{"id":7841,"date":"1955-05-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-05-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955"},"modified":"2019-01-07T19:34:00","modified_gmt":"2019-01-07T14:04:00","slug":"bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955","title":{"rendered":"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 610, \t\t 1955 SCR (2) 428<\/div>\n
Author: B Jagannadhadas<\/div>\n
Bench: Mukherjee, Bijan Kr. (Cj), Bose, Vivian, Jagannadhadas, B., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Imam, Syed Jaffer<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nBHIKAJI KESHAO JOSHI AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBRIJLAL NANDLAL BIYANI AND OTHERS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n02\/05\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\nBENCH:\nJAGANNADHADAS, B.\nMUKHERJEE, BIJAN KR. (CJ)\nBOSE, VIVIAN\nAIYYAR, T.L. VENKATARAMA\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\n\nCITATION:\n 1955 AIR  610\t\t  1955 SCR  (2) 428\n\n\nACT:\n  Representation of the People Act (Act XLIII) 1951, proviso\nto  Section 85-Section 90(4)-Reconsideration of question  of\nlimitation   by\t Tribunal-Section   82-Non-compliance\twith\nProvisions-Omission   to   include  a  party  in   list\t  of\nrespondents-Defect whether fatal-Section 83(1)-Code of Civil\nProcedure,  Order  6, rules 15(2) and  (3)Effect  of-Section\n83(2)-\"Full Particulars\"-Duties of Tribunal when particulars\nfiled  are vague-Serious allegations of\t corrupt  practices-\nDuty of Tribunal to inquire into.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  The\tappellants,  two  of  the  electors  of\t the   Akola\nConstituency of the Madhya Pradesh State Assembly, filed  an\nElection  Petition against Respondent No. 1, the  successful\ncandidate in the election held on December 13, 1951, and the\nthree  other respondents who having been  validly  nominated\nwent to the polls but were defeated.  The Election Petition,\nunder Section 80 of the Representation of the People Act  of\n1951,  was admittedly time-barred by one day.  The  Election\nCommission  condoned the delay under the proviso to  Section\n85  of the Act and constituted a Tribunal for the  trial  of\nthe petition.  On pleadings of the parties, nine issues were\nframed\tby the Tribunal which are covered by  the  following\nquestions:\n(1)  Whether  the  election  petition  was  presented  by  a\nproperly authorised person.\n(2)  Whether there was sufficient cause for presentation  of\nthe\npetition  one day out of time.\n(3)  Whether  the petition was defective for non-joinder  of\ncertain parties as respondents.\n(4)  Whether  the petition was defective for want of  proper\nverification.\n(5)  Whether,the petition was defective for vagueness of the\nparticulars  relating  to the corrupt practices set  out  in\nSchedule A thereto.\nThe  Tribunal  found only the first of the above  points  in\nfavour of the petitioners by a majority.  But in respect  of\nthe  other  four  points, it held  against  the\t petitioners\nunanimously.   As a result of the adverse findings on  these\nfour points, the petition was dismissed without any trial on\nthe   merits.\tIt  is\tagainst\t this  dismissal  that\t the\nappellants  have  now  come up to this\tCourt  on  obtaining\nspecial leave.\nWhen  the  delay  in  submitting  an  election\tpetition  is\ncondoned\n\t\t\t    429\nby  the Election Commission in exercise of its\tpower  under\nthe  proviso  to  Section 85 of the  Representation  of\t the\nPeople\tAct  (Act  XLIII of 1951), it is  not  open  to\t the\nElection  Tribunal,  under  Section 90(4)  of  the  Act,  to\nreconsider  the question of limitation.\t Even if,  according\nto  the requirement of Section 82 of the  Representation  of\nthe People Act, any of the necessary parties other than\t the\nreturned  candidate has not been impleaded, the petition  is\nnot liable to be dismissed in limin on that sole ground; but\nit  is\ta  matter  to be taken\tinto  consideration  at\t the\nappropriate stage with reference to the final result of\t the\ncase.\nSection 83(1) of the Act provides that an election  petition\nhas  to be verified in the manner provided for\tverification\nof pleadings under the Code of Civil Procedure.\t Clauses (2)\nand  (3)  of rule 15 in Order VI of the Code  lay  down\t the\nprocedure  for verification of pleadings.  Apart from  those\ncases  where the date of the pleading and  the\tverification\nmay be relevant and important, it would be a wrong  exercise\nof discretionary power to dismiss an application on the sole\nground of the absence of the date of verification.  In\tsuch\na  case\t the  applicant should normally be  called  upon  to\nremove\tthe  lacuna by adding a\t supplementary\tverification\nindicating  the\t date of the original verification  and\t the\nreason for the earlier omission.\nThe  requirement of \"full particulars\" of corrupt  practices\nin  Section  83(2)  of the Act, is one that has\t got  to  be\ncomplied  with, with sufficient fullness and  clarification,\nso  as to enable the opposite party to meet the\t allegations\nagainst\t him fairly, and so as to prevent the  enquiry\tfrom\nbeing  turned into a rambling and roving  inquisition.\t The\nprimary\t responsibility for furnishing full  particulars  of\nalleged currupt practices and for filing a petition in\tfull\ncompliance  with  Section 83 (2) of the Act is that  of\t the\npetitioners.   If they fail to do so initially it  is  their\nduty   and  responsibility  to\tremove\tthe   defects\twhen\nopportunity  is available.  Tribunals, however,\t should\t not\ntake  an  all too narrow view of their function\t in  dealing\nwith the various alleged defects in the petition and dismiss\nit  on the ground of want of particulars.  They should\tcall\nfor  better particulars and if that order was  not  complied\nwith strike out such of the charges as are vague.\nThe petitioners also alleged that the returned candidate was\ndisqualified  to stand because he had interest in  contracts\nwith  the  Government.\t But  the  Tribunal  ignored   these\nallegations and without enquiring into their truth dismissed\nthe petition on the ground that the allegations relating  to\nthe charge of corrupt practices were vague,\nHeld that it was not in the interest of purity of  elections\nthat such allegations of disqualification should be  ignored\nand that it was a matter which called for enquiry.\n Case remitted for enquiry with reference to the allegations\nthat the returned candidate was disqualified and the  charge\nof corrupt practice, which was held to be not vague.\nDinabandhu v. Jadumoni<\/a> ( [1955] 1 S.C.R. 140) and Jagan Nath\nv. Joswant ([1954] S.C.R. 892), followed,\n430\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
  CIVIL\t APPELLATE,  JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  158  of
\n1954.\n<\/p>\n
Veda Vyas, (S.\tK. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, with him), for\t the
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
 M. C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India (.ill. N. Phadke
\nand Naunit Lal, with him), for respondent No. 1.
\n1955.  May 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nJAGANNADHADAS J.-This is an appeal by special leave  against
\nthe  Judgment  and order of the\t Election  Tribunal,  Akola,
\nMadhya\tPradesh,  dated the 1st May,  1953,  dismissing\t the
\nelection  petition filed by the appellants.  It\t relates  to
\nthe  election  for  the\t Akola\tConstituency  of  the  State
\nAssembly  of  Madhya  Pradesh which was\t held  on  the\t13th
\nDecember, 1951, and the result of which was notified in\t the
\nGazette on the 4th April, 1952.\t The two appellants are\t the
\nelectors of the said constituency.  The first respondent was
\nthe successful candidate at the election.  Respondents, Nos.
\n2, 3 and 4 were the other three candidates who, having\tbeen
\nvalidly nominated went to the polls but were defeated.\t The
\nappellants  filed the election Petition under section 80  of
\nthe  Representation  of the People Act, 1951 (Act  XLIII  of
\n1951) (hereinafter referred to as the Act’ for setting aside
\nthe election on various allegations.  The petition was filed
\non  the 19th April, 1952, before the Election Commission  at
\nDelhi and was admittedly one day beyond the prescribed time.
\nThe   Election\tCommission  admitted  the   petition   after
\ncondoning  the delay under the proviso to section 85 of\t the
\nAct  and thereupon constituted a Tribunal for the  trial  of
\nthe petition at Akola by notifications dated the 30th  July,
\n1952,  and 22nd September- 1952.  In due  course  respondent
\nNo.  I appeared and filed his written statement on  the\t 6th
\nOctober, 1952, and the petitioners filed their reply thereto
\non  the\t 16th  October,\t 1952.\t With  reference  to   these
\npleadings,  the\t Tribunal  was of the opinion  that  it\t was
\nadvisable to frame certain preliminary issues and to dispose
\nof the same before entering on the
\n\t\t\t    431<\/span>
\ntrial  of  the case on its merits.  Accordingly,  nine\tpre-
\nliminary  issues  were\tframed.\t  These\t nine  issues\tsub-
\nstantiaily  cover the following questions: (1)\tWhether\t the
\nelection  petition  was presented by a\tproperly  authorised
\nperson.\t  (2)  Whether\tthere  was  sufficient\t cause\t for
\npresentation  of  the  petition one day\t out  of  time.\t (3)
\nWhether\t the  petition\twas  defective\tfor  non-joinder  of
\ncertain parties as respondents. (4) Whether the petition  is
\ndefective  for want of proper verification. (5) Whether\t the
\npetition  was  defective for vagueness\tof  the\t particulars
\nrelating  to  the corrupt practices set out  in\t Schedule  A
\nthereto.   The\tTribunal found only the first of  the  above
\npoints\tin favour of the petitioners by a majority.  But  in
\nrespect\t of  the  other four points,  it  held\tagainst\t the
\npetitioners  unanimously.   As\ta  result  of  the   adverse
\nfindings  on these four points, the petition  was  dismissed
\nwithout\t any  trial  on\t the merits.   It  is  against\tthis
\ndismissal that the appellants have now come up to this Court
\non obtaining special leave.\n<\/p>\n
 Before\t dealing  with the merits of the appeal, it  may  be
\nmentioned that at an early stage of these proceedings before
\nthe  Tribunal, an objection was taken to the composition  of
\nthe Tribunal on the allegation that one of the Members, Shri
\nA.  S. Athalye was not competent to be a Member\t thereof  on
\naccount\t of  his  alleged  bias\t in  favour  of\t the   first
\nrespondent.   The bias was sought to be made out by  showing
\nthat shortly before the election, Shri Athalye had written a
\nletter\tto the 1st respondent offering to assist him in\t his
\nelection  campaign.  On objection being taken, the  Tribunal
\nstayed\tits  hands  for\t a  preliminary\t decision  of\tthat
\nquestion.   Meanwhile, the petitioners took  proceedings  in
\nthe  High Court for the quashing of the constitution of\t the
\nTribunal  on  the above ground by means\t of  an\t application
\nunder article 226 of the Constitution.\tThat application was
\ndismissed   after   hearing  both  sides.    Thereupon\t the
\npetitioners  moved this Court for special leave against\t the
\norder  of the High Court.  But this Court declined to  grant
\nleave.\tLearned counsel for the appellants attempted to
\n55<\/span>
\n432<\/span>
\nattack\tthe  validity of the decision of  the  Tribunal\t now
\nunder  appeal  on  the same ground.  But  this\thaving\tbeen
\nalready\t determined against the petitioners in the  previous
\nproceedings, we declined to allow the matter to be reopened.
\nOn the other side, the learned Attorney-General for the\t 1st
\nrespondent attempted to reopen before us the question as  to
\nwhether\t  the  petition\t was  presented\t to   the   Election
\nCommission  by an authorised person, which as stated  above,
\nwas  found against him by a majority of the  Tribunal.\t The
\nground\ton  which he attempted to reopen this  question\t was
\nthat the finding was based on a wrong view as to the  burden
\nof  proof.   We were not prepared, however, to\tpermit\tthis
\nfinding\t of  fact to be reopened in this appeal\t on  special
\nleave,\tirrespective of the question whether the  burden  of
\nproof was rightly laid on the petitioners.
\n The only points, therefore, that have been argued before us
\nare whether the view taken by the Tribunal with reference to
\nthe following questions, viz. (1) limitation, (2) joinder of
\nparties,   (3)\tverification,  and  (4)\t  specification\t  of
\nparticulars  of corrupt practices in Schedule A attached  to
\nthe  petition,\tis  correct, and if  so,  whether  the\tsame
\nentailed  dismissal of the petition.  The questions  may  be
\ntaken up one after the other.\n<\/p>\n
 LIMITATION:As\tstated above, the petition was filed on\t the
\n19th  April, 1952, admittedly one day beyond time.   On\t the
\n28th April, 1952, the petitioners filed also an\t application
\nfor  condonation  of delay setting out the reasons  for\t the
\nsame.\tIn paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 thereof  the  circumstances
\nunder which the delay is said to have occurred were set\t out
\nas follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “3.\tThe  applicants were under the\tbelief\tthat  Notice
\nunder  Rule 113 of the Rules framed under the above Act\t was
\npublished on 5th April, 1952, in the official Gazette of the
\nState  of  Madhya Pradesh.  They felt therefore\t that  their
\npetition was duly presented within 14 days as prescribed  by
\nRule  119.   Applicants, however, learn\t that  actually\t the
\nNotice under Rule 113 was published in the Official  Gazette
\nof  4th April, 1952.  It therefore appears that there was  a
\ndelay of
\n\t\t\t    433<\/span>
\none  day  in the representation of  the\t election  petition.
\nThis delay occurred under the following circumstances:-\n<\/p>\n
4.   The applicants prepared their election petition on\t the
\n17th April, 1952.  They sent the said petition with Shri  P.
\nB. Gole, Senior Advocate, Akola, with a written authority to
\npresent\t the  petition through any person of his  choice  at
\nNagpur on the 18th April.  They also sent with Shri Gole Rs.
\n1,000  for  being deposited in the  Government\tTreasury  at
\nNagpur\tas required by section 117 of the Act and to  obtain
\nTreasury receipt for security of costs to be filed with\t the
\npetition.   The\t applicants were under the  belief  that  an
\nofficer must have been appointed by the Election  Commission
\nunder section 81 of the Act to whom election petitions could
\nbe  represented for the State of Madhya Pradesh\t at  Nagpur.
\nAccordingly  Shri Gole left Akola for Nagpur by the  1\tDown
\nNagpur\tMail,  reaching Nagpur at about 9-30  A.M.  on\t18th
\nApril, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
   5.\t  Mr. Gole caused the deposit of Rs. 1,000  security
\nfor  costs to be made in the Government Treasury  at  Nagpur
\nthrough\t Mr.  Sidhaye, Advocate, Nagpur,  and  obtained\t the
\nnecessary  Government  Treasury receipt on the\t18th  April,
\n1952.  He then made enquiries about the officer who may have
\nbeen  appointed to receive the election petitions.  He\tcon-
\nsulted\tR.  S.\tRangole, who was attached  to  the  Election
\nOffice at Nagpur.  On enquiries Shri Gole learnt that  there
\nwas  none at Nagpur, who was authorised to receive  election
\npetition under the Act.\t Under these circumstances Shri Gole
\nbooked a seat in the Night Plane for Delhi and flew to Delhi
\non the 18th and reached there on the morning on 19th  April,
\n1952.\tOn  19th April Shri Gole caused the petition  to  be
\npresented to the Secretary to the Election Commission”.
\nThe explanation thus furnished was accepted by the  Election
\nCommission as appears from the intimation to the petitioners
\nby  letter dated the 30th July, 1952.  The Tribunal  was  of
\nthe  opinion that notwithstanding the order of the  Election
\nCommission  condoning the delay and admitting the  petition,
\nit was free to
\n434<\/span>
\nreconsider the question by virtue of the powers vested in it
\nunder  section 90(4) of the Act.  In this view it went\tinto
\nthe  merits  of the explanation furnished and  came  to\t the
\nconclusion that the petitioners were negligent and that\t the
\ndelay,\teven  of  one  day,  could  not\t be  condoned.\t  It
\naccordingly  held  that\t the  petition\twas  liable  to\t  be
\ndismissed as barred by time.  Now, apart from the merits  of
\nthe  sufficiency of the cause for delay, the question as  to
\nwhether, notwithstanding the condonation of the delay by the
\nElection   Commission.,\t it  was  open\tto  a  Tribunal\t  to
\nreconsider the matter by virtue of section 90(4) of the Act,
\nis  now\t covered by the decision of this Court\treported  in
\nDinabandhu v. Jadumoni<\/a>(1).  It was therein held that it\t was
\nnot open to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in such  a
\ncase.\tThe conclusion of the Tribunal, therefore,  on\tthis
\npoint  cannot be maintained.  The  learned  Attorney-General
\nattempted to argue that the decision of this Court  referred
\nto above was obiter as regards the legal point and  required
\nfurther\t consideration.\t But we were not prepared to  permit
\nthat  question to be reopened.\tWe were also  not  satisfied
\nthat  there  was  any adequate reason for  the\tTribunal  to
\ninterfere  with\t the view taken by the\tElection  Commission
\ncondoning the delay of one day on the explanation  furnished
\nto  it.\t  This explanation has not been found, even  by\t the
\nTribunal, to be false.\n<\/p>\n
  JOINDER OF PARTIES: The objection as to joinder of parties
\narises as follows.  Three persons by name Shri Sohoni,\tShri
\nKulkarni,  and Shri Kothkar were nominated as candidates  at
\nthe  election.\tTheir nominations were found to be in  order
\non  scrutiny by the Returning Officer.\tBut within the\ttime
\nallowed,  these\t three\twithdrew from  the  elections  under
\nsection\t 37  of\t the  Act.   The  petitioners,\twhile\tthey
\nimpleaded  as respondents the three unsuccessful  candidates
\nwho went to the polls, did not implead these three  persons.
\nThe  view  taken by the Tribunal was that  these  were\talso
\nnecessary  parties and that their non-joinder  rendered\t the
\npetition liable for
\n(1)  [1955] 1 S.C.R. 140.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    435<\/span><\/p>\n
dismissal.   In support of their view, the  Tribunal  relied
\nupon section 82 of the Act which is as follows:
\n “A petitioner shall join as respondents to his petition all
\nthe candidates who were duly nominated at the election other
\nthan himself if he was so nominated”.\n<\/p>\n
 It  has been argued before us that this view  is  erroneous
\nand  that  persons  who\t filed\ttheir  nominations  and\t who
\nwithdrew  from\tthe contest within the\tprescribed  time  in
\nspite of their nominations having been found to be in  order
\non scrutiny by the Returning Officer, cannot be said to fall
\nwithin\tthe  category of “candidates duly nominated  at\t the
\nelection”.   In\t support of this  contention  two  decisions
\nSitaram v. Yograjsing(1) and Sheo Kumar v. V. G. Oak(2) have
\nbeen cited.  On the other side the case in Mohammad Umair v.
\nRam Charan Singh(3)  was brought to our notice in support of
\nthe view taken by the Tribunal.\t These three decisions\thave
\ntreated\t the  decision\tof the question as  depending  on  a
\nconstruction  of the phrase “at the election” in section  82
\nof  the Act.  The Bombay and Allahabad cases hold that\tthis
\nphrase confines the necessary parties under this section  to
\nthose  who  were candidates for the actual poll,  while\t the
\nPatna  High  Court takes the view that the  phrase  “at\t the
\nelection” has no such limiting significance.  It appears  to
\nus  to be unnecessary and academic to go into this  judicial
\ncontroversy  having regard to the decision of this Court  in
\nJagan  Nath v. Jaswant Singh<\/a>(4).  If we were called upon  to
\nsettle\tthis  controversy,  we\twould  prefer  to  base\t the
\ndecision  not on any meticulous construction of\t the  phrase
\n“at  the election” but on a comprehensive  consideration  of
\nthe  relevant provisions of the Act and of the rules  framed
\nthereunder  and of the purpose, if any, of  the\t requirement
\nunder section 82 as to the joinder of parties other than the
\nreturned  candidate.  We are, however, relieved\t from  this,
\nsince it has been decided in Jagan Nath v. Jaswant  Singh<\/a>(4)
\nthat  even  if any of the necessary parties other  than\t the
\nreturned candidate has not been
\n(1)  A.I.R. 1953 Bombay 293.\n<\/p>\n
(3)  A.I.R. 1954 Patna 225.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  A.I.R. 1953 All. 633.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  [1954] S.C.R. 892.\n<\/p>\n
436<\/span><\/p>\n
impleaded,  the\t petition is not liable to be  dismissed  in
\nlimine\ton  that sole ground but that it is a matter  to  be
\ntaken  into  consideration  at the  appropriate\t stage\twith
\nreference to the final result of the case.  In view of\tthis
\nruling\tthe  decision  of the Tribunal on  this\t point\talso
\ncannot be maintained.\n<\/p>\n
  VERIFICATION:The  view  taken\t by  the  Tribunal  on\tthis
\nquestion  is based on section 83(1) of the Act which  is  as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
 “An election petition shall contain a concise statement  of
\nthe material facts on which the petitioner relies and  shall
\nbe signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner\tlaid
\ndown  in  the  Code  of\t Civil\tProcedure,  1908,  for\t the
\nverification of pleadings”.\n<\/p>\n
 The relevant provision in the Civil Procedure Code referred
\nto  herein is Order VI, rule 15, clauses (2) and (3),  which
\nare as follows:\n<\/p>\n
   “(2) The person verifying shall specify, by reference  to
\nthe numbered paragraphs of the pleading, what he verifies of
\nhis  own  knowledge and what he\t verifies  upon\t information
\nreceived and believed to be
\ntrue.\n<\/p>\n
  (3)\t  The  verification  shall be signed by\t the  person
\nmaking it and shall state the date on which and the place at
\nwhich it was signed”.\n<\/p>\n
  In  the present case the verification of the\tpetition  as
\nwell as the schedule of particulars of corrupt practices are
\neach  signed  by both the petitioners and there\t is  now  no
\ndispute about it.  The verification clause in
\nthe petition is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The above-named applicants hereby affirm that the contents
\nof the above petition are true to information received\tfrom
\nthe press reports and several other electors and believed by
\nthem to be true.\n<\/p>\n
Signed and verified at Akola on
\nThe  verification  clause  relating to\tthe  particulars  of
\ncorrupt practices in Schedule A is as follows:
\n “The  above-named  applicants affirm that the\tcontents  in
\nthis schedule are true to information received and  believed
\nby us to be true.\n<\/p>\n
Signed and verified at Akolo, on
\n437<\/span>
\nIn the view of the Tribunal there were two defects in  these
\nverifications.\tThey do not refer to any numbered paragraphs
\nnor  do they bear the dates on which they were\tsigned.\t  In
\nthe  view  of  the  Tribunal  the  petition  was  liable  to
\ndismissal for non-compliance with the specific provision  in
\nthe  Act in this behalf.  That the verification\t neither  in
\nthe  petition nor in the schedule of particulars  bears\t any
\ndate  is  not disputed.\t But it is contended that  the\tview
\ntaken  by  the Tribunal in so far as it was of\tthe  opinion
\nthat  the verifications do not refer to any  numbered  para-
\ngraphs\tis  unsustainable.   It\t is  pointed  out  that\t the
\nstatements in the verification were clearly meant to  convey
\nthat  the various allegations in the petition  and  schedule
\nwere,  in their entirety, based on information\tand  belief.
\nIt is urged, therefore, that there was no scope and hence no
\nneed  to specify which were based on personal knowledge\t and
\nwhich upon information.\t We agree with this contention.\t  It
\nis to be noticed that a verified pleading is different\tfrom
\nan  affidavit  which., by virtue of Order XIX,\trule  3,  is
\nspecifically  required to be confined to such facts  as\t the
\ndeponent  is able of his own knowledge to prove\t (except  on
\ninterlocutory  applications,  on  which\t statements  of\t his
\nbelief\tmay be admitted, provided that the  grounds  thereof
\nare  stated).  But there is notand in the nature  of  things
\nthere cannot be-any such limitation for pleadings.  Hence it
\nbecame\tnecessary  in  the verification\t of  a\tpleading  to
\ndemarcate  clearly between the two.  The allegations in\t the
\npetition  in this case purport to be based only on  informa-
\ntion.  Since the verification clauses refer to the  entirety
\nof  the\t petition  and the  attached  schedule,\t absence  of
\nenumeration of the various paragraphs therein as having been
\nbased  on information cannot be considered to be  a  defect.
\nThe verifications are accordingly defective only as  regards
\nthe  requirement  of  the dates thereof.   The\tquestion  is
\nwhether the petition is liable to dismissal on this  ground.
\nThough there may be cases where the date of the pleading and
\nthe verification may be relevant and important, it would  be
\na wrong exercise of discretionary power to dismiss
\n438<\/span>
\nan  application\t on the sole ground of absence\tof  date  of
\nverification.  In such a case the applicants should normally
\nbe   called   upon  to\tremove\tthe  lacuna  by\t  adding   a
\nsupplementary  verification  indicating\t the  date  of\t the
\noriginal  verification\tand  the  reason  for  the   earlier
\nomission.\n<\/p>\n
PARTICULARS OF CORRUPT PRACTICES: The objection is based  on
\nsection 83(2) of the Act which is as follows:
\n“The  petition\tshall be accompanied by a  list\t signed\t and\n<\/p>\n
-verified  in like manner setting forth full particulars  of
\nany  corrupt  or  illegal  practice  which  the\t  petitioner
\nalleges, including as full a statement as possible as to the
\nnames of the parties alleged to have committed such  corrupt
\nor illegal practice and the date and place of the commission
\nof each such practice”.\n<\/p>\n
The  objection\tis  that the particulars  of  the  instances
\nfurnished  in  Schedule A to the petition are  all  of\tthem
\nvague  and not in compliance with the above provision.\t The
\nlist of particulars is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
”\t      SCHEDULE “A”.\n<\/p>\n
List   of   particulars\t of  instances\t referred   in\t the
\naccompanying petition.\n<\/p>\n
 1.  That  in the month of December, 1951, respondent No.  1
\nhas  been to the  premises of Akola Shree  Gurudwara,  where
\nthe  Local  Sikh Community had assembled to  listen  to\t the
\nrecitation of the holy book ‘Granth Saheb’ on the 7th day of
\nthe  death of daughter of one Sardar.  Suratsingb.  At\tthis
\nmeeting respondent No. 1 canvassed for votes for himself and
\npaid Rs. 201\/-, apparently as donation to the Gurudwara, but
\nreally as gift for inducing the Sikh Community in the  Akola
\nConstituency   in  general  and\t the  Sikhs   assembled\t  in
\nparticular to induce them to vote for himself at the ensuing
\nelection.  Respondent No. 1 was guilty of bribery within the
\nmeaning of that term in section 123 of the Representation of
\nthe People Act.’
\nSimilar\t instances  of\tgiving\tillegal\t gratifications\t for
\nsecuring votes of respective groups are-\n<\/p>\n
(a)  Donation to Hkariharpeth Akhada;\n<\/p>\n
439<\/span><\/p>\n
(b)  Payment  to Panch-bungalow Committee of Bhangis of\t Old
\nCity.\n<\/p>\n
(c)  Donation to Bhaji Bazar Association.\n<\/p>\n
(d)  Distribution of blankets and Saries and
\nmoney to voters.\n<\/p>\n
2.   At the instance of respondent No. I a meeting of  workers
\nin Berar Oil Industries a concern of Birla,  was  called  by
\nits  manager  on  the  eve of the  election  and  they\twere
\nthreatened  to vote for respondent No. 1 on pain  of  losing
\ntheir service or suffer pecuniary loss, in case they did not
\nvote for respondent No. 1. The poster of the rival candidate
\naffixed on the post-office within the premises of the  Berar
\nOil Industries was removed and stolen away.\n<\/p>\n
  3. Respondent\t No. 1 caused groups and sections of  castes
\nand communities, such as Bohara, Lohars, Marwaries, Muslims,
\nRajasthanies,  Bhangies,  to  issue  appeals  stating\tthat
\nresolutions  were  passed for voting for respondent  No.  1,
\ncoercing the voters by threats, etc., to vote for respondent
\nNo. 1 and openly canvassing on communal and caste lines\t and
\nusing undue influence.\n<\/p>\n
 4.  Issuing  pamphlets\t and  handbills\t without  names\t  of
\nprinter or publisher.\n<\/p>\n
 5.  At\t the time of counting votes in Polling\tStation\t No.
\n53, several folded bundles amounting to about 20 in  number,
\nof ballot papers were found in the ballot box of  respondent
\nNo.  1,\t when it was opened for counting  votes.   This\t was
\nnoted by the Returning Officer.\t Each bundle consisted three
\nor   more  than\t three\tballot\tpapers,\t  folded   together.
\nObviously each of the bundle of these ballot papers were put
\nin the ballot box by one person, as the ballot papers put in
\nthe  ballot box by different voters could not  automatically
\nfold   themselves into a compact bundle in the\tballot\tbox.
\nThe  ballot papers issued to voters were not put in the\t box
\nby the voters themselves, but were illegally brought back by
\nthe  voters  and handed over to persons working for  and  on
\nbehalf\t of   respondent  No.  I  on  payment\tof   illegal
\ngratification.\t These\tballot papers  thus  collected\twere
\nbundled together
\n56<\/span>
\n440<\/span>
\nand  put  in the ballot box by persons working\tfor  and  on
\nbehalf of respondent No. 1 by taking illegal gratifications.
\nThis was done on 31st December, 1951, at Chandur by  persons
\nwith the connivance of respondent No. 1.\n<\/p>\n
 6.  False personation of several dead voters and
\nvoters\t  absent in Pakistan has taken place in Ward
\nNo. 12\t  and 15.\n<\/p>\n
 7.  The respondent No. 1 resorted to false propaganda.\t His
\nman  announced\ton loud speakers from place  to\t place\tthat
\nrival  candidate Dr. Joglekar was of the caste and party  of
\nGodse,\tthe murderer of M. Gandhi and a vote for him  was  a
\nvote  for  Gandhi’s Murderer. Another false  propaganda\t was
\nthat Dr. Joglekar   was Mishra’s man, supported by  Mishra’s
\nmoney.\t  Lectures for respondent No. 1 in public
\nmeetings, including respondent No. I have freely made  these
\nfalse  defamatory  and\tmalicious  statements  against\t Dr.
\nJoglekar,  the\trival  candidate  and  thus  prejudiced\t the
\nprospects  of Dr. Joglekar’s election.\t Personal  character
\nand conduct of Dr. Joglekar was also falsely attached,\tthus
\nprejudicing his prospects of election.\n<\/p>\n
8.   Voters  were  carried in hired carts  at  many  polling
\nstations, particularly at Kapshi Polling Station.  This\t was
\narranged by persons working for and on behalf of  respondent
\nNo.  I at his expense and connivance.  A  written  objection
\nfor  police  enquiry was given at Kapshi and  one  in  Rifle
\nRange area.\n<\/p>\n
 9.  Respondent No. 1 spent lacs of rupees over his election
\ntransgressing the prescribed limit of Rs. 6,000.  He\t has
\ngiven a totally untrue return of election expenses.  This is
\nin contravention of law.\n<\/p>\n
  10.\t  Mohota  Mills released workers and paid  them\t for
\ncanvassing  work  for  respondent  No.\t1  on  polling\tday.
\nSubstitutes for these workers were engaged by the mills\t and
\nthey  were  also  paid.\t This was done at  the\tinstance  of
\nrespondent No. I”.\n<\/p>\n
 There can be no doubt that almost all the instances herein-
\nabove  set  out\t are extremely\tvague  and  lack  sufficient
\nparticulars.  Learned counsel for the appel-\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    441<\/span><\/p>\n
lants  invited our attention to the fact that the  Tribunal,
\nwhile considering the question of vagueness dealt only\twith
\nthe instances of corrupt practices specified in paragraphs I\n<\/p>\n
(a),I (b), I (c), I (d), 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and not others.
\nHe accordingly contended that, by implication, the  Tribunal
\nwas not prepared to hold that items mentioned in  paragraphs
\n1,  3,\t9 and 10 were vague.  He urged that at\tleast  these
\nfour items’ must be taken not to be vague and that there  is
\nno  reason why the petitioners should not have\tbeen  called
\nupon to amend the schedule by furnishing better\t particulars
\nas  to the rest.  He further urged that, at any\t rate,\tthey
\nwere  entitled to a trial in respect of those four items  of
\ncorrupt practices.  We cannot agree with learned counsel for
\nthe appellants that the items set out in paragraphs 3, 9 and
\n10 are not vague.  There is no specification therein of\t the
\nrequisite details which the Act in terms requires.   Section
\n83(2)  requires not only what may reasonably  be  considered
\n“full  particulars”  having  regard to the  nature  of\teach
\nallegation,   but  enjoins  in\tterms  that  the   following
\nparticulars  should also be given. (1) Names of the  parties
\nalleged\t to have committed the corrupt or illegal  practice.
\n(2)  The  date\tof the commission of each  such\t corrupt  or
\nillegal\t practice. (3) The place of commission of each\tsuch
\ncorrupt\t or  illegal practice.\tThere can be  no  reasonable
\ndoubt  that  the -requirement of “full particulars”  is\t one
\nthat  has got to be complied with, with sufficient  fullness
\nand clarification so as to enable the opposite-party  fairly
\nto  meet them and that they must be such as not to turn\t the
\nenquiry\t before\t the  Tribunal into a  rambling\t and  roving
\ninquisition.  On a careful scrutiny of the list, in Schedule
\nA we are satisfied that none of the items except that  which
\nis  set\t out  in paragraph I of item No. I can\tbe  said  to
\ncomply with the requirements of section 83(2).\tIn this view
\nof the contents of Schedule A, the contention of the learned
\ncounsel\t for  the appellants is that even  so  the  Tribunal
\nshould\thave called upon the petitioners to  furnish  better
\nparticulars as regards all the other items, by virtue of the
\n,powers conferred on it under section 83(3), and in the
\n442<\/span>
\nalternative,  it  should have at least called upon  them  to
\nsubstantiate  the allegation in paragraph 1 in item  No.  1,
\nwhich  was  sufficiently specific and which,  if  made\tout,
\nmight have resulted in the election being set aside.  On the
\nquestion whether or not the Tribunal should have called upon
\nthe  petitioners to amend the schedule by furnishing  better
\nparticulars,  the  learned  Attorney-General  for  the\t 1st
\nrespondent has invited our attention to the objection  taken
\nin  the\t written statement as regards the vagueness  of\t the
\nparticulars  and to the various orders made by the  Tribunal
\nas appears from the order-sheet of the case.  In the written
\nstatement of the 1st respondent paragraph 9 is as follows:
\n  “9. (a) It is, further, submitted that the petition  ought
\nto be dismissed as it does not contain concise statement  of
\nmaterial facts on which the petitioners rely.  Similarly the
\nlist of particulars given in the schedule or in the petition
\nare not in compliance with section 83(2).\n<\/p>\n
  (b)\t  Without  prejudice  to  the  generality  of\tthis
\nobjection,  it is further submitted that para V of  petition
\nread with para VI(e) will show that the particulars given in
\nSchedule relate to corrupt and illegal practices alleged  to
\nhave  been committed by respondent No. 1 and by\t his  agents
\nand persons working on. -behalf of respondent No. I with his
\nconnivance.    Such  particulars  are  bad  in\t law.\t The
\napplicants  are bound to state the names of the persons\t who
\nare  alleged  to  have actually\t committed  the\t corrupt  or
\nillegal practice.\n<\/p>\n
  (c)\t  Paras\t 1 and 2 of the petition allege\t that  there
\nwas no free election by reason of general bribery and  undue
\ninfluence  exercised by and on behalf of respondent  No.  1.
\nSimilarly the allegation in para 2 is that the coercion\t was
\nthe  result  of\t manipulation  by ,or  at  the\tinstance  of
\nrespondent  No. 1. Thus these allegations must be  supported
\nby  giving  the necessary particulars regarding\t the  names,
\ndate and place of commission of corrupt or illegal  practice
\nalleged.   The allegations in paras 1 and 2 of the  petition
\nare  allegations of corrupt and illegal practice within\t the
\nmean-\n<\/p>\n
443<\/span><\/p>\n
ing  of\t sections 123, 124 and 125 of the Act, and  are\t not
\nallegations  of a general character which do  not  implicate
\nthe candidate personally.\n<\/p>\n
  (d)\t  Further by way of example, para I of the schedule,
\nno names, date of the alleged practices are given.  Same  is
\nthe case with the allegations in paras 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,  8,
\n9 & 10.\n<\/p>\n
  (e)\t  It is for the petitioners to satisfy the  Election
\nCommission  and the Tribunal that the particulars given\t are
\naccording to law.  This has not been done and the  petition,
\ntherefore, ought to be dismissed on this ground”.
\n Now the order-sheet of the proceedings before the  Tribunal
\ndiscloses  the following.  By order dated the 16th  October,
\n1952,  the Tribunal decided that the case was in  the  first
\ninstance  to  be taken up for decision\ton  the\t preliminary
\nissues.\t Having so decided it passed the following order:
\n “We  call upon the parties whether they want to add by\t way
\nof  amendment  to  the pleadings on facts  which  they\thave
\nalready\t made,\tas  in some of the  preliminary\t points\t the
\nquestion of fact is involved.\n<\/p>\n
 The  respondents do not want to add to their  pleadings  on
\nfacts  in  respect  of the above  preliminary  issues.\t The
\npetitioners  have made an application under Order  VI,\trule
\n16,  Civil Procedure Code for striking out some\t portion  in
\nparas 3-b and para 4-(d) (2) of the written statement of the
\nrespondent No. 1″.\n<\/p>\n
On the 17th January, 1953, the Tribunal passed the following
\norder:\n<\/p>\n
  “The respondent No. 1 prays for time to amend his written-
\nstatement  and to ask for particulars.\tIn the interests  of
\njustice\t the  time is granted……..  The  application\t for
\namendment  and for particulars to be filed five days  before
\nthe  date  of  hearing and copies thereof be  given  to\t the
\npetitioners.   The  petitioners shall be  ready\t with  their
\nreplies on the date of hearing”.\n<\/p>\n
On the 27th January, 1953, the order is
\n  “The petitioners have filed ‘their reply to the  amendment
\napplication of the respondent No. 1. The
\n444<\/span>
\nlatter\thas amended his application, to which there  was  no
\nobjection”.\n<\/p>\n
On the 29th January, 1953, the order is
\n “The  petitioners do not want to amend their  pleadings  in
\nview of the amendment of the written statement”.
\n  In  view  of the specific objection taken in\tthe  written
\nstatement  and the opportunities which the  petitioners\t had
\nfor  amending the petition which the above orders  disclose,
\nthere is considerable force in the contention of the learned
\nAttorney-General that the petitioners, for some reasons best
\nknown  to  themselves,\thave come forward  with\t a  somewhat
\nirresponsible\tpetition  and  that  while  the\t Court\t has
\nundoubtedly the power to permit amendment of the schedule of
\ncorrupt\t practices  by permitting the furnishing  of  better
\nparticulars  as regards the items therein  specified,  there
\nwas  no duty cast upon the Tribunal to direct suo  motu\t the
\nfurnishing  of\tbetter\tparticulars.  It is  true  that\t the
\npetitioners  in\t the reply that they filed  to\tthe  written
\nstatement  of  the  1st\t respondent and\t in  answer  to\t the
\nobjection  that\t the particulars as to the  alleged  corrupt
\npractices were vague, said as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “The  petitioners are prepared to give further\t particulars
\nif the Tribunal is pleased to permit under section 83(3)  of
\nthe Representation of the People Act,.\n<\/p>\n
  This\treply was filed on the 16th October, 1952, which  is
\nthe  very  date\t on  which the first  of  the  above  orders
\nextracted from the order-sheet was passed.  It is also, true
\nthat the order dated the 17th January, 1953, shows that\t the
\nrespondent  No.\t 1  at one  stage,  indicated  an  intention
\nhimself\t to  ask for particulars.  But in a matter  of\tthis
\nkind   the  primary  responsibility  for   furnishing\tfull
\nparticulars  of the alleged corrupt practices and to file  a
\npetition  in full compliance with section 83(2) of  the\t Act
\nwas on the petitioners.\t While undoubtedly the Tribunal has,
\nin  our\t opinion,  taken  all too narrow  a  view  of  their
\nfunction in dealing with the various alleged defects in\t the
\npetition  and in treating them as sufficient for  dismissal,
\nthe petitioners are not absolved from their duty to
\n445<\/span>
\ncomply,\t of  their  own accord,\t with  the  requirements  of
\nsection\t 83(2)\tof the Act and to remove  the  defects\twhen
\nopportunity was available.  They cannot take shelter  behind
\nthe fact that neither the Tribunal nor the respondent No.  1
\nhas,   in  terms,  called  upon\t them  to   furnish   better
\nparticulars.\n<\/p>\n
 The  position, therefore, on the question of compliance  or
\notherwise  of the requirements of section 83 of the  Act  is
\nthat (1) the verifications in the petition and schedule\t are
\ndefective  inasmuch as the dates thereof are not  specified,
\nand (2) the schedule of particulars consists of a number  of
\nitems of which only one at best could have been taken up for
\ninquiry\t by  the Tribunal.  But all the rest were  not\tonly
\nextremely vague but no amendment was applied for nor was  an
\nopportunity  for amendment of pleadings in general, open  on
\ntwo   occasions,  availed  of.\t Learned  counsel  for\t the
\nappellants  urges  that however this may be,  there  was  no
\njustification  for the Tribunal dismissing the\tpetition  in
\ntoto  and  that\t it  was  bound\t to  have  called  upon\t the
\npetitioners to substantiate the first allegation by evidence
\nafter striking out, if need be, the rest of the particulars,
\nunder the powers vested in it under Order VI, rule 16, Civil
\nProcedure  Code.   On the other hand the  learned  Attorney-
\nGeneral\t for  the  respondent No. 1 urges  that\t in  such  a
\nsituation  it was open to the Tribunal to consider  whether,
\ntaking\tthe  petition as a whole and in\t its  total  effect,
\nthere  was substantial compliance with the  requirements  of
\nsection\t 83.   He  contends  that if,  in  exercise  of\t its
\njudgment,  it  thought\tthat  there  was  substantial\tnon-
\ncompliance,  notwithstanding  that one out  of\tthe  various
\nitems  may have been specific, it was not bound to  exercise
\nits  discretion in favour of the petitioners by\t ordering  a
\nstriking out of the various items and to direct the trial of
\nthe petition to be confined to one single item which may  be
\nin  order.   The learned Attorney-General argues  that\tthis
\nwould  be really making out for the petitioners a  different
\npetition from what they brought up before the Election\tCom-
\nmission and that in this class of cases the Tribunal had the
\nright and the duty to exercise great strictness
\n446<\/span>
\nin  order   that the machinery for setting  aside  elections
\nmight  not  be\tabused\tfor the\t purpose  of  maligning\t the
\nsuccessful  candidate by levelling vague  and  iriesponsible
\ncharges\t against him.  While there is considerable force  in
\nthis  argument,\t we think that in a case of  this  kind\t the
\nTribunal  when dealing with the matter in the  early  stages
\nshould\tnot have dismissed the application.  It should\thave
\nexercised its powers and called for better particulars.\t  On
\nnon-compliance therewith, it should have ordered a  striking
\nout  of such of the charges which remained vague and  called
\nupon  the  petitioners to substantiate\tthe  allegations  in
\nrespect\t of those which were reasonably specific.   We\tare,
\ntherefore, of the opinion that the order of the tribunal  in
\ndismissing  the\t petition outright  was\t clearly  erroneous.
\nNotwithstanding this opinion we would, in the normal course,
\nnot  have felt called upon to interfere in this\t case  under
\narticle 136 after this lapse of time and at the instance  of
\npersons\t like the appellants before us who are\tmere  voters
\nhaving\tno  direct personal interest in the  result  of\t the
\nelection.\n<\/p>\n
  But there is one other circumstance in this case which  we
\nhave  noticed  and which we feel we ought not  to  overlook,
\nthough\tin  the\t course of the arguments the  same  was\t not
\nbrought to our notice.\tParagraphs 6(a), (b) and (c) of\t the
\napplication for setting aside the election sets out  certain
\ngrounds\t  of  alleged  disqualification\t of   the   returned
\ncandidate  to  stand for the election.\tIt  is\talso  stated
\ntherein\t that  objections in this behalf were taken  at\t the
\ntime of scrutiny of the nomination papers but that they were
\nsummarily  overruled  by the Returning Officer\twithout\t any
\nenquiry\t  and  that  accordingly  the  objections   to\t the
\ndisqualification  have been raised in the  application.\t The
\nobjections are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “6.  The  material facts in support of the grounds  are  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
  (a)\t  The  election of candidate for the Madhya  Pradesh
\nState  Assembly in the single member Akola Constituency\t was
\nannounced to be held on 31-12-1951.  Nominations were to  be
\nfiled on or before 15-11-1951,
\n447<\/span>
\nand  scrutiny of nomination was due on 17-11-1951.  At\tthis
\ntime of scrutiny objection was taken to the nomination paper
\nof  respondent\tNo. 1 on several grounds  but  the  material
\ngrounds\t were  that respondent No. 1  was  disqualified\t for
\nbeing  chosen  as and for being a Member of  Madhya  Pradesh
\nState  Assembly\t under\tChapter III, section 7\t(d)  of\t the
\nRepresentation of the People Act, 1951 (Act XLIII of  1951).
\nThat  the respondent No. 1 is disqualified to fill the\tseat
\nunder the Act., because he is the Managing Agent or Managing
\nDirector  of  Rajasthan Printing and  Litho  Works  -private
\nlimited company under the Indian Companies Act.\t He has,  as
\na  share-holder\t and director, interest,  in  contracts\t for
\nsupply\tof  goods,  viz.  stationery,  paper  and   printing
\nmaterials, etc., to the State Government of Madhya  Pradesh.
\nHe has also interest in contracts for the execution of works
\nor  performance of services, such as printing, etc.,  under-
\ntaken  by  the\tState Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh.\t The
\nrespondent No. 1 gets a share by way of commission on  sales
\neffected  by  the Limited Company.  He\thas,  therefore,  by
\nhimself\t interest in the contracts of the company  with\t the
\nState Government of Madhya Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
  (b)The  respondent  No. 1 is a partner in the\t firm  Berar
\n‘General Agency.  The said firm has entered into a  contract
\nfor  the performance of cloth distribution on behalf of\t the
\nState  Government to retailers and holds a licence  for\t the
\nsame.\tThe  respondent No. 1, therefore,  has\tinterest  by
\nhimself in the said contract for the performance of services
\nundertaken by the Government.\n<\/p>\n
 (c)The\t respondent No. 1 is the proprietor of\tthe  monthly
\nJournal\t “Prawaha”  and\t a  by-weekly  paper  “Matru-bhumi”.
\nThese\tpublications  print  Government\t advertisements\t  on
\ncontract  basis.   The\trespondent  No.\t 1  has,  therefore,
\ninterest  in  the  said\t contract  for\tthe  performance  of
\nservices undertaken by the State Government Madhya  Pradesh.
\nThe  income derived from these contracts by  the  respondent
\nNo. 1 are noted in the private accounts of
\n57<\/span>
\n448<\/span>
\nthe  respondent\t No. 1 and their details are  shown  in\t the
\nprofit\tand loss statements filed with income-tax return  of
\nthe respondent No. I for the relevant year and current year.
\n The  sales and other details of the  “Matru-bhumi”  concern
\nare noted in the private accounts of the respondent No. 1.
\n These objections were summarily overruled by the  Returning
\nOfficer, without any inquiry or any reason”
\n  These\t allegations, if made out with such further  details
\nas  may\t be necessary, might well prove\t serious  and  bring
\nabout  the  setting aside of the election  of  the  returned
\ncandidate.    The   1st\t respondent  in\t answer\t  to   these
\nallegations states as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “It  is denied that there was any improper  acceptance  of
\nthe  nomination paper of respondent No. 1 and in  particular
\nit  is denied that any of the allegations made in  paragraph
\n6(a),  (b)  &  (c)  of the  petition  constitute  in  law  a
\ndisqualifications of section 7 of the Representation of\t the
\nPeople Act.  Without prejudice to this it is submitted\tthat
\nthe  respondent\t No. 1 was not suffering from any  of  these
\ndisqualifications  in fact on the date of the submission  of
\nthe nomination paper”.\n<\/p>\n
 Having\t regard\t to the nature of  the\talleged\t disqualifi-
\ncation,\t which\tis  substantially to  the  effect  that\t the
\nreturned  candidate  had  interest  in\tcontracts  with\t the
\nGovernment at the relevant dates, it was very necessary that
\nthe  matters  should  have been cleared up  in\tthe  enquiry
\nbefore the Election Tribunal.  It is not in the interest  of
\npurity\t  of\telections   that   such\t   allegations\t  of
\ndisqualification   should  be  completely  ignored   without
\nenquiry\t and it appears rather surprising that the  Tribunal
\nshould have ignored them and exercised its power to  dismiss
\nthe petition.  However reluctant we might be to interfere in
\na  matter like this after the lapse of three years and\tfour
\nmonths\tand  with only an year and eight months\t before\t the
\ngeneral\t elections, we feel constrained to send this  matter
\nback  for due enquiry.\tBut before doing so and in  view  of
\nthe   delay  and  other\t circumstances\tthat  have   already
\nhappened,
\n449<\/span>
\nwe,  in\t exercise of the powers which the  Tribunal  in\t the
\nnormal\tcourse\tmight  itself  have  exercised,\t direct\t the
\nstriking  out of all the items of alleged corrupt  practices
\nset out in Schedule A excepting the one covered by paragraph
\nI of item 1, i.e., as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“That in the month of December, 1951, respondent No. I\thad
\nbeen  to  the premises of Akola Shree  Gurdwara,  where\t the
\nLocal  Sikh  Community\thad  assembled\tto  listen  to\t the
\nrecitation of the holy book ‘Granth Saheb’ on the 7th day of
\nthe  death  of daughter of one Sardar Suratsingh.   At\tthis
\nmeeting respondent No. 1 canvassed for votes for himself and
\npaid  Rs. 201, apparently as donation to the Gurudwara,\t but
\nreally as gift for inducing the Sikh Community in the  Akola
\nconstituency   in  general  and\t the  Sikhs   assembled\t  in
\nparticular to induce them to vote for himself at the ensuing
\nelection.  Respondent No. I was guilty of bribery within the
\nmeaning of that term in section 123 of the Representation of
\nthe People Act”.\n<\/p>\n
 The  case  will, therefore, go back for enquiry  and  trial
\nwith  reference\t only to (1) the allegations  in  paragraphs
\n6(a),  (b) and (c) of the application for setting aside\t the
\nelection, and (2) the allegations in paragraph 1 of item  1,
\nin Schedule A attached to the application as set out above.
\n The   Election\t Commissioner  will  now   reconstitute\t  an
\nappropriate  Tribunal  for the purpose.\t The  Tribunal\twhen
\nconstituted  and before proceeding to trial will  call\tupon
\nthe  petitioners  to rectify the lacuna as to dates  in\t the
\nverification  clauses in the petition and the schedule.\t  It
\nis  to\tbe  hoped  that the  fresh  proceedings\t before\t the
\nTribunal  will\tbe disposed of at a very  early\t date.\t The
\nappeal is allowed as stated above but, in the circumstances,
\nwithout costs.\n<\/p>\n
450<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 610, 1955 SCR (2) 428 Author: B Jagannadhadas Bench: Mukherjee, Bijan Kr. (Cj), Bose, Vivian, Jagannadhadas, B., Aiyyar, T.L. Venkatarama, Imam, Syed Jaffer PETITIONER: BHIKAJI KESHAO JOSHI AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: BRIJLAL […]<\/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-7841","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nBhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 - 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\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\" \/>\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=\"1955-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-01-07T14:04:00+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=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T14:04:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\"},\"wordCount\":6813,\"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\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\",\"name\":\"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-05-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-01-07T14:04:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955\"}]},{\"@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":"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 - 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\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-01-07T14:04:00+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":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955","datePublished":"1955-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T14:04:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955"},"wordCount":6813,"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\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955","name":"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-05-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-01-07T14:04:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/bhikaji-keshao-joshi-and-another-vs-brijlal-nandlal-biyani-and-others-on-2-may-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bhikaji Keshao Joshi And Another vs Brijlal Nandlal Biyani And Others on 2 May, 1955"}]},{"@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\/7841","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=7841"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7841\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7841"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7841"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7841"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}