a different cause
\n428<\/span>
\n     of action.\t Such a\t cause of  action must be alleged in
\n     the material facts before particulars may be given. One
\n     cannot   under the cover  of particulars of one corrupt
\n     practice give  particulars of  a new  corrupt practice.
\n     They constitute different cause off action.
\n\t  Since a  single corrupt  practice committed by the
\n     candidate, by  his\t election agent or by another person
\n     with the consent of the candidate or his election agent
\n     is fatal to the election, the case must be specifically
\n     pleaded and strictly proved. If it has not been pleaded
\n     25 part  of the  material facts,  particulars  of\tsuch
\n     corrupt practice cannot be supplied later on.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We must  remember that  in order  to constitute corrupt
\npractice  which\t entails  not  only  the  dismissal  of\t the
\nelection petition  but also  other serious consequences like
\ndisbarring the\tcandidate concerned from contesting a future
\nselection for a period of six years, the allegations must be
\nvery strongly  and narrowly construed to the very spirit and
\nletter of  the law.  In other  words, in order to constitute
\ncorrupt\t practices,  the  following  necessary\tparticulars,
\nstatement  of\tfacts  and  essential  ingredients  must  be
\ncontained In the pleadings:-\n<\/p>\n
     (1)   Direct and detailed nature of corrupt practice as
\n\t  defined in the Act, .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (2)   details of  every important\tparticular  must  be
\n\t  stated giving\t the time,  place, names of persons,
\n\t  use of words and expressions, etc.
\n     (3)   it must clearly appear. from the allegations that
\n\t  the corrupt  practices alleged were indulged in by\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a)  the  candidate  himself\t(b)  his  authorised
\n\t  election  agent  or  any  other  person  with\t his
\n\t  express or implied consent.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     A person  may,. due  to sympathy or on his own? support
\nthe candidature of a particular candidate but unless a close
\nand direct nexus is proved between the act of the person and
\nthe consent  given to  him by  the candidate or his election
\nagent, the  same would\tnot amount  to a pleading of corrupt
\npractice as  contemn It\t cannot be  left to  time, chance or
\nconjecture for\tan inference by adopting an involved process
\nof reasoning.  In fine,\t the allegation must be so clear and
\nspecific that the inference of corrupt
\n429<\/span>
\npractice will irresistibly admit of no doubt or qualm. A
\n     As a  logical consequence\tof the principles enunciated
\nby us,\tit follows  that where\tthe allegation of fraudulent
\npractice is  open to  two  equal  possible  inferences,\t the
\npleadings of corrupt practice must fail. For instance, A, or
\nin this\t case Sood  or Batish, joined or participated or was
\npresent in  an election\t rally or crowd and may have shouted
\nslogans on  his\t own  without  taking  the  consent  of\t the
\ncandidate concerned,  this would  not be  a corrupt practice
\nwithin the  meaning  of\t s.123(2)  because  the\t element  of
\nconsent is wholly wanting.\n<\/p>\n
     Applying these  tests to the averments made in para 16,
\nthe position is as follows: C
\n     That Batish  and Sood  doubtless  participated  in\t the
\nrally and  may have  shouted libelous  slogans but  there is
\nnothing to show that they were either the election agents or
\nworkers of  the\t appellant  or\tthat  they  participated  or
\nshouted slogans\t with the  express or implied consent of the
\ncandidate. D
\n     In these  circumstances, it  is difficult to accept the
\nargument of Mr. Shanti Bhushan that reading the averments in
\npara 4\talongwith para\t16, the irresistible inference would
\nbe that\t Sood and  Batish had  shouted the  slogans with the
\nconsent of the appellant. E
\n     The fundamental  core and\tthe  pivotal  basis  of\t the
\nargument of  the appellant  that in  view  of  the  specific
\nallegations of\tcorrupt practices  having been\tmade by\t the
\nrespondent and\tyet Batish  and . Sood were not made parties
\nto the\telection petition  is not proved and, therefore, the
\nrequirement of\ts.82(b) read  with s.86\t of the\t Act has not
\nbeen fulfilled.\t in this  case so  as to reject the election
\npetition at the very behest.\n<\/p>\n
     We are,  therefore, in  agreement with the arguments of
\nMr. Bhandare, counsel for the respondent, that the averments
\ncontained in para 16 cannot by any stretch of imagination be
\nconstrued to . constitute allegations of corrupt practice as
\nenvisaged by  s.123(2) of  the Act. The additional issue is,
\ntherefore, decided against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     For the  reasons given above, the preliminary objection
\nraised by  Mr. Shanti  Bhushan is  overruled and  it is held
\nthat the election
\n430<\/span>
\npetition was not liable to be dismissed in limine under S.86
\nof the\tAct. The  appeal will  now be  posted for hearing on
\nmerits in respect of other issues.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t  Preliminary objection over-ruled
\n431<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 621, 1984 SCR (2) 419 Author: S M Fazalali Bench: Fazalali, Syed Murtaza PETITIONER: DAULAT RAM CHAUHAN Vs. RESPONDENT: ANAND SHARMA DATE OF JUDGMENT16\/01\/1984 BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA BENCH: FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA MISRA RANGNATH CITATION: 1984 AIR […]<\/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-237388","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nDaulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 - 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\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\" \/>\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=\"1984-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-30T04:21:30+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=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T04:21:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\"},\"wordCount\":3404,\"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\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\",\"name\":\"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-01-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-30T04:21:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984\"}]},{\"@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":"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 - 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\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-30T04:21:30+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":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984","datePublished":"1984-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T04:21:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984"},"wordCount":3404,"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\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984","name":"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-01-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-30T04:21:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/daulat-ram-chauhan-vs-anand-sharma-on-16-january-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Daulat Ram Chauhan vs Anand Sharma on 16 January, 1984"}]},{"@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\/237388","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=237388"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/237388\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=237388"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=237388"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=237388"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}