4038 GI/2017
(1)
jftLVªh laö Mhö ,yö&33004@99
REGD. NO. D. L.-33004/99
vlk/kj.k
EXTRAORDINARY
Hkkx
II—
[k.M 3—
mi&[k.M (iii)
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (iii)
izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
la
-
33]
ubZ fnYyh]
'
kqØ
okj
]
twu 30
] 201
7
@
vk"kk<+ 9
] 193
9
No. 33]
NEW DELHI, FRIDAY, JUNE 30, 2017/ASADHA 9, 1939
भारत निर्ााचि आयोग
आदेश
िई ददल् ली, 23 जूि, 2017
नर्षय: मध् य ्रददेश नर्ााि भभा ेे भााार निर्ााचि, 2008 में 22-दनतया नर्ााि भभा निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र भे निर्ाानचत
अभ् यर्थी, डा. िरोत्तम नमश्रा ेे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा-लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे
अंतगात लेाा ेी भंर्ीक्षा।
आ.अ. 44(अ).—यह मामला मध् य ्रददेश नर्ााि भभा ेे भााार निर्ााचि, 2008 में 22-दनतया नर्ााि भभा
निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र भे निर्ााचि लड़िे र्ाले अभ् यर्थी, श्री राजेन्द र भारती (्तश्च चात्, ‘‘नशेायतेत्ताा’’) भे ्रदाप् त नशेायत ददिांे
13 अ्रदैल, 2009 भे उत् ्न्द ि ुआआ है। श्री िर्ीि चार्ला, तत् ेालीि निर्ााचि आय् त ेो ्ूर्वोक त नशेायत ेी ्े ्रदनत, मध् य
्रददेश ेांग्रेभ ेमेटी (्तश्च चात्, ‘‘्म्ीभीभी’’) ेी नशेायत, ेे भार्थ ्रदाप् त ुआई ।
नशेायत में डा. िरोत्तम नमश्रा (्तश्च चात्, ‘‘्रदत् यर्थी’’), 22 दनतया नर्ााि भभा भे मध् य ्रददेश नर्ााि भभा ेे भद् य ेी
निरहाता ्र लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात भार त निर्ााचि आयोग (्तश्च चात्,
‘‘आयोग’’) भे आदेश देिे ेी मांग ेी गई र्थी। यह आरो् लगाया गया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे मा् य ्रददेश नर्ााि भभा ेे भााार
निर्ााचि, 2008 में निर्ााचि व् यय ेा सभा गलत लेाा दजा देया र्था जो लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951
(्तश्च चात्, ‘‘लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951’’) ेी ाारा 77 और ाारा 78 और निर्ााचिों ेा भंचालि नियम, 1961
(्तश्च चात्, ‘‘भीईआर 1961’’) ेे नियम 86-89 ेे अंतगात दी गई रीनत ेे अि्भार िहीं र्था ।
2
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
2.
नशेायतेत्ताा भे ्रदाप् त ददिांे 13 अ्रदैल 2009, ेी नशेायत जो ्म्ीभीभी ेी नशेायत ेे भार्थ भंलग् ि र्थी, में
निम् िनलनात आरो् लगा् ग् र्थे:-
े.
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा दशााया गया े्ल व् यय 2,40,827 रु. र्था, जैभादे िीचे नर्र्र ददया गया है:
र्ाहि देराया
रु.16,800/-
डीजल
रु.86,727/-
लाउड् ्ीेर
रु.3,900/-
बैिर
रु.11,400/-
ऑदिभ देराया
रु.7,500/-
दीर्ार-्ेंटटंग
रु.9,500/-
िगर्ानलेा ेा देराया
रु.10,000/-
जमाित रानश
रु.5,000/-
े्ल
रु.2,40,827/-
हालांदे, ऊ्र ्रदनतर्ेददत दे् ग् व् यय में निम् िनलनात मदों ेे ाचा भनम्मनलत िहीं र्थे:
(i)
भार्ााजनिे बैठेें ्र्ं रैनलयां: यह आरो् लगाया गया र्था दे निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में नर्नभन्द ि ् र्थािों में नर्नभन्द ि
भार्ाजनिे बैठेों और रैनलयों ्र उ्गत व् यय लेाे में िहीं दशाा् ग् र्थे। नशेायतेताा िे नजला निर्ााचि
अनाेारी (‘‘डी.ई.ओ.’’) भे 13 भीडी हानभल ेी र्थी नजिमें ेनर्थत रू् भे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ेी गई र्े रैनलयां और
ेायाेला् दशाा् ग् र्थे नजिेे नल् लेाे में ेोई ाचा ेी रर्ोर्टिंग िहीं ेी गई है। नशेायतेताा िे अि्माि
लगाया दे सभे भभी ेायाेला्ों ्र उ्गत न्द यूितम व् यय 5,30,093 रु. र्था।
(ii)
िोल् डर ्र्ं ेैलेंडर:- यह भी आरो् लगाया गया दे इि रैनलयों ेे अलार्ा िोल् डरों, हहंद्ओं ेे नल् ेैलेंडर और
म्भलमािों ेे नल् ेैलेंडरों ्र भी व् यय उ्गत दे् ग् ह नजभेे नल् नशेायतेताा ्ारा अि्मानित 1,00,000
रु. ेी ािरानश बताई गई है।
(iii)
भमाचार-्त्र नर्ज्ञा्ि: यह भी आरो् लगाया गया दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे दनतया नर्ााि भभा निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र में ्ररचानलत
् र्थािीय भमाचार-्त्रों में नर्नभन्द ि नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदेानशत दे् र्थे। और सभे ्रदेाशिों ्र भारी ाचा देया र्था।
नशेायतेताा िे ्रदभ् त्त देया दे उभेे ्ारा लगभग 35 भमाचार ्त्र नर्ज्ञा्ि भंग्रनहत दे् ग् र्थे और भमाचार-
्त्र ेे िाम, ्रदेाशि ेी तारीा और ्रदेाशि ेे भाइज ेे आाार ्र नशेायतेताा ्ारा 4,79,860 रु ेा
अि्मानित न्द यूितम व् यय बताया र्था। नर्नभन्द ि ्े्र ्रदेाशिों ेी, उिेे आेारों ेे अि्भार, दरें दशााते ुआ् भमाचार
्त्रों ेी दर भूची ेी ्रदनत भी दानाल ेी गई ह ।
(iv)
ारीदे ग् र्ाहि और र्ाहि ्ारा ा्त डीजल:- यह भी आरो् लगाया गया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे अ्िे िाम-निदेशि
्त्र ेे भार्थ दानाल ददिांे 04 िर्ंबर, 2008 ेे अ्िे श्र्थ ्त्र में उभेे ्ारा ारीदे ग् 8 भीटों र्ाले डीजल
र्ाहि, नजभेा रनज् रेशि िम् बर ्चआर-37र्ी-1282 र्था, ेा ् र्ानमत् र् भी नप्ाया र्था और उ त र्ाहि में ा्त
II
(iii)
3
ुआ् डीजल ्र ाचा ेा ्रदेटि िहीं देया नजभेा उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट, श्री नर्र्े नमश्रा ्ारा इ् तेमाल देया गया
र्था।
ा.
नशेायतेताा िे आरो् लगाया दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे अि्मानित े्ल 13,50,780 रु ेा निर्ााचि व् यय उ्गत देया र्था जो
भीईआर, 1961 ेे नियम 60 ेे अंतगात नर्नहत 10 लाा रु. ेी तत् ेालीि भीमा भे अनाे और ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे अ्िे लेाे में ्रदनतर्ेददत 2,40,827 रु भे ेािी अनाे र्था।
ग.
नशेायतेताा िे यह आरो् भी लगाया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी ूूठे श्र्थ-्त्र ददिांे 04 िर्ंबर 2008 (िाम-निदेशि ्त्रों
ेे भार्थ ्रद् त्त) और 8 ददभंबर 2008 (निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे ेे भार्थ ्रद् त्त) दानाल ेरिे और उभमें दी गई भूचिा
नप्ािे ेे नल् लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 और भारतीय दंड भंनहता, 1860 ेी ाारा 199 और 200 ेे अंतगात दंड
ेे भागी र्थे।
घ.
नशेायतेताा िे यह तेा भी ददया दे ्रदत् यर्थी लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात भंभद और राज् य
नर्ााि-मंडल ेे देभी भी निर्ााचि में निर्ााचि लड़िे ेे नल् तीि र्षा ेी अर्ना ेे नल् निरानहत घोनषत दे्
जािे ेे भागी र्थे।
3.
्म्ीभीभी भे ्रदाप् त नशेायत ददिांे 13 अ्रदैल, 2009 में निम् िनलनात आरो् लगा् ग् र्थे:
े.
्रदत् यर्थी आदशा आचार भंनहता (्तश्च चात्, ‘‘्मभीभी’’) ेे घोर उल् लंघि में नलप् त र्थे।
ा.
्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रु्ध मध् य ्रददेश आबेारी अनानियम, 1915 ेी ाारा 34(2) ेे अंतगात भा नड़ यां ्र्ं शराब
नर्तररत ेरिे और भारतीय दंड भंनहता, 1860 ेी ााराओं 153े, 188, 191, 199 और 200 भे भंबंनात
अ्रााों ेे नल् म्ेदमे दजा दे् ग् ह ।
ग.
यह भी आरो् लगाया गया दे ््नलभ ऊ्र-उनल्लनात मामलों ेे भंबं ा में भम्नचत ेारार्ाई िहीं ेर रही
र्थी।
घ.
आगे यह भी आरो् लगाया गया दे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त श्र्थ-्त्र ूूठे र्थे और र्े लो.्रद. अनानियम 1951
ेी ाारा 125े ेे अंतगात दंड ेे भागी र्थे; ्रदत् यर्थी भीईआर, 1961 ेे नियम 86-89 ेे भार्थ ्रठत लो.्रद.
अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77, ाारा 8े और ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात निराहता ेे नल् भी ेनर्थत रू् भे भागी र्थे।
4.
13 अ्रदैल, 2009, जो नशेायत ेी तारीा र्थी, ेो नशेायतेताा िे मध् य ्रददेश उ् च न्द यायालाय ेी ग् र्ानलयर ब च
में, नर्नहत भीमा भे अनाे निर्ााचि व् यय उ्गत ेरिे भनहत भ्रष् ट ‘आचर ों’ ेे आाार ्र लो.्रद. अनानियम,
1951 ेी ाारा 81 और 100(1)(घ) ेे अंतगात ्रदत् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि ेो च्ितती देते ुआ् निर्ााचि यानचेा (ई.्ी.)
भं-26/2009 दानाल ेी र्थी। ्रदत् यर्थी िे ई.्ी. भं. 26/2009 ेी भंाार ीयता ेो च्ितती दी और उभे निर् त ेरिे
ेे नल् आर्ेदि ्ेश देया नजभे उ् च न्द यायालय ्ारा आदेश ददिांे 26 माचा 2010 ेे जरर् निर् त ेर ददया
गया। उ् च न्द यायालय ेे आदेश ददिांे 26 माचा 2010 ेो नर्शेष अि्मनत यानचेा (नभनर्ल) 14984/2010 ेे
्ारा उ् चतम न्द यायालय में च्ितती दी गई नजभमें उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे 05 ज्लाई, 2010 ेो आगे ेी
ेायार्ानहयों ्र रोे लगाते ुआ् आदेश ्ाररत देया। निर्ााचि यानचेा भं. 26/2009 र्ा्भ लेिे ेे नल्
नशेायतेताा ्ारा और ्े आर्ेदि (आई.्. िं.4603/2012) ददिांे 29 िर्ंबर 2012 दानाल देया गया। उ् च
न्द यायालय ेे आदेश ददिांे 04 ददभंबर, 2012 ्र यानचेा र्ा्भ लेिे ेे िोरटभ ेा भरेारी राज्त्र में ्रदेाशि
होिे ेे उ्रांत दो अन्द य आर्ेदि (िामत:, इनम्तयाज म्हम् मद ्ारा आई.्.िं.564/2013 ददिांे 20 जिर्री 2013
और ताररे मोहम् मद ्ारा आई.्. िं.602/2013 ददिांे 01 िरर्री 2013), निर्ााचि यानचेा में यानचेाेताा ेे
रु् में ्रदनत् र्था्ि ेे नल्, दानाल दे् ग्। उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे अ्िे आदेश ददिांे 1 नभतंबर 2014 ेे ्ारा
ऊ्र उनल्लनात अंतररम आर्ेदिों ्र नि ाय लेिे ेे नल् उ् च न्द यायालय ेो भक्षम बिािे ेे भीनमत ्रदयोजिों ेे
4
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
नल् ् र्थगि ेो निष् ्रदभार्ी ेर ददया। इभ दरम् याि, नशेायतेताा िे निर्ााचि यानचेा र्ा्भ लेिे ेे आर्ेदि
(आई.्.िं.4603/2012) ेो र्ा्भ लेिे ेे नल् ्े आर्ेदि (आई.्.िं. 430/2015) दानाल देया। उ त अंतररम
आर्ेदिों ्र बाद में उ् च न्द यायालय ्ारा निर्ााचि यानचेा र्ा्भ लेिे ेे नल् नशेायतेताा ्ारा दानाल आर्ेदि
(आई.्.ि.4603/2015) ेे भार्थ आदेश ददिांे 27 अ टूबर, 2015 ेे जरर् नि ाय नलया गया। उ् च न्द यायालय
िे उ त आदेश में आर्ेदिों ेो ााररज ेर ददया। इभेे अलार्ा, दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे ेाउंभेलों िे ्रद् त्त देया दे
निर्ााचि यानचेा ेी भंाार ीयता अनतरर त म्द्दों ेी नर्रचिा, उ त यानचेा में भंशोाि और यानचेाेताा ेे
्रदनत् र्था्ि ेे ्रदच िों भे भंबंनात े्प शेष आर्ेदि, आई.्.िं. 2009े 14727, 2009 ेा 13327, 2010 ेा
7629, 2010 ेा 7628 और 2014 ेा 6178, अभी भी लंनबत र्थे। दोिों ्क्षेारों (नशेायतेत्ताा ्र्ं ्रदत् यर्थी) ेे
ेाउंभलों ्ारा यह तेा भी ददया गया दे यदद उभ मामले में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा ्भ्ल्ी ेी अि्मनत दी
जाती है नजभमें निर्ााचि यानचेा ेी भंाार ीयता ेो च्ितती दी गई है तो निर्ााचि यानचेा ् र्त: ही ााररज हो
जा्गी। इभनल्, इभ अर्् र्था में उ त लंनबत आर्ेदिों ्र नि ाय लेिे ेी ेोई जरूरत िहीं है योंदे ेायार्ानहयां
उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे आदेश ददिांे 05 ज्लाई, 2010 ेे अि् ालि में ्हले ही रोे दी गई ह । तद् रांत, उ् चतम
न्द यायालय िे यह ेहते ुआ् आदेश ददिांे 26 ज्लाई, 2016 ्ाररत देया दे चूंदे इभ मामले में ्रदत् यर्थी (निर्ााचि
यानचेा में नशेायतेताा) ेे ेाउंभेल ेे ्रद् त्तीेर ेे अि्भार उ् च न्द यायालय ्ारा मामले में आर्ेदि र्ा्भ
लेिे ्र ेारार्ाई ेी गई र्थी (नजभे उ् च न्द यायालय ्ारा र्् त्त: ााररज देया गया र्था जैभादे ऊ्र बताया गया
है) इभनल्, ्भ्ल्ी निष् िल होिे ेे िाते ााररज ेी जाती है। इभेे अनतरर त, ्भ्ल्ी ेे यानचेाेताा
(्रदत् यर्थी) ेे नल् ेाउंभेल िे उ् च न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष ्रद् त्त देया दे उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेा आदेश गलत
्रद् त्तीेर ों ्र ्ाररत देया गया र्था योंदे निर्ााचि यानचेा र्ा्भ लेिे ेा आर्ेदि उ् च न्द यायालय ्ारा
आदेश ददिांे 27 अ टूबर, 2015 ेे जरर् ााररज देया गया र्था। ्रदत् यर्थर्थायों ेे ेाउंभेल िे ेहा दे चूंदे
्भ्ल्ी नशेायतेताा ेे ेाउंभेल ्ारा ्रद् त्त गलत ्रद् त्तीेर ों ेे आाार ्र ााररज ेी गई र्थी इभनल्,
उ् च न्द यायालय भे यह भी अि्रोा देया गया दे निर्ााचि यानचेा नशेायतेताा ेो इभ बात ेी ् र्तंत्रता दद्
जािे ेे भार्थ ााररज ेर दी जा् दे र्ह, उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा सभा निदेनशत दे् जािे ेी न्र्थनत में, निर्ााचि
यानचेा ेे ््ि:्रदर्ताि ेे नल् आर्ेदि दे। नशेायतेताा िे ्रदार्थािा ेी दे उभे आदेश ददिांे 26 ज्लाई, 2016 ेे
नर्रु्ध उ् चतम न्द यायालय में ््िर्थर्ालोेि यानचेा दानाल ेरिे और उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे आदेशों ेो ररेाडा ेे
नल् ्रद् त्त ेरिे ेे नल् दो भप् ताह ेा भमय ददया जा्। 22 नभतंबर, 2016 जो उ् च न्द यायालय में अगली
भ्िर्ाई ेी तारीा र्थी, ेो यह अनभनिाााररत देया गया दे चूंदे नशेायतेताा ्ारा, जैभादे उिेे ्ारा ्ूर्ा में
्रदार्थािा ेी गई र्थी, ््िर्थर्ालोेि यानचेा (आर.भी.िं.003970/2016) ेे भंदभा में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे आदेश
िहीं ्रद् त्त दे् जा भेे इभनल्, निर्ााचि यानचेा इभ शता ेे अध् याीि नि्टाई जाती है दे यदद उ् चतम
न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष ््िर्थर्ालोेि यानचेा ेी अि्मनत दी जाती है तो नशेायतेताा निर्ााचि यानचेा ेे
््िरुज् जीर्ि ेे नल् उ्य् त आर्ेदि देिे ेे हेदार होंगे। उभ यानचेा ेी अंनतम ्रर नत ज्ञात िहीं है।
5.
जहां ते आयोग ्ारा ्म्ीभीभी भे ्रदाप् त नशेायत ददिांे 13 अ्रदैल, 2009 ेा भंबंा है, उभेी ्े ्रदनत म्ख् य
निर्ााचि अनाेारी, (्तश्च चात्, ‘‘भीईओ’’), मध् य ्रददेश ेो 29 अ्रदैल, 2009 ेो, आयोग ेो भूचिा देते ुआ्,
आर्च ये ेारार्ाई ेरिे ेे नल् अग्रेनषत ेी गई र्थी लेदेि आयोग ेे ्त्र ददिांे 29 अ्रदैल, 2009 ेे भंदभा में
भीईओ, मध् य ्रददेश भे ेोई उत्तर ्रदाप् त िहीं ुआआ।
6.
नशेायतेताा भे ्े अि्र्ती नशेायत ददिांे 5 ज्लाई, 2009 ्रदाप् त ुआई र्थी नजभमें ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा नर्नभन्द ि ्रदेार
ेे भ्रष् ट आचर ों ेा आरो् लगाया गया र्था। भीईओ, मध् य ्रददेश ेो ्त्र ददिांे 24 ज्लाई, 2009 ेे जरर्
निम् िनलनात ेारार्ाईयां ेरिे ेे नल् ेहा गया र्था।
II
(iii)
5
े.
22-दनतया नर्.भ. ेे ररटर्ििंग अनाेारी ेो ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा गलत श्र्थ-्त्र दानाल ेरिे और ्े डीजल
र्ाहि, नजभे ््नलभ ् टेशि, नजगिा ्ारा जब् त देया गया र्था (म्द्दा नशेायत ददिांे 13 अ्रदैल, 2009 और 5
ज्लाई, 2009 में उठाया गया र्था), ेे ् र्ानमत् र् ेे त् य ेो नप्ािे भंबंाी म्द्दे ्र, लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी
ाारा 125े ेे अंतगात आयोग ्ारा निगात अि्देशों ेे आाार ्र नि ाय लेिे ेा निदेश देिा। इभ मामले में आयोग
ेो भूनचत ेरते ुआ् तत् ेाल ेारार्ाई ेरिे ेा आदेश ददया गया।
ा.
शराब ्र्ं भानड़ यों ेे नर्तर ेे भंबंा में ्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रु्ध मध् य ्रददेश आबेारी अनानियम, 1915 ेी
ाारा 34 और आई्ीभी, 1860 ेी ाारा 171ा ेे अंतगात दजा म्ेदमों, आई्ीभी, 1860 ेी ाारा 153े, 188
और लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 125 ेे अंतगात दजा म्ेदमों ेी र्तामाि र्् त्न्र्थनत ्रद् त्त ेरिा;
ग.
मध् य ्रददेश ेे तत् ेालीि म्ख् यमंत्री और ेमल ्रदतीे ेे िोटो र्ाली मतदाता ्र्थचायों ेे ेनर्थत नर्तर ेे
भंबंा में आयोग ेो रर्ोटा ्रद् त्त ेरिा।
7.
आयोग ेे ्त्र ददिांे 24 ज्लाई, 2009 ेे उत्तर में भीईओ, म.्रद. भे ्े रर्ोटा आयोग में 12 अग् त, 2009 ेो
्रदाप् त ुआई र्थी। डी.ई.ओ. दनतया ेी रर्ोटा, नजभे भीईओ. म.्रद. ्ारा अग्रेनषत देया गया र्था, ेे अि्भार भभी
मामलों में नर्ना ेे अि्भार ेारार्ाई ेी गई है और भभी मामले न्द यायालय में नर्चारााीि र्थे। ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे ेे भंबंा में, डीईओ, दनतया ेी रर्ोटा ेे अि्भार, ्रदत् यर्थी िे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा अ्िा लेाा
नर्नहत भमय ेे भीतर 6 जिर्री, 2009 ेो और नर्ना ेे अंतगात दी गई रीनत भे ्रद् त्त देया र्था नजभेी ्रदेक्षे
्ारा भमय-भमय ्र जांच ेी गई र्थी। लेाे में उनल्लनात ुआआ व् यय 2,40,627 रु. र्था। तद् रर, आयोग ेे ्त्र
ददिांे 26 अग् त, 2009 में भीईओ, म.्रद. ेो निदेश ददया गया दे र्े ऊ्र उनल्लनात न्द यायालयीि मामलों में
घटिाक्रम भे आयोग ेो भमय-भमय ्र अर्गत ेराते रहें।
8.
तद् रांत, आयोग ेो नशेायतेताा भे निम् िनलनात मामलों ेे भंबंा में ्े और अम् यार्ेदि ददिांे 18 अ्रदैल,
2010 ्रदाप् त ुआआ:
े.
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा उ्गत व् यय ेा भही लेाा ्रद् त्त ि ेरिे ेे मामले में उभेी नशेायत ्र नर्चार िहीं देया
जािा।
ा.
ूूठा श्र्थ-्त्र दानाल ेरिा, अ्िे डीजल र्ाहि ेे अ्िे ् र्ानमत् र् ेे त् य ेो नप्ािा। आयोग िे
नि ाय नलया दे इभ मामले में जांच श्रू ेी जािी चानह्। आयोग ्ारा अ्िे ्त्र ददिांे 12 अ टूबर, 2010 ेे
जरर् नशेायतेताा ेा अम् यार्ेदि 18 अ्रदैल, 2010 बाद में, भीईओ, म.्रद. ेो तत् ेाल नर्् तृत जांच ्र्ं रर्ोटा
हेत् अग्रेनषत देया गया।
9.
बाद में, नशेायतेताा भे ्े और नशेायत ददिांे 18 नभतंबर, 2010 निम् िनलनात आरो् लगाते ुआ् ्रदाप् त ुआई:
(i) यह दे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा डीईओ ्ारा मध् य ्रददेश भरेार ेे अि्नचत दबार् ेे
अाीि, भही ेे रू् में, ् र्ीेृत देया गया र्था;
(ii) यह दे डा. िरोत्तम नमश्रा ेो अन्द य मामलों में भी बचाया जा रहा है;
(iii) डी.ई.ओ. ्ारा भेजी गई रर्ोटा भही िहीं र्थी;
(iv) यह दे उन्द होंिे आयोग ेो भेजी गई अ्िी ्रदांरनभे नशेायत ददिांे 9 अ्रदैल, 2009 ेे भार्थ भभी भंगत
द् तार्ेज और ्रदमान त भीडी भेजी र्थी लेदेि, द् तार्ेजों, ्रदमान त भीडी और अि्बंाों ेी भूची ेे भार्थ मूल
नशेायत आयोग ेे अनभलेा में िहीं नमल ्ा रही र्थी नजभिे निर्ााचि आयोग ेी निष् ्क्षता ्र ्रदच ि नच्ि
लगा ददया।
6
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
10.
यह उल् लेा ेरिा ्रदाभंनगे है दे नशेायतेताा ्ारा मध् य ्रददेश उ् च न्द यायालय में ्े ररट यानचेा भं. 2010 ेा
7553 (राजेन्द र भारती बिाम भारत निर्ााचि आयोग ्र्ं अन्द य) दानाल ेी गई र्थी नजभमें भारत निर्ााचि आयोग
ेो निदेश देिे ेी ्रदार्थािा ेी गई र्थी दे र्े लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात जांच ेरें
और निरहाता ेे म्द्दे ्र भमयब्ध तरीेे भे नि ाय लें। मामला उ् च न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष लंनबत ्ड़ा रहा। आनार,
उ् च न्द यायालय िे 28 ज्लाई, 2016 ेो ररट यानचेा ्र न्द यायनि ाय देया नजभमें यह नि ाय नलया गया दे
भारत निर्ााचि आयोग यानचेाेताा ्ारा उठा् ग् निरहाता ेे म्द्दे ्र नि ाय लेिे ेे नल् ् र्तंत्र है।
11.
आयोग िे भीईओ, म.्रद. ेो भंबोनात अ्िे ्त्र ददिांे 26 िर्ंबर, 2010 ेे जरर् नशेायतेताा ेी नश ेायत में
यर्था-उनल्लनात भमाचार-्त्र ेे भभी नर्ज्ञा्िों ेी मूल ्रदनतयों और भार्ाजनिे रैनलयों, भार्ाजनिे बैठेों ेी भभी
र्ीनडयो ररेार्डिंग (यदद ली गई हो तो) ेी भीडी/डीर्ीडी ेी ्रदमा ीेृत ्रदनत ेे भार्थ ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त निर्ााचि
व् यय ेे मूल लेाे ेी ् ेैि ेी गई ्रदनतयों ेी मांग ेी।
12.
नशेायतेताा िे ्े बार दिर न्पली नशेायतों ेे अनतरर त निम् िनलनात आरो् लगाते ुआ् ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा
निर्ााचि व् यय ेा भही लेाा ्रद् त्त ि ेरिे ेे भंदभा में लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात दानाल
अ्िी नशेायत ्र नर्चार ि ेरिे ेे नर्रु्ध ्े िया अम् यार्ेदि ददिांे 14 माचा, 2011 दानाल देया:
े.
यह दे यदद ेोई अभ् यर्थी निर्ााचि व् यय ेा भही लेाा दजा ेरिे में नर्िल रहता है या गलत या अभत् य
लेाा दजा ेरता है तो र्ह आ्रानाे म्ेदमे ेे अलार्ा आयोग ्ारा लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे
अंतगात और उ् च न्द यायालय में निर्ााचि यानचेा ेे अंतगात भी अ्िे नर्रु्ध ेारार्ाई ेा भामिा ेरिे ेा भागी
होता है। आयोग इभ मामले में ेेर्ल इभ आाार ्र ह् तक्षे् ेरिे भे इंेार िहीं ेर भेता दे मामला नभनर्ल ्र्ं
आ्रानाे न्द यायालयों ेे भमक्ष लंनबत है। आयोग अ्िी ् र्यं ेी जांच ेरिे ेे नल् ेताव् य भे बंाा ुआआ है।
ा.
आयोग ्ल.आर. नशर्रामगतड़ा बिाम टी.्म. चन्द रशेार (्आईआर 1999 ्भभी 252) ेे मामले में
उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे नि ाय ेे दृनतगत अभ् यर्थी ्ारा दानाल भही लेाे ेे भंदभा में जांच ेरिे ेे नल् ्ूरी तरह
भमर्था है। नशेायतेताा िे अ्िी नशेायत ेे भमर्थाि में द् तार्ेजी भाष् य (दनतया ेायाालय भे यर्था-्रदाप् त,
भमाचार्त्रों, टैररि ेाडा/दर भूनचयों, िोल् डरों, ेैलेंडरों और भीडी, डीईओ ेी मूल ्रदनतयां) ्रद् त्त ेी ह ।
ग.
नशेायतेताा िे अ्िी नशेायत ेी नर्चार ीयता ेे भंदभा में ्े अि् मारे भी ्रद् त्त देया र्था लेदेि,
अब ते ेोई ेारार्ाई िहीं ेी गई है। यह अत् यन्द त द्भााग् य्ू ा है दे आर्ेदे ेी मूल नशेायत ददिांे 09 अ्रदैल,
2009 आयोग भे ग्म हो गई है।
घ.
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त लेाे ेे भंदभा में ेोई जांच िहीं ेी गई है और यह भूनचत देया गया र्था दे
लेाानाेारी ्ारा लेाे ेा भत् या्ि देया गया र्था नजभे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त र्ा् तनर्े लेाा ेे भंदभा में ेोई भी
जांच ेरिे ेा अनाेार ्रदाप् त िहीं है। डी.ई.ओ. दनतया िे भी रर्ोटा, ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्रदभार् में ्रद् त्त ेी र्थी।
ङ.
्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रू्ध जांच ेरिे हेत् आयोग ेे ददिांे 12 अ टूबर, 2010 ेे नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी,
दनतया ेो नलाे ्त्र ेे बार्जूद ेोई ेारार्ाई िहीं ेी गई र्थी योंदे ्रदत् यर्थी मध् य ्रददेश भरेार में ेैनबिेट मंत्री ेे
्द ्र ह और नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया(ेले टर, दनतया) ेा ्रदत् यर्थी ेे भार्थ घनिष् ठ भंबंा र्था।
च.
यह ्रदार्थािा ेी गई दे इभ मामले में अनिर्ाया रू् भे ् र्तंत्र जांच ेी जािी चानह् र्थी योंदे
नशेायतेताा ्ारा लगा् ग् आरो् यह ददाािे ेे नल् ेािी र्थे दे निर्ााचिों में ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा देतिी रानश
उ्गत ेी गई है।
प.
दो र्षा बीत च्ेे ह और यदद अभी भी नशेायतेताा ्ारा दानाल ेी गई नशेायत ्र ेोई नि ाय िहीं
नलया गया तो इभे निष् िल मािा जा्गा।
13.
आयोग ्ारा मांगी गई भभी भीडी उ्लब् ा ेरर्ािे हेत् ददिांे 26 िर्म् बर, 2010 ेे आयोग ेे ्त्र ेे जबार् में
म्ख् य निर्ााचि अनाेारी, मध् य ्रददेश भे ददिांे 17 माचा, 2011 ेा ्त्र आयोग में ्रदाप् त देया गया। ्रंत् उ त ्त्र
में आयोग ्ारा मांगी गई भमाचार ्त्र ेी ्रदनतयां इभ जर्ाब ेे भार्थ िहीं र्थी। इभी बीच, नशेायतेताा भे ्े अन्द य
II
(iii)
7
्त्र ्रदाप् त ुआआ नजभमें र्षा 2008 ेे निर्ााचिों में ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रदेानशत ेरा् ग् ्ो् टर, ेैलण् डर और िोल् डर
भंलग् ि र्थे। आयोग िे ददिांे 04 मई, 2011 ेे अ्िे ्त्र ्ारा म्ख् य निर्ााचि अनाेारी, मध् य ्रददेश भे 30 ददिों ेे
अंदर ्रदेाशि ेे भंबंा में बिा् ग् नबलों ेे भार्थ भमाचार ्त्रों ेे भं्ादेों भे मूल रू् में भमाचार ्त्र ेा भ्भंगत
भाग ्रदाप् त ेरिे ेो ेहा तादे आयोग ्ारा आगे ेी जांच ेी जा भेे। नशेायतेताा ेी नशेायतों में उन्द हीं ेनर्थत
्रदेाशिों और ्म्ीभीभी, दोिों ददिांे 13 अ्रदैल, 2009 ेी नजरो भ ्रदनतयां ्त्र ेे भार्थ भंलग् ि ेी गई र्थीं। यह
भी ेहा गया र्था दे नशेायतेताा िे आयोग ेे भमक्ष अ्िी नशेायत में 35 भमाचार-्त्र नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे
बारे में ेहा र्था। आयोग ्ारा भमाचार-्त्र और उिेी ्जेंनभयों ेे भं्ादेों भे अ्ेनक्षत भूचिा ्ेत्र ेरिे ेे नल्
र्ररष् ठ अनाेारी ेो तैिात ेरिे तर्था निाााररत भमय में व् यनगगत रू् भे उन्द हें आयोग ेे भमक्ष ्रद् त्त ेरिे भंबंाी
निदेश दद् र्थे।
14.
इभी बीच नशेायतेताा भे ददिांे 12 मई, 2011 ेा ्े और ्त्र ्रदाप् त देया गया नजभेे भार्थ उभेे ्ारा नजला
निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया भे ्रदाप् त 13 भीडी भंलग् ि ेी गई र्थीं जोदे दनतया निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में र्षा 2008 में
निर्ााचिों ेे दतराि ररेॉडा ेी गई र्थीं।
15.
आयोग िे म्ख् य निर्ााचि अनाेारी, मध् य ्रददेश ेो ददिांे 12 मई, 2011; 02जूि, 2011; 15 जूि, 2011 ेो
बुआत भे अि् मारे भेजे और ददिांे 28 जूि, 2011 ेो नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, मध् य ्रददेश भे ्रदनतदक्रया भंबंाी
्त्र ्रदाप् त ुआआ दे ्ांच भमाचार ्त्र ्जेंनभयों में भे तीि-िामत:, आचर ग् र्ानलयर, िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर और
दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश िे यह भूचिा उ्लब् ा ेराई है दे भमाचार मदों ेी भेजी गई ्रदनतयों ेे भंबंा में उिेे
भमाचार ्त्र ्ारा ेोई भमाचार नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदेानशत िहीं ुआआ है और नर्चारााीि भमाचार ्त्र ेटटंग ेेर्ल न्द यूज
रर्ोटा ही ह । उिेे भमाचार ्त्र ्ारा आचर , ग् र्ानलयर भे ्त्र, ्जेंभी ेे ‘हेड मॉडरेटर’ ्ारा भेजा गया जबदे
िई द्निया और दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश भे ्त्र ्जेंभी ेे भंबंनात ‘भं्ादे’ ्ारा भेजा गया र्था। अन्द य दो ्जेंनभयों िे
अभी ेोई ्रदनतदक्रया िहीं दी है।
16.
नशेायतेताा भे ददिांे 28 मई, 2012 ेी ्े िई नशेायत आयोग में ्रदाप् त ुआई नजभमें भ्भंगत भमाचार ्त्र
्जेंनभयों ेे रेट ेाडा/दरों भनहत भंददग् ा ्ेड न्द यूज ेे 40 मामलों ेी बात ेही गई है। नशेायतेताा िे दैनिे
भा् ेर, ियी द्निया, दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश और बी्ी्ि टाइम् भ ेे भमाचार ्त्र ्ृष् ठों ेी मूल ्रदनतयां लगाई र्थी
नजिमें ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्क्ष में भमाचारों ेा ्रदेाशि देया गया र्था। भमाचार मदों ेी िोटोेॉ्ी तर्था ददिांे
15 िर्ंबर, 2008 ेो तर्था 25 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो आचर , भमाचार ्त्र में ्रदेानशत िोटोग्राि और ्रदत् यर्थी ेे
्क्ष में ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो ्रदेानशत अ्ील भी नशेायत ेे भार्थ भंलग् ि ेी गई र्थी। भमाचार ्त्र
्जेंनभयों ्ारा ्रदाप् त रेट ेाडा/दरों ेे आाार ्र नशेायतेताा िे ेहा है दे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रदेाशि ्र 6,07,980/- रू
ेा े्ल व् यय देया गया र्था। नशेायतेताा िे यह भी ेहा है दे नशेायतेताा भे आयोग ्ारा मांगी गई ेनर्थत
्रदेाशि ेी मूल ्रदनतयों ेो आयोग ेे बार-बार निदेश देिे ेे बार्जूद भी नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी दनतया और जि
भं्ेा अनाेारी ्ारा जाि-बूेर िहीं भेजा गया र्था।
17.
आयोग भे नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया ेो ददिांे 20 जूि, 2012 ेो ्त्र भेजा गया र्था नजभमें निम् िनलनात
ब् योरे मांगे ग् र्थे:-
(i)
(ii) और (iii) ेे (े), (ा) और (ग) में उनल्लनात मदों ेे भंबंा में नबलों/र्ाउचरों ेी ्रदमान त ्रदनतयां;
(ii)
या ्रदत् यर्थी िे िोटो भनहत अ्िी अ्ील ेे ्रदेाशि ेे भंबंा में ेोई रानश ददााई है:
(े) ‘दैनिे भा् ेर’, ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008
(ा) ‘आचर ’, ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008
(ग) ‘दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश’ ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008,
8
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
(iii)
या ्रदत् यर्थी िे ्रदेभ ्ारा यर्था ्रदनतर्ेददत बैठे ेे ाचे ददाा् ह :
(े) ‘दैनिे भा् ेर’, ददिांे 20 िर्म् बर, 2008
(ा) ‘िई द्निया’, ददिांे 18 िर्म् बर, 2008
(ग) ‘िई द्निया’, ददिांे 26 िर्म् बर, 2008
(iv)
या नभन्द ि-नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों िे शब् दश: र्ही भमाचार ्रदेानशत ेरिे ेे नल् ेोई भ्गताि ्रदात देया है
और भंबंनात मीनडया हाउभेभ िे ्रदेाशे भे ्रदाप् त ेोई घोष ा्त्र (उभेे ्ारा ह् ताक्षररत) जमा ेराया है तर्था
या यह दो व् यनगयों ्ारा अि्रदमान त (लो.्रद.अनानियम ेी ाारा 127 ेे अाीि यर्था्ेनक्षत) देया गया है या
िहीं।
18.
नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया िे ददिांे 25 ज्लाई, 2012 ेे अ्िे ्त्र ्ारा उ्रोनल्लनात मी नडया हाउभेज
्ारा दी गई ्रदनतदक्रयाओं, नजभमें उि भभी िे इभ बात भे इंेार देया र्था दे ्रदेाशि ेे ेोई भी नबल या र्ाउचर
बिा् ग् र्थे, ेे भार्थ ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा दानाल 2,40,827 रू. ेा व् यय नर्र्र भेजा र्था। मीनडया हाउभेज ्ारा दद्
ग् र् तव् यों ेे ब् योरे निम् िनलनात अि्भार ह :-
क्रम. भं.
द् तार्ेज ेा िाम
भंनक्षप् त नर्षय-र्् त्
1
भं्ादे, आचर (् भ-डी/7) भे
ेले टर
और
नजला
निर्ााचि
अनाेारी, ेो ्त्र
इभ ेायाालय िे डा० िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेे भंबंा में ेोई नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदेानशत
िहीं देया है। अत:, भंबंनात नबल ेी भत् यान्त ्रदनत उ्लब् ा िहीं
ेराई जा भेती।
2
भं्ादे, दैनिे भा् ेर (् भ-डी/8)
भे म्ख् य निर्ााचि अनाेारी ेो ्त्र
डा० िरोत् तम नमश्रा िे ि तो ेोई नर्ज्ञा्ि ही ददया है और ि ही सभा
ेोई नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदेानशत देया गया है। अत:, भंबंनात नबल ेी भत् यान्त
्रदनत उ्लब् ा िहीं ेराई जा भेती।
3
यूिाइटेड हेड, िई द्निया (्म् भ-
डी/9)
भे
ेले टर और
नजला
निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया ेो ्त्र
इभ ेायाालय िे डा० िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेे भंबंा में ेोई नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदेानशत
िहीं देया है। अत:, भंबंनात नबल ेी भत् यान्त ्रदनत उ्लब् ा िहीं
ेराई जा भेती।
4
नजला रर्ोटार, बी.्ी.्ि टाइम् भ
(् भ-डी/10) भे ेले टर और नजला
निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया ेो ्त्र
यह भमाचार ्त्र मई, 2011 भे बंद हो गया है। अत:, देभी भी
नर्ज्ञा्ि ेे भंबंा में ेोई भंबंनात भ्गताि िहीं देया गया है।
5
ब् यूरो चीि, दैनिे भा् ेर ग् र्ानलयर
(् भ-डी/11) भे ेले टर और नजला
निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया ेो ्त्र
उ्य्ा त नर्षय ेे भंबंा में ेोई भ्गताि ्रदाप् त िहीं ुआआ है।
6
नजला रर्ोटार, दैनिे आचर ,
ग् र्ानलयर (् भ-डी/12) भे ेले टर
और नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी,
दनतया ेो ्त्र
उ्य्ा त नर्षय ेे भंबंा में ेोई भ्गताि ्रदाप् त िहीं ुआआ है।
II
(iii)
9
7
नजला रर्ोटार, दैनिे िई द्निया,
ग् र्ानलयर (् भ-डी/3) भे ेले टर
और नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी,
दनतया ेो ्त्र
उ्य्ा त नर्षय ेे भंबंा में ेोई भ्गताि ्रदाप् त िहीं ुआआ है।
8
्नडटर-इि-चीि,
दैनिे
दनतया
्रदेाश,दनतया
(् भ–डी/14)
भे
ेले टर
और
नजला
निर्ााचि
अनाेारी, दनतया ेो ्त्र
उ्य्ा त नर्षय ेे भंबंा में ेोई भ्गताि ्रदाप् त िहीं ुआआ है।
19.
ररेाडा ्र द् तार्ेजों ्र नर्चार ेरते ुआ् आयोग िे ्ेड न्द यूज ्र आयोग ेी राष् रीय ् तरीय भनमनत (इभेे ्च चात
‘‘भनमनत’’) ेी बैठे ब्लािे ेा नि ाय नलया है तादे ्ेड न्द यूज ेे उि 42 भंददग् ा मामलों ेी जांच ेी जा भेे जो
दे दैनिे भा् ेर, िई द्निया, आचर , दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश तर्था बी्ी्ि टाइम् भ, ग् र्ानलयर में ्रदेानशत दे्
ग् र्थे और नशेायतेताा ्ारा नर्नभन्द ि अनभर्ेदिों ेे माध् यम भे आयोग ेे ध् याि में ला् ग् र्थे। भनमनत में
निम् िनलनात भद् य र्थे:-
(i) श्री घिच याम गोयल, अ्र महानिदेशे, श्रव् य-दृच य ्रदचार निदेशालय, भारत भरेार
(ii) श्री ्भ. मनर्थयाभ, अ्र महानिदेशे, (भमाचार), आेाशर्ा ी
(iii) श्री िीरज बाज्ेयी, र्ररष् ठ भंर्ाददाता (्रदेभ ेांउनभल ऑि इंनडया ्ारा िानमत)
(iv) श्री शंगारा राम, ्रदााि भनचर्, भारत निर्ााचि आयोग
(v) श्री ेे. अजय े्मार, ्रदााि भनचर्, भारत निर्ााचि आयोग
(vi) श्री ेे.्ि.नर्ल् रेड, ्रदााि भनचर्, भारत निर्ााचि आयोग
(vii) श्री बिााड जॉि, भनचर्, भारत निर्ााचि आयोग
(viii) भ्श्री ्द्मा आंगमो, उ् भनचर्, भारत निर्ााचि आयोग-भंयोजे
भनमनत िे क्रमश: 05 और 12 नभतम् बर, 2012 ेो अ्िी बैठे आयोनजत ेी। भनमनत िे निम् िनलनात नर्चारााीि 42 ्ेड
न्द यूज मदों ्र नर्चार देया:-
्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत ्ारा भंर्ीनक्षत ेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ेी भूची
क्रम भं.
भमाचार मद ेी हेडलाइि
भमाचार-्त्र ेा िाम
ददिांे
1.
‘’शनग ्रददशाि में भबभे आगे रहे िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
08/11/08
2.
‘‘…तो इभनल् भबभे अलग ह : िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
09/11/08
10
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
3.
‘‘दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ िरोत् तम ेे हार्थ’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
10/11/08
4.
‘‘्े ेदम और बढ़े िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
12/11/08
5.
‘‘हर भमाज ेा भमर्थाि िरोत् तम ेो’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
13/11/08
6.
‘‘जिता ेे ् िेह भे अनभभूत िरोत् तम
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
15/11/08
7.
‘‘भाठ ददि में ब्ूाई भाठ भाल ेी प् याभ: िरोत् तम दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
16/11/08
8.
‘‘रोजगार ेा भ्िा ्ूरा ेरेंगे िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
18/11/08
9.
‘‘क्षेत्र ेी भ्रक्षा ्हली ्रदार्थनमेता: िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
20/11/08
10.
‘‘ग्मराह ेरते रहे िेता: िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
20/11/08
11.
‘‘श्री नमश्र ेे भमर्थाि में जिभैलाब उमड़ा’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
21/11/08
12.
‘‘ये आम िहीं ााभ च्िार् है: िरोत् तम’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
22/11/08
13.
‘‘क्षेत्र ेे नर्ेाभ ेे नल् िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेी जीत
जरूरी’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
23/11/08
14.
‘‘दनतया भरेगा नर्ेाभ ेी उड़ाि: डा. िरोत् तम
नमश्रा’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
24/11/08
15.
‘‘दनतया में नभिा भाज्ा ेी ही लहेर, िरोत् तम
ही ्हली ्भंद’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
26/11/08
16.
‘‘भबेे ददल ्र पा गये िरोत् तम नमश्रा’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
26/11/08
17.
‘‘नर्ेाभ ेी बात ्र िरोत् तम नमश्रा भे ज्ड़े
मतदाता’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
27/11/08
18.
‘‘नर्िम्र आग्रह’’ (Direct Appeal)
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
27/11/08
19.
‘‘क्षेत्र ेा नर्ेाभ ही ्े मात्र म्द्दा : डॉ. िरोत् तम
नमश्रा’’
दैनिे भा् ेर, ग् र्ानलयर
27/11/08
II
(iii)
11
20.
‘‘...तो इभनल् भबभे अलग ह : िरोत् तम’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
11/11/08
21.
‘‘जिता ेे ् िेह भे अनभभूत िरोत् तम’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
15/11/08
22.
‘‘भाज्ा ही ेरा भेती है दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
16/11/08
23.
भाठ ददि में ब्ूाई भाठ भाल ेी प् याभ िरोत् तम’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
17/11/08
24.
‘‘भाज्ा जो ेहती है र्ो ेरती है: नमश्रा’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
18/11/08
25.
‘‘भमाज ेा नहत भर्वोक्रर’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
18/11/08
26.
‘‘क्षेत्र ेी भ्रक्षा ्हली ्रदार्थनमेता िरोत् तम’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
20/11/08
27.
‘‘डॉ. नमश्रा ेे भमर्थाि में जिभैलाब उमड़ा’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
21/11/08
28.
‘‘ये आम िहीं ााभ च्िार् है: िरोत् तम’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
22/11/08
29.
‘‘दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ िरोत् तम ेी ्रदार्थनमेता’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
24/11/08
30.
‘‘दनतया भरेगा नर्ेाभ ेी उड़ाि डॉ. िरोत् तम
नमश्रा’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
25/11/08
31.
‘‘दनतया भे िरोत् तम ेी जीत लगभग भ्निनचित’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
26/11/08
32.
‘दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ और आमजि ेी भ्रक्षा ही
मेरा ध् येय: डॉ. नमश्रा’’
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
26/11/08
33.
‘‘िरोत् तम ेी जीत भे होगा दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ’’
(Direct Appeal)
िई द्निया, ग् र्ानलयर
27/11/08
34.
‘‘डॉ. नमश्रा ेे भमर्थाि में जिभैलाब उमड़ा’’
बी.्ी.्ि. टाइम् भ, ग् र्ानलयर
21/11/08
35.
‘‘दनतया में िरोत् तम िे च्िार्ी भमीेर ेो
देया अ्िे ्क्ष में’’
बी.्ी.्ि. टाइम् भ, ग् र्ानलयर
25/11/08
36.
‘‘दनतया में नभिा भाज्ा ेी लहेर, िरोत् तम ही
्हली ्भंद’’
बी.्ी.्ि. टाइम् भ, ग् र्ानलयर
26/11/08
37.
‘‘तो इभनल् भबभे अलग ह : िरोत् तम’’
आचर , ग् र्ानलयर
15/11/08
12
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
38.
‘‘दनतया भरेगा नर्ेाभ ेी उड़ाि डॉ. िरोत् तम
नमश्रा’’
आचर , ग् र्ानलयर
25/11/08
39.
‘‘नर्ेाभ ेी बात ्र ् र्त: ज्ड़ रहे ह िरोत् तम भे
मतदाता’’
आचर , ग् र्ानलयर
27/11/08
40.
‘‘डॉ. नमश्रा ेे भमर्थाि में े्शर्ाहा भमाज भड़ेों
्र’’
दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश
27/11/08
41.
‘‘दनतया में भाज्ा ेी लहेर: िरोत् तम बिे ्हली
्भंद’’
दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश
26/11/08
42.
‘‘मतदाता बंा्ओं भे िम्र निर्ेदि’’ (Direct
Appeal)
दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश
27/11/08
दैनिे भा् ेर, िई द्निया, आचर , दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश और बी्ी्ि टाइम् भ, ग् र्ानलयर ेे ेनर्थत 42 ्ेड न्द यूज मदों/लेाों
में ्रदत् ये ेी भंर्ीक्षा ेरिे ्र भनमनत ्ारा निम् िनलनात रटप् ्न यां ेी गई:
(i)
नर्चारााीि मद लगभग रोज ही ्ांच भमाचार ्त्रों में 08 िर्म् बर भे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ते ्रदेानशत
ुआई र्थी।
(ii)
भमाचार मद में ेेर्ल डा० िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेे भंबंा में ही भूचिा र्थी और उिेे ्क्ष में अनाेता भे ददााई
गई र्थीं। उि नलह्ंग् भ में महत् र््ू ा लेा और अ्ीलें र्थीं। न्द यूज मदें न्द यूज रर्ोटा ेी बजा् अभ् यर्थी ेे नल्
निर्ााचि नर्ज्ञा्ि अनाे ्रदतीत हो रही र्थीं।
(iii)
15 िर्म् बर ेो आचर में, 11 िर्म् बर ेो िई द्निया तर्था 09 िर्म् बर ेो दैनिे भा् ेर में ्े ही
शीषाे ेे भार्थ ्े नर्शेष भमाचार ददााई ्ड़ा और न्द यूज मद ेी नर्षय र्् त् शब् दश: र्ही र्थी।
(iv)
न्द यूज मदों ेे शीषाे र्थे- ‘नर्ेाभ ेे नल् डॉ.िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेी जीत जरूरी’ ‘िरोत् तम ही ्हली ्भंद’,
दनतया में िरोत् तम ेी जीत लगभग भ्निनचित’ –ये डॉ. िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेा ्रदचार ेरिे ेे नल् ्रदेानशत
दे् ग् र्थे।
(v)
लगभग भभी न्द यूज मद रर्ोटार ेे िाम ेे नबिा ही ्रदेानशत दे् ग् र्थे। ज् यादातर मदों ेे ेोिे ्र
‘भा् ेर इम् ्े ट’ या ‘इले शि ् ्ेशल भीररज’, या ‘इम् ्े ट िीचर’ नलाा ुआआ र्था।
(vi)
लेाों में देभी नर््क्षी अभ् यर्थी, या उभेे अनभयाि ेा भंदभा िहीं ददया गया र्था और इभेी ेोई नर्षय-
भूची भी िहीं र्थी जो दे भंत्नलत ्रर्ेष् य दे ्ाती।
भनमनत इभ भंबंा में भहमत र्थी दे 42 न्द यूज मदें/लेा ्क्ष्ात्ू ा, ्े ्क्षीय र्थे और अभ् यर्थी (डा०िरोत् तम नमश्रा)
ेी भंभार्िाओं ेो ्रदोत् भानहत ेरिे ेी ओर लनक्षत र्थे। े्प ्रदनतर्ेददत मदें ्रदत् यक्ष रू् भे अ्ील र्थीं, जबदे अन्द य
अभ् यर्थी ेे ्क्ष में नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदतीत हो रही र्थीं। नर्् तृत चचाा और मामले ेे भभी ्हल्ओं ेी जांच ेे ्च चात भनमनत
इभ नि ाय ्र ्ुआंची दे नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों में ्रदेानशत लेा/मदें भरोगेट नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदतीत होती ह और ्ेड न्द यूज
ेी नर्द्यमाि ्ररभाषा, जो दे ्रदेभ ेाउंनभल ऑि इंनडया ्ारा दी गई है, ेे अाीि नल् जािे ेे नल् उ्य् त है
अर्थाात् ‘‘िेदी या ्ाररतोनषे ेे रू् में ेीमत ेे नल् देभी भी मीनडया (ह्रदंट या इले टॉनिे) में ददााई ्ड़िे
र्ाली ेोई भी ाबर या नर्च लेष ’’।
II
(iii)
13
20.
्ेड न्द यूज ्र भनमनत ेी उ्य्ा त रर्ोटा ्र नर्नार्त रू् भे नर्चार ेरिे ेे ्च चात आयोग िे इभे आगे ेी जांच
हेत् उ्य् त मामला ्ाया। तशि्भार, आयोग िे निर्ााचि ेा भंचालि नियम, 1961 ेे नियम 89 ेे उ्-नियम (5)
ेे अाीि ्रदत् यर्थी ेो ददिांे 15 जिर्री, 2013 ेो ेार बताओ िोरटभ जारी देया नजभमें निम् िनलनात अि्भार
ेहा गया र्था:
‘‘यत:, लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम 1951 ेी ाारा 15 ेे अाीि राज् य ेे राज् य्ाल ्ारा मध् य ्रददेश
नर्ााि भभा ेे भााार निर्ााचि ेी अ्ेक्षा ेी गई र्थी; और
यत:, आ्िे 22-दनतया नर्ााि भभा निर्ााचि क्षेत्र भे उ त भााार निर्ााचि में निर्ााचि लड़ा र्था; और
यत:, लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951, ेी ाारा 77(1) ेे अाीि निर्ााचि में ्रदत् ये अभ् यर्थी भे यह
अ्ेक्षा ेी जाती है दे र्ह निर्ााचि ेी घोष ा ेी तारीा और िाम-निदेशि ्त्र दानाल ेरिे ेी तारीा ेे बीच
अभ् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि अनभेताा ्ारा उ्गत निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में भभी व् यय ेा अलग और भही लेाा राे;
और
यत:, लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 78 ेे अाीि अभ् यर्थी भे अ्ेक्षा ेी जाती है दे र्ह
निर्ााचि ेे ्रर ाम ेी घोष ा ेे 30 ददिों ेे अंदर ाारा 77 ेे अाीि उभेे ्ारा राे ग् लेाों ेी भही ्रदनत
नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी ेे ्ाभ दानाल ेरे:, और
यत:, आ्िे ददिांे 06 जिर्री, 2009 ेो नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया ेो अ्िे व् यय लेाे दानाल
ेर दद् र्थे; और
यत:, यह देाा गया है दे 42 (बयालीभ) न्द यूज मदें/लेा जो दे 08भे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो चार भमाचार
्त्रों िामत: दैनिे भा् ेर, िई द्निया, आचर और दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश में लगभग रोज ही ददााई देते र्थे, न्द यूज
रर्ोटा भे अनाे आ्ेे ्क्ष में निर्ााचि नर्ज्ञा्ि अनाे ्रदतीत होते र्थे; और
यत:, आयोग ्ारा गरठत ्ेड न्द यूज ्र भनमनत ्ारा 42 न्द यूज मदों/लेाों ेी भंर्ीक्षा ेी गई; और
यत:, नर्् तृत चचाा ेे बाद और मामले ेे भभी ्हल्ओं ेी जांच ेरिे ेे ्च चात उ त भनमनत इभ नि ाय
्र ्ुआंची है दे ये लेा/मद जो दे भमाचार ेे रू् में नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों में नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदतीत होते ह और जो ‘्ेड
न्द यूज’ ेी ्ररभाषा ेे अंतगात आिे ेी योग् यता राते ह : अर्थाात् ‘सभी ेोई ाबर या नर्च लेष जो ्ाररतोनषे या
िेदी ेे नल् देभी भी मीनडया (ह्रदंट या इले रॉनिे) में ्रदेानशत ेी जा्’; और
यत:, ददिांे 12 नभतम् बर, 2012 ेो ्ेड न्द यूज ्र भनमनत ेी बैठे ेे ेायार्ृत् त ेी ्रदनत और 42 भ्भंगत
न्द यूज मदों/लेाों ेी ्रदनतयां इभ िोरटभ ेे भार्थ ्तद्वारारा भंलग् ि ह ; और
यत:, लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 78 ेे अाीि नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया ्ारा
भेजे ग् निर्ााचि व् यय ेे उ त लेाे ेे अर्लोेि ्र यह ्ाया गया दे ्ेड न्द यूज ेी ्रदेृनत में इि नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे
जारी ेरिे ्र उ्गत व् यय ेो लो.्रद.अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 78 ेे अाीि नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया
ेे ्ाभ दानाल और लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 ेे अाीि राे ग् निर्ााचि व् यय ेे उ त लेाों में
्रदनतहबंनबत िहीं देया गया; और
14
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
अत:, अब निर्ााचि ेा भंचालि नियम, 1961 ेे नियम 89 ेे उ्-नियम(5) ेे अाीि निर्ााचि आयोग
आ्ेो ्तद्वारारा ेार बताओ िोरटभ देता है दे आ्ेो नर्ना ्ारा अ्ेनक्षत तरीेे भे निर्ााचि व् यय ेे अ्िे लेाे
दानाल ेरिे में अभिल रहिे ेे ेार और नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों में ्रदेानशत नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे नल् व् यय ेो नप्ािे/
अर्मूल् यि ेरेे अ्िे निर्ााचि व् यय ेे भही लेाे दानाल ि ेरिे और नर्ना ्ारा यर्था्ेनक्षत तरीेे भे अ्िे
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे भही ्र् भटीे लेाे रािे में अभिल रहिे ्र यों ि निरर्थहात घोनषत ेर ददया जा्।
आ्ेे ्ारा उ्य्ा त चूे ेे ेार ों ेो नलनात में ् ्ष् ट देया जािा चानह् और यह इभ िोरटभ ेी ्रदानत
ेी तारीा भे 20 ददिों ेे अंदर आयोग में ्ुआंच जािा चानह्।
यदद आ् निाााररत अर्ना में सभा ेरिे में अभिल रहते ह तो आयोग ्ारा आ्ेो आगे भूनचत दे् नबिा
आयोग ेे निरहाता आदेश ेी घोष ा ेी तारीा भे 3 र्षों ेी अर्ना ेे नल् भंभद ेे देभी भी भदि या देभी
राज् य/भंघ शानभत क्षेत्र ेी नर्ााि भभा या नर्ााि ्ररषद ेा भद् य च्िे जािे या होिे ेे नल् लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र्
अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि निहार होिे ेा भागी मािा जा्गा।
लो.्रद.अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े, 77 और 78 ेे उ्ध र तर्था निर्ााचि ेा भंचालि नियम, 1961
ेा नियम 86 और 89 ेे नियम भंलग् ि ह । आयोग आ्ेो, यदद आ् सभा चाहते ह तो, तीि ेाया-ददर्भों ेा ्ूर्ा
िोरटभ देर, भ्भंगत द् तार्ेजों/िाइलों ेा निरीक्ष , ेरिे ेा अर्भर दे भेता है।
‘‘भारत निर्ााचि आयोग ेी मोहर ेे अाीि 15 जिर्री, 2013 ेो जारी देया गया’’
21.
आयोग ेे ेार बताओं िोरटभ ेे जर्ाब में ्रदत् यर्थी िे अ्िा ्हला जर्ाब ददिांे 28 जिर्री, 2013 ेो दानाल
देया नजभमें उन्द होंिे ेहा दे नजभ द् तार्ेज/भामग्री ेे आाार ्र उन्द हें िोरटभ जारी देया गया र्था, र्ह उन्द हें िहीं ददया गया
र्था। अ्िे जर्ाब में उन्द होंिे अि्रोा देया दे उन्द हें उ त द् तार्ेज/भामग्री उ्लब् ा ेराई जा् तादे र्े िोरटभ ेे भंबंा में
्ू ा और ्रदभार्ी जर्ाब दानाल ेर भेें। तशि्भार, आयोग ्ारा ्रदत् यर्थी ेो ददिांे 01 माचा, 2013 ेो ्े ्त्र भेजा गया
नजभमें उिभे और ्रदनतदक्रया मांगी गई और उन्द हें आयोग ेे ररेॉडा में भभी भ्भंगत िाइलों ेी जांच ेे अर्भर ेी अि्मनत भी
दी गई। इभेे अनतरर त, ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा उन्द हें जारी ेार बताओ िोरटभ ेे भंबंा में निम् िनलनात अि्भार े्प ्रदारंनभे
आ्नत्तयां उठाई गईं:
(i)
्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया दे र्तामाि मामले में जांच ेरिे ेी ्रदार्थनमे अ्ेक्षा निर्ााचिों ेा भंचालि नियम,
1961 ेे नियम 89 ेे उ् नियम (2) ेे अाीि डीईओ ्ारा ्रद् त्त रर्ोटा ्र आााररत र्थी जो दे िीचे दिर भे
्रद् त्त ेी गई है:
‘‘(2) जहां नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी ेी यह राय है दे देभी अभ् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा इभ अनानियम
और इि नियमों ्ारा अ्ेनक्षत रीनत में दानाल िहीं देया गया है र्हां हर सभी रर्ोटा ेे भार्थ उभ अभ् यर्थी ेे
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाों और उभेे भार्थ दानाल र्ाउचरों ेो निर्ााचि आयोग भेजेगा’’
उ्य्ा त उ्-नियम ेे अंतगात ्रदनतेूल रर्ोटा जमा होिा ्े ्ूर्ाा्ेक्षा है जबदे र्तामाि मामले में सभा िहीं है।
अत:, ेार बताओं िोरटभ ेरिा भीईआर, 1961 ेे नियम 89 ेे नर््रीत है।
(ii)
र्तामाि मामले में आयोग ्ारा ् र्यं भे जांच िहीं ेी जा भेती योंदे यह डीईओ ेी ्रदनतेूल रर्ोटा ्र
आााररत होती है।
(iii)
लेाों ेो गलत तरीेे भे ्रद् त्त ेरिे ेा आरो् लेाों ेो दानाल ेरिे ेे बाद भे ही उठाया गया ्रंत्
लेाों ेो दानाल ेरिे ेे 4 र्षा बाद भी आयोग ्ारा अ्िे ज्ञाि भे ेोई जांच श्रू िहीं ेी गई। अब आयोग ्ारा
्रदारंभ ेी गई यह जांच अत् यन्द त नर्लनम् बत हो च्ेी है और इभ नर्लंब ेे ेार ् मृनत िीेी ्ड़ च्ेी है जो दे
्रदत् यर्थी ेे नल् हानिेर होगी।
II
(iii)
15
(iv)
निर्ााचि नर्ना इभ बात ्र जोर डालती है दे देभी निर्ाानचत अभ् यर्थी ेो े्भी भे हटािे ेे नल् आरो्ों
ेो ् ्ष् ट रू् भे ेहा जािा चानह् और यह नबल् े्ल भही तरीेे भे भी भानबत देया जािा चानह् दे ये अभ् यर्थी
अर्थर्ा उभेे निर्ााचि अनभेताा या निर्ाानचत अभ् यर्थी ेी भहमनत भे देभी अन्द य व् यनग ्ारा दे् ग् ह । ्ेड न्द यूज
्र र्तामाि िोरटभ आयोग ेी ाार ा और अि्माि ेे आाार ्र जारी देया गया है। अत:, जांच श्रू ेरिा नर्ना
ेी िीनत ेे अि्रू् िहीं होगा।
(v)
जांच आरंभ ेरिे ेे नल् गरठत ्ेड न्द यूज ्र भनमनत ेी रर्ोटा ेे आाार ्र िोरटभ जारी देया गया,
िोरटभ देभी नि ाय ्र ्ुआंचिे ेे नल् भूचिा ेे स्रोत ेा ा्लाभा िहीं ेरता जो दे भनमनत ्ारा ्ुआंचे ग्
निष् ेषा ेी महत् र््ू ा ेमी है और देभी भी मामले में सभी ेोई रर्ोटा जांच श्रू ेरिे ेा आाार िहीं हो भेती है।
इभ आाार ्र िोरटभ ेो रद्द ेरर्ा अ्ेनक्षत है।
22.
इभेे ्च चात ्रदत् यर्थी िे 22 मई, 2013 ेो आयोग में िाइलों ेा निरीक्ष देया और उभिे उभेे ्ारा मांगे ग्
भ्भंगत द् तार्ेजों ेी ्रदनतयां ्रदाप् त े।। बचे ुआ् आगे ेे निरीक्ष ेे भंबंा में ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ््ि: अि्रोा ेरिे ्र
उन्द होंिे 16 ज्लाई, 2013 ेो िाइलों ेा दूभरा और अंनतम नि रीक्ष देया।
23.
इभेे ्च चात, आयोग िे ददिांे 19 ज्लाई, 2013 ेे अ्िे ्त्र ्ारा ्रदत् यर्थी भे आयोग ेे ददिां े 15 जिर्री,
2013 ेे िोरटभ ेा ददिांे 30 ज्लाई, 2013 ते जर्ाब ्रद् त्त ेरिे ेो ेहा। तत् ्च चात, ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा आयोग ेे
िोरटभ ेा अंनतम जर्ाब आयोग में 29 ज्लाई, 2013 ेो ्रदाप् त देया गया नजभमें निम् िनलनात निर्देि र्थे:
(i)
्रदत् यर्थी ेो िोरटभ इभ बात ्र नर्चार दे् नबिा जारी देया गया है दे या सभा ेरिे ेे नल् ्रदर्थम
दृष् टया मामला मतजूद है योंदे िोरटभ, ्ेड न्द यूज ्र गरठत भनमनत ेी रर्ोटा ्र ही आााररत है और ि दे आयोग
्ारा ् र्यं दे् ग् जांच ्रर ामों ्र। इभेे अनतरर त भनमनत ेी रर्ोटा यह ेहीं भी िहीं ददााती दे िोरटभ
्रदाप् तेताा ेहीं भी नर्चारााीि न्द यूज मदों ेे ्रदेाशि में शानमल र्था। यह ्े भामान्द य भी बात है दे निर्ााचि में
नर््क्षी दल भी हार ेी आशंेा भे अभ् यर्थी ेे भार्थ शरारत ेरते ह , र्े सभी ्ररन्र्थनत ्ैदा ेर देते ह और
्रर ामों ेी घोष ा ेे ्च चात निर्ााचि ेो च्ितती देिे ेे नल् सभी भामग्री ्ेत्र ेर लेते ह । आयोग ेे इभ
भमाााि ेी ररेॉर्डिंग ेे नबिा ही दे ्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रू्ध ेी गई ेारार्ाई आर्च ये है, िोरटभ जारी देया गया है।
(ii)
र्ह दूभरा आाार नजभ ्र िोरटभ भेजा गया र्था, े्प भमाचार ्त्र रर्ोटें (् आई आर 1969 ्भ भी
1201 ्भ.्ि. बालाेृष् ा बिाम ििािंडीभ तर्था ् आई आर 1994 ्भ भी 1733 ेमरूल इ् लाम बिाम ्भ.ेे.
ेान्द ता में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा यर्था निाााररत) र्थीं, जो ्रदमा ेे रू् में तब ते ् र्ीेाया िहीं ह जब ते दे
भंबंनात भमाचार ्त्र भे ्ांड्नलन् ्रदाप् त िहीं ेर ली जा्।
(iii)
निर्ााचि आयोग ेी िोट-शीट ्र नर्चार ेरिे ्र, आयोग में भ्रम ेी न्र्थनत र्थी दे िोरटभ दद् जािे
र्ाले व् यनग ेो िोरटभ जारी देया जा् या िहीं।
(iv)
िोरटभ ्र्ं ेारार्ाई में ेािी नर्लम् ब ुआआ है और उ्य् तता यह अ्ेक्षा ेरती है दे आगामी निर्ााचिों भे
ठीे ्हले ेोई ेारार्ाई िहीं ेी जा्।
(v)
यानचेाेताा ्ारा उ् च न्द यायालय में इभी नर्षय र्् त् ्र ्े भमािांतर ेायार्ाही श्रु ेी गई र्थी। यदद
जांच निर्ााचि आयोग ्ारा आरंभ ेी जा् तो ्र् ्र नर्रोाी नि ायों ेी भंभार्िा भे इंेार िहीं देया जा
भेता। यह भी दे, ्े भे अनाे ेायार्ानहयां िा तो ्क्षेार ेे नहत में है, और ि जिता ेे नहत में (राम भ्मेर
बिाम मध् य ्रददेश राज् य 1985(1) ्भ भी भी 427 में यर्था-निाााररत)।
(vi)
् आई आर 1999 ्भ भी 252 ्ल.आर. नशर्रामगतड़ा बिाम टी.्म. चंरशेार ेे मामले ेे अि्भार,
नशेायत में इभ ्रदेार ेी भूचिा होिी चानह् दे भमाचार-्त्र में ्ेड-न्द यूज अंतर्थर्ाष् ट र्थे और भमाचार-्त्र आम
16
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
जिता ेे उद्देच य भे निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र में ्ररचानलत दे् गये र्थे। यह भी दे, इभमें यह दशाािे ेे नल् ्यााप् त भामग्री
अर्च य होिी चानह् दे भमाचार म्दरत देया गया र्था और निर्ाानचत अभ् यर्थी सभे भमाचारों ेा स्रोत र्था। जब ते
इभे दशााया िहीं जाता है, भमाचारों ेा ्रदेाशि मात्र अभ् यर्थी ेे नल् देभी ेाम ेा िहीं है। सभे आरो्ों ेे िहीं
होिे ्र िोरटभ अनभांनडत दे् जािे योग् य है।
(vii)
्ेड न्द यूज ेे ्रदेाशि ेे ् र्रू् ेे नर्षय में देभी नशेायत ेा ्ता िहीं चला या ्रदेक्षे अर्थर्ा नजला
निर्ााचि अनाेारी भे उभेी नशेायत िहीं ेी गई।
(viii)
ह्रदंट मीनडया में नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे भंबंा में नजला निर्ााचि अनाेाररयों, भभी राज् यों ेे म्ख् य निर्ााचि
अनाेाररयों तर्था भभी राज् यों ेे म्ख् य भनचर्ों ेो जारी दे् ग् निदेशों ेे बार्जूद ेोई भी, ेोई भी भमाचारों
ेा भंज्ञाि िहीं ले रहा र्था और भभी लोगों िे भमाचारों ेो रूटीि भमाचार ेे रू् में मािा। 8 जूि, 2010 ेो ्े
्रर्त्र जारी देया गया र्था नजभमें ्ेड न्द यूज ेा ध् याि राा गया र्था और नजला भनमनत भे अ्ेक्षा ेी गई र्थी दे र्े
निर्ााचि भमाचारों ्र िजर राें। इिेे बार्जूद, उभ निर्ााचि, नजभमें भंगत नर्र्ाद उत् ्न्द ि ुआआ है, ेे भमय
ेायारत नजला भनमनत िे यह िोरटभ िहीं देया दे अनभेनर्थत भमाचार ेो ्ेड न्द यूज ेे रू् में मािा जा्।
(ix)
यह ्रद् त्त देया जाता है दे सभे आरो् भे ््रजोर तरीेे भे इंेार देया जाता है दे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा
भमाचार रर्ोटों ेे ्रदेाशि में ेोई ्ैभा ाचा देया गया। और नर्र्ादों ेे नर्र्र द् तार्ेजों ेे ्रदाप् त होिे और
्रदारंनभे जर्ाब ्र नर्चार दे् जािे ेे बाद ्रद् त्त दे् जा्ंगे।
(x)
अत:, यह ्रदार्थािा ेी जाती है दे िोरटभ ेृ्या र्ा्भ नलया जा् और ेायार्ानहयां बंद ेी जा्ं।
24.
भार्थ ही भार्थ, ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा मध् य ्रददेश उ् च न्द यायालय ेी ग् र्ानलयर ्ीठ में ्े ररट यानचेा भं. 6023/2013
दानाल ेी गई र्थी, नजभमें लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि निर्ााचि आयोग ्ारा
उन्द हें जारी दे् ग् िोरटभ ेी नर्नामान्द यता ेे भार्थ-भार्थ तर्था आयोग ेी भमर्थाता ेो भी च्ितती दी गई र्थी।
आयोग ेी ेायार्ानहयों ्र 29 अग् त, 2013 ेो उ् च न्द यायालय ेे ्े आदेश ्ारा रोे लगाई गई जो बाद में
ददिांे 9 अ तूबर, 2013 ेे आदेश ्ारा निष् ्रदभार्ी हो गई। बाद में, उ् च न्द यायालय ्ारा ददिांे 28 ज्लाई,
2016 ेे ्े आदेश ्ारा यानचेा ेा, आयोग ेो इभ निदेश ेे भार्थ नि्टाि देया गया दे र्े ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा
आयोग ेे भमक्ष दानाल दे् ग् र्ादेालीि आर्ेदिों ्र यदद ्हले भे ही नि ाय िहीं नलया गया है, तो इभ आदेश
ेी भत् यान्त ्रदनत ेे ्रदाप् त होिे ेी नतनर्थ भे तीि माह ेी अर्ना ेे भीतर नि ाय लें और नर्र्ाद में भमयब्ध तरीेे
भे नि ाय लेिे ेे नल् आगे बढ़ें तादे तंत्र में र्ादी ेा नर्च र्ाभ बिा रहे।
25.
्े ररट यानचेा भं. 3512/2011 रााा मोहि भोिी ्ारा भी 21 मई, 2011 ेो मध् य ्रददेश उ् च न्द यायालय ेी
ग् र्ानलयर ्ीठ ेे भमक्ष दानाल ेी गई नजभमें लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 78 ेे अाीि यर्था-
दानाल ाारा 77(1) तर्था 77(2) ेे अाीि देभी अभ् यर्थी ्ारा बिा् राे ग् निर्ााचि व् यय ेी नर्र्र ी ेी
ेनर्थत अश्ध ता अर्थर्ा अभत् यता ेी गहराई भे जांच ेरिे ेे, आयोग ेे अनाेार-क्षेत्र ेो लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र्
अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि च्ितती दी गई र्थी। इभ मामले में यानचेाेताा ेो ्े अंतररम राहत
दी गई र्थी नजभेा ्रदभार् यह ुआआ दे आयोग ेे भमक्ष ्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रु्ध ेायार्ानहयां रुे गईं। बाद में, उ् च
न्द यायालय ्ारा यह नि ाय नलया गया दे यानचेाेताा लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10(े) ेे
अाीि निरहाता ेे मामले ्र नि ाय लेिे ेे नल् आयोग ेे अनाेार क्षेत्र ेे भंबंा में इभ ररट यानचेा में उठा् ग्
म्द्दे ेो आयोग ेे भमक्ष उठा् और नजभ ्र उे् त ्रदानाेारी ्ारा नि ाय नलया जा्गा।
26.
इभ दरम् याि, ्रदत् यर्थी ेे उत् तर ्र नर्चार ेरिे ेे ्च चात, आयोग िे 22 अ तूबर, 2013 ेो भ्िर्ाई ेे नल्
्क्षेारों ेो ब्लािे ेा नि ाय नलया। उ त भ्िर्ाई ेे ्च चात् जहां ्रदत् यर्थी िे भ्िर्ाई ेे आ् र्थगि ेे नल् अि्रोा
देया, र्हीं नशेायतेताा ्ारा दानाल निर्ााचि यानचेा ेे लंनबत होिे और इभी ्रदेार ेे मामलों ेे न्द यायालयों ेे
भमक्ष नर्चारााीि होिे ेे आाार ्र आयोग ेे भमक्ष ेायार्ानहयों ेो भमाप् त ेरिे ेे नल् ्े आर्ेदि दानाल
II
(iii)
17
देया। उन्द होंिे ्ेड-न्द यूज भनमनत ेी ददिांे 05 नभतंबर, 2012 ेी बैठे ेे ेायार्ृत् त ेी ्रदनत उ्लब् ा ेरािे ेे
नल् ््ि: ्े आर्ेदि दानाल देया तादे र्े उन्द हें जारी दे् ग् िोरटभ ेा उनचत ्र्ं ्ू ा रर् ्ांभ उ्लब् ा ेरा
भेें। उन्द होंिे ्ेड-न्द यूज भनमनत ेे भद् यों ेी ्रदनत्रीक्षा ेरिे ेे नल् अर्भर दद् जािे ेे नल् भी आर्ेदि दानाल
देया। ्रदत् यर्थी िे, भार्थ ही भार्थ, ददिांे 09 अ तूबर, 2013 ेी ररट यानचेा भं. 6023/2013 में उ् च न्द यायालय
ेी ्ेल ्ीठ ेे आदेश, नजभेे ्ारा उ् च न्द यायालय िे आयोग ेे भमक्ष ेायार्ानहयों ्र रोे ेो निष् ्रदभार्ी ेर
ददया र्था, ेो च्ितती देते ुआ् ररट अ्ील भं. 486/2013 दानाल ेी। उ त ररट अ्ील भं.486/2013 में उ् च
न्द यायालय ेे नडर्ीजि बेंच ्ारा ्े अंतररम आदेश ददिांे 11 अ तूबर 2013 ्ाररत देया गया नजभमें उ् च
न्द यायालय ेी ्ेल बेंच ेो इभ बात ेी ् र्तंत्रता दी गई दे र्ह ररट यानचेा भं.6023/2013 में ग् -दोष ेे
आाार ्र नि ाय ले और ररट अ्ील में ्रदत् यर्थर्थायों ेे भार्थ आयोग ेो भी इभ बात ेी ् र्तंत्रता दी गई दे र्े उ् च
न्द यायालय ेे आदेश ददिांे 11 अ तूबर 2013 ेे भंशोाि ेे भंबंा में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेा रुा ेर भेते ह । तब
्रदत् यर्थी िे 22 अ तूबर, 2013 ेी भ्िर्ाई र्ा्भ ेरिे ेे नल् आयोग ेे भमक्ष ्े आर्ेदि दानाल देया। उन्द होंिे
अ्िे मामले ेे भार्थ-भार्थ ्ेड न्द यूज भे भंबंनात अन्द य मामलों ेे भूचीयि ेे नल् भी आर्ेदि दानाल देया। उन्द होंिे
्ेड-न्द यूज भनमनत ेे गठि तर्था इभेी ेायार्ाही, जो 12 नभतंबर, 2012 ेो ुआई र्थी, ेे बारे में आ्नत्त दानाल ेी।
उन्द होंिे 22 अ तूबर, 2013 यानि भ्िर्ाई ेी तारीा ेो ही आयोग में निाााररत भ्िर्ाई ेे आ् र्थगि ेे नल् ््ि:
्े आर्ेदि दानाल देया और ररट अ्ील भं. 486/2013 में उ् च न्द यायालय ेे ददिांे 11 अ तूबर, 2013 ेे
आदेश ेे नर्रु्ध उ् चतम न्द यायालय में ्भ ्ल ्ी दानाल ेरिे ेे नल् भमय देिे ेी ्रदार्थािा ेी।
27.
दूभरी तरि, नशेायतेताा िे ्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रु्ध अ्िी नशेायत ेे शी्र नि्टाि ेे नल् ्े आर्ेदि ददिांे
22 अ तूबर, 2013 दानाल देया। नशेायतेताा िे ्रदत् यर्थी ेो मध् य ्रददेश ेी नर्ााि भभा ेे र्षा 2013 ेे
निर्ााचिों में भाग लेिे भे ्रदनतबंनात ेरिे ेा आर्ेदि भी दानाल देया र्था। आयोग िे आगे 18 िर्ंबर, 2013 ेो
भ्िर्ाई तय ेी। ्रदत् यर्थी िे मध् य ्रददेश में 25 िर्म् बर, 2013 ेो निाााररत निर्ााचिों ेो ध् याि में राते ुआ् भ्िर्ाई
ेी तारीा ् र्थनगत ेरिे ेे नल् 01 िर्म् बर, 2013 ेो और ्े आर्ेदि दानाल देया। तब, आयोग िे
29 िर्म् बर, 2013 ेो भ्िर्ाई ेी अगली तारीा निाााररत ेी। ्रदत् यर्थी िे उिेे ्ारा दानाल ्भ ्ल ्ी भं.
035006/2013, जो 29 िर्म् बर, 2013 ेो ही उ् चतम न्द यायालय में भ्िर्ाई दे् जािे ेे नल् भूचीब्ध ेी गई
र्थी, ेो ध् याि में राते ुआ्, भ्िर्ाई ेो आ् र्थनगत ेरिे ेे नल् भ्िर्ाई ेी तारीा अर्थाात् 29 िर्म् बर, 2013 ेो
ही ््ि: ्े आर्ेदि दानाल देया। ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा दानाल ेी गई ्भ ्ल ्ी 14 अ तूबर, 2014 ेो उ् चतम
न्द यायालय ्ारा यह ेहते ुआ् अंनतम रू् भे नि्टाि ेर ददया गया दे आयोग ेो, अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा ेे
मामले (् आई आर 2014 ्भ भी 310) में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे नि ाय ेा अि्भर ेरते ुआ्, ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा
दानाल दे् ग् निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे ेी यर्थात्यता ेी जांच ेरिे ेी शनग ्रदाप् त है।
28.
तब, आयोग िे 22 अ तूबर 2013, 29 िर्ंबर 2013, 8 नभतंबर 2014, 11 िर्ंबर 2014, 2 िरर्री 2015,
12 िरर्री 2015, 10 माचा 2015, 9 ज्लाई 2015, 15 ज्लाई 2015, 27 ज्लाई 2015, 16 नभतंबर
2015, 26 अ तूबर 2015, 30 िर्म् बर 2015, 23 ददभम् बर 2015, 21 जिर्री 2016, 13 अ्रदैल 2016,
26 मई 2016, 08 अग् त 2016, 24 अग् त 2016, 6 नभतम् बर 2016, 21 अ तूबर 2016, 28 िर्म् बर
2016, 9 जिर्री 2017 तर्था 17 माचा 2017 ेो दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे नल् नर्् तृत भ्िर्ाईयां भंचानलत ेी ।
8 नभतम् बर, 2014 ेो भ्िर्ाई ेे ददि, आयोग िे दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे नर््ाि अनार् ताओं ेे ्रामशा भे
निम् िनलनात म्द्दे नर्रनचत दे्:
18
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
i.
या दनतया निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में निर्ााचि ्रददक्रया ेे दतराि नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों, िामत: दैनिे भा् ेर, िई
द्निया, दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश, आचर ग् र्ानलयर तर्था बी.्ी.्ि. टाइम् भ में ्रदेानशत भमाचार लेा, ्रदत् यर्थी
ेा िोटोय् त ‘अ्ील’, नर्ज्ञा्ि आदद ्रदत् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि भे ज्ड़े ‘‘्ेड न्द यूज’’/नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे भदृश ह ?
ii.
या ेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ्र व् यय लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 ेे अर्था ेे भीतर या तो
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा या उिेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट ्ारा या ्रदत् यर्थी या उिेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट ेी ्रदत् यक्ष या निनहत भहमनत
या जािेारी भे उ्गत/्रदानाेृत देया गया है।
iii.
या सभे ्रदेाशिों में उ्गत/्रदानाेृत व् यय ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा दानाल दे् ग् निर्ााचि व् यय लेाे में शानमल है?
iv.
या ्रदत् यर्थी नर्ना ्ारा यर्थाअ्ेनक्षत तर्था नर्ना ेे अाीि निर्ााचि व् यय ेा भत् य ्र्ं भही लेाा दानाल
ेरिे में अभिल रहा है?
v.
या ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्ाभ नर्ना ेे अाीि यर्था्ेनक्षत रीनत भे अ्िे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा दानाल ेरिे में सभी
अभिलता ेे नल् उनचत ेार या औनचत् य है?
vi.
या ्रदत् यर्थी लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 तर्था 78 ेे भार्थ ्रठत ाारा 10े ेे अाीि
भारत निर्ााचि आयोग ्ारा निरर्थहात घोनषत दे् जािे ेा भागी है।
29.
26 मई, 2016 ेो ्रदत् यर्थी िे अ्िे बचार् में ्ूपताप ेरर्ा् जािे ेे नल् 18 भाष् यों ेी ्े भूची ्रद् त्त ेी।
भम् ये नर्चार ेरिे ्र, आयोग िे ्ाया दे उि भाष् यों (्रदत् यर्थी भनहत) में भे ेेर्ल 4 ेे ्रदमा भंगत ह ।
नशेायेताा िे ्रद् त्त देया दे अ्िे मामले ेे भमर्थाि में अेेले र्े ्ूपताप ेरर्ािा चाहेंगे। तदि्भार, उ्य्ा त
भाष् यों ेे ्रदमा 9 ज्लाई 2015, 15 ज्लाई 2015, 27 ज्लाई 2015, 16 नभतम् बर 2015, 26 अ टूबर 2015,
30 िर्म् बर 2015, 23 ददभम् बर 2015, 21 जिर्री 2016, 13 अ्रदैल 2016, 26 मई 2016, 08 अग् त
2016, 24 अग् त 2016, तर्था 6 नभतम् बर 2016 ेो दोिों ्क्षेारों ेी उ्न्र्थनत में अनभनलनात दे् ग्
योंदे दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे ेाउंभेलों ्ारा उिेी नर्् तार्ूर्ाे ्रदनत्रीक्षा ेी गई।
30.
आयोग ्ारा ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा उठा् ग् ्रदच ि ्र नि ाय लेिे ेे नल् ्े अंतररम आदेश ददिांे 18 माचा, 2015
्ाररत देया गया दे या लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात नशेायतेताा ्ारा
दानाल नशेायत ्र आााररत ेायार्ाही नभनर्ल ्रददक्रया भंनहता, 1908 ेी ाारा 10 ेे दृनतगत रोेे जािे ेे नल्
उ्य् त है योंदे निर्ााचि यानचेा भं.26/2009 उ् च न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष लंनबत र्थी। नभनर्ल ्रददक्रया भंनहता,
1908 ेी ाारा 10 ेे दृनतगत आयोग ्ारा यह नि ाय नलया गया र्था दे उ्बंा ेी भाषा भे यह भंेेत नमलता है
दे यह नभनर्ल न्द यायालय में भं् र्थान्त नभनर्ल र्ाद में भेजे जािे योग् य है और इभे देभी अन्द य भंनर्ना ेे अाीि
भं् र्थान्त अन्द य ् र्रू् ेी ेायार्ानहयों ्र लागू िहीं देया जा भेता। ्े निर्ााचि यानचेा ि तो ्े नभनर्ल
र्ाद होता है और ि ही लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात ेायार्ाही ेो नभनर्ल
ेायार्ाही ेहा जा भेता है। भार्थ ही, अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा बिाम ईभीआई ्र्ं अन्द य ेे म्ेदमे में नि ाय,
नजभमें यह ााररत देया गया र्था दे उ् च न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष लंनबत निर्ााचि यानचेा और लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र्
अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे तहत ेायार्ाही दो ्ृर्थे् ्र्ं ् र्तंत्र ेायार्ानहयां ह और दोिों देभी भी तरि
भे ेोई भी भार्नाे ्रदनतबंा ेी हद में आ् बगैर भार्थ-भार्थ चल भेती ह । मामले ेे भंदभा में आयोग िे मत व् य त
देया दे इभ मामले में भी्ीभी, 1908 ेी ाारा 10 िहीं लागू होती है और लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951
ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात र्तामाि ेायार्ानहयां िहीं रोेी जा भेती। आयोग िे आगे मामले ेे शी्र नि्टाि ेे नल्
यानचेाेताा ेे अि्िय ्र गतर देया।
31.
इभ दरम् याि, नशेायतेताा िे यह ेहते ुआ् ्े अभ् यार्ेदि ्रद् त्त देया दे उन्द होंिे अ्िे आर्ेदि ददिांे 13
अ्रदैल, 2016 ेे ्ारा दैनिे भा् ेर, बी.्ी.्ि. टाइम् भ, दैनिे आचर ेी दर भूनचयां/टैररि ेाडा ्रद् त्त ेर
ददया र्था। ्रदत् यर्थी िे अि्रोा देया दे उि् हें 24 अग् त, 2016 ेो भ्िर्ाई में उ त द् तार्ेज उ्लब् ा ेराया जा्।
II
(iii)
19
चूंदे उ त द् तार्ेज ररेाडा में िहीं ्ा् ग् र्थे, इभनल् ेनर्थत ग्म हो गई िाइलों ेे भंबंा में आयोग में रनज् री
अि्भाग ्र्ं ्रदानत तर्था ्रदेष अि्भाग ्ारा ्े जांच ेी गई। रनज् री अि्भाग में ररेाडों ेी भंर्ीक्षा ेरिे ेे
्च चात यह ्ाया गया दे अभ् यार्ेदि रनज् री अि्भाग में ्रदाप् त िहीं देया गया र्था। यह ्ाया गया दे ्रदानत ्र्ं
्रदेष अि्भाग िे यह ् र्ीेार देया दे अभ् यार्ेदि ्रदानत ्र्ं ्रदेष अि्भाग में ्रदाप् त तो देया गया र्था, ्रि् त् इभे
उ त अि्भाग ेी डायरी में ्रदनर्ष् ट दे् नबिा भंबंनात अि्भाग ेो भेज ददया गया र्था। ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ददिांे
9 अ्रदैल, 2009 तर्था 13 अ्रदैल, 2016 ेो दद् ग् अभ् यार्ेदि ेे ग्म हो जािे भंबंाी मामले ्र नर्चार ेरते
ुआ्, ्रदानत ्र्ं ्रदेष अि्भाग ेो यह निदेश ददया गया दे आरभीभी तर्था रनज् री अि्भाग ेे िाम भे ्रदाप् त भभी
डाे ेी नबिा चूेे डायरी ेी जा्गी और उन्द हें ्े अलग िोल् डर में राा जा्गा तर्था नर्नार्त् रू् भे ्ार्ती
्रदाप् त ेरिे ेे ्च चात् निदेशे (नर्ना)/रनज् रार ेे ेायाालय में भेज ददया जा्गा।
32.
तब, आयोग िे ददिांे 21 अ टूबर, 2016, 28 िर्म् बर 2016, 9 जिर्री 2017 तर्था 17 माचा 2017 ेो दोिों
्क्षेारों ेा तेा भ्िा। दोिों ्क्षेारों िे 17 माचा 2017 ेो भ्िर्ाई ेे भमाप् त होिे भे ्ूर्ा अ्िे मतनाे
्रद् त्तीेर ों ेे अलार्ा अ्िे तेों ेा नलनात भार-भंक्षे् भी ्रद् त्त देया नजिेा ्क्षेारों ेे मध् य अ्िे आ्
आदाि-्रददाि भी देया गया। 17 माचा, 2017 ेो भ्िर्ाई ेे सभे भमा्ि में दोिो ्क्षेारों ेे नर््ाि ेाउंभेलों िे
यह ््नत ेी दे उिेे ्ाभ इभ मामले में या तो मतनाे रू् भे या नलनात रू् में आगे और ेोई ्रद् त्तीेर देिे ेे
नल् िहीं है।
33.
नशेायतेताा िे अ्िे नलनात तर्था मतनाे ्रद् त्तीेर ों में निम् िनलनात ्रदेर्थिों ेा भहारा नलया:
(i)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया दे ्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत, नजन्द होंिे ‘‘्ेड न्द यूज’’ ेी श्रे ी में 42 ेनर्थत भमाचार मदों
ेो देाा, ्रदेभ ेाउंनभल ऑि इंनडया ेे भद् यों तर्था निर्ााचि आयोग ेे नर्शेषज्ञों भे बिी र्थी। उ त भनमनत ेी
रर्ोटा ेे आाार ्र, ्रदत् यर्थी ेो ेार बताओ िोरटभ जारी देया गया र्था। इभेे अलार्ा, ेार बताओ िोरटभ में
नशेायतेताा ेे बारे में े्प भी उल् लेा िहीं र्था और आयोग ेो सभी ेायार्ाही श्रू ेरिे ेी ्ूरी शनग ्रदाप् त है।
(ii)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे अ्िे जर्ाब में यह ेहा दे लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम,
1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेायार्ानहयां ेेर्ल तभी ेी जाती ह जब निर्ााचि व् यय लेाा दानाल ेरिे में
अभिलता रही हो। ्रदत् यर्थी िे यह भी ेहा दे जब उिेे नर्रु्ध ्े निर्ााचि यानचेा उ् च न्द यायालय में लंनबत हो,
तो लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेायार्ानहयां भंाार ीय िहीं है। नशेायतेताा िे,
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा उठा् ग् उ्य्ा त म्द्दों ेे नर्रु्ध तेा ददया दे उिेे बारे में ्ैरा 59 में अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा
बिाम डॉ. माार्रार् देन्द हालेर तर्था अन्द य (्आईआर 2014 ्भभी 310) में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा 05 माचा,
2014 ेो ्हले ही नि ाय ददया जा च्ेा है जो निम् िाि्भार है:-
59. देभी निर्ााचि यानचेा ेी ेायार्ाही ेी ्रदेृनत ेी त्लिा में जब हम ाारा 10े ेे
अाीि निर्ााचि आयोग ेे ेायाक्षेत्र तर्था अनाेार-क्षेत्र ेी पाि-बीि ेरते ह , तो आरंभ में यह
अर्च य ेहा जािा चानह् दे उभमें निनहत शनग तर्था अनाेार-क्षेत्र निर्ााचि आयोग ेो,
भंबंनात अभ् यर्थी ेे भिल निर्ााचि ्र ेारार्ाई ेरिे भम् बन्द ाी आर्र ्रददाि िहीं ेरता।
दूभरे शब् दों में, ाारा 10े ेे अाीि शनग ेा ्रदयोग ेरते ुआ्, निर्ााचि आयोग भिल अभ् यर्थी
ेे निर्ााचि ेो अ्ा् त िहीं ेर भेता। ाारा 10े में ेेर्ल निरहाता ेे उभ आदेश ेी बात
ेरता है नजभे निर्ााचि आयोग जारी ेर भेता है। इभेे अनतरर त, सभे निरहाता आदेश
निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा दानाल ेरिे में अभिल होिे ेे नल् जारी देया जा भेता है और
सभी नर्िलता भमय ेे भीतर र्थी तर्था अनानियम ्ारा या इभेे अाीि अ्ेनक्षत रीनत भे र्थी।
अत:, निर्ााचि अनाेर (उ् च न्द यायालय) ्ारा नर्चार ेी जािे र्ाली निर्ााचि यानचेा
ेी ्ररना तर्था ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ्ाररत दे् जािे र्ाले निरहाता आदेश ेी ्ररना ्ूरी
तरह भे नभन्द ि है और यह अर्च य उल् लेा देया जािा चानह् दे ्े ेा दूभरे भे ्र् ्र नर्रोा
िहीं है।
20
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
(iii)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे निच चय्ूर्ाे ेहा र्था दे चूंदे नशेायत र्षा 2008 ेे
निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में है और ेार बताओ िोरटभ र्षा 2013 में भेजा गया र्था, अत: लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम,
1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि उभेे नर्रु्ध ेायार्ाही भंाार ीय िहीं है। नशेायतेताा िे इभ तेा ेे नर्रु्ध
्रदेर्थि देया दे लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेायार्ाही जारी रािे ्र ेोई
्रदनतबंा िहीं है, जबदे ्रदत् यर्थी िे ् र्यं नर्लम् बेारी ेायािीनत अ्िाई।
(iv)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया दे लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेायार्ानहयां
नर्श्ध रु् भे नभनर्ल ्रदेृनत ेी ह और इभेा नि ाय अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा बिाम माार्रार् देन्द हालेर तर्था
अन्द य (उ्य्ा त) में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे नि ाय ेो ध् याि में राते ुआ् ्रदमा ाना यता ेी भंभार्िा ेे आाार ्र
देया जा्, जैभा दे ्ैरा 86 में निाााररत देया गया है, जो निम् िाि्भार ्रद् त्त है:-
86. भर्ा्रदर्थम, ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेी जािे र्ाली जांच, अनानियम ेी ाारा 123 ेे अंतगात
आिे र्ाले भ्रष् ट आचर ेे देभी भी आरो् ेी जांच िहीं ेरिा है। ाारा 10े ेे अाीि जांच
में ेी जािे र्ाली पाि-बीि ेा क्षेत्र ेेर्ल निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा दानाल ेरिे तर्था यह दे
या सभी ्रद् त्नत अनानियम ेे ्ारा या इभेे अाीि यर्था्ेनक्षत रीनत भे ेी गई र्थी, ेे भंबंा
में है। दूभरे, जब सभी जांच ेी जाती है, तो उभेा ेायाक्षेत्र र्ही होगा जो ाारा 77(1) तर्था
(3) ेे भार्थ-भार्थ ाारा 78 में यर्था-अंतर्थर्ाष् ट होगा। उ त उ्बंा में निर्ााचि लड़िे र्ाले
अभ् यर्थी भे अ्ेक्षा ेी जाती है दे र्े निर्ााचि व् यय ेा भत् य ्र्ं भही लेाा यह भ्निनचित ेरिे
ेे नल् बिा् राें दे सभे व् यय अनानियम ेे अाीि निाााररत भीमा ेे भीतर हों और यह दे
लेाे ेी सभी नर्र्रन यों ेी ्े ्रदनत ाारा 78 ेे अाीि निाााररत भमय ेे भीतर दानाल ेी
जा्। जब ाारा 123 ेे अाीि देभी भ्रष् ट आचर ेा ्रदच ि आता है, तो यह उल् लेा ेरिा
व् यर्था है दे उ त मामले ेी पाि-बीि ेी ्ररना निर्ााचि यानचेा ेी भम् ्ू ा नर्षय-र्् त् ेे
भीतर हो, जैभा दे अनानियम ेे भाग VI ेे अध् याय-I भे लेर अनानियम ेे अध् याय v में
नर्नहत देया गया है। ््िरार्ृनत्त ेे जोनाम ्र, यह द्हराया जािा होगा दे ाारा 10े ेे
अाीि जांच ेमोर्ेश नभनर्ल ्रदेृनत ेी होगी और इभनल्, ेेर्ल भंभाव् यताओं ेे
्रदमा ाना य ेा नभ्ध ांत ही ्ेमात्र रू् भे लागू होगा और यह िोट ेरिा भ्भंगत है दे
निरहाता ेा आदेश, यदद ेोई हो, ेार बताओ िोरटभ ेे जारी दे् जािे, उत्तर ्रदाप् त होिे,
आदद ेी अ्ेक्षा ेा ्ालि दे् जािे ेे ्च चात ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात ्ाररत दे् जािे ेे
बाद भी निर्ााचि लड़िे र्ाले अभ् यर्थी ेे नल् ाारा 11 ेे अाीि आगे और उ्चार उ्लब् ा है
नजभेे ्ारा व् यनर्थत अभ् यर्थी निर्ााचि आयोग ेे भमक्ष ्रददर्थशात ेर भेे दे निरहाता ेा
आदेश, देभ ्रदेार िहीं रटे भेता है और इभ ्र अलग तरीेे भे नर्चार देया जािा
चानह्। यदद व् यनर्थत अभ् यर्थी ाारा 11 ेा उ्योग ेरते ुआ् भी अ्िी नशेायत ेा निर्ार
ेरर्ािे में भक्षम िहीं भी हो तो उभेे ्ाभ अनानियम ेी ााराओं 10े ्र्ं 11 ेे अाीि
निर्ााचि आयोग ्ारा ्ाररत देभी भी ्रदेार ेे आदेश ेी यर्थात् यता ्र ्रदच ि उठािे ेे नल्
भंनर्ााि ेे अि् पेद 32 ्र्ं 226 ेे अाीि भंर्ैाानिे उ्चार भदैर् उ्लब् ा है।
(v)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे ्रदनतनर्रोा देया र्था दे चूंदे इभ मामले में नजला निर्ााचि
अनाेारी, दनतया िे ेोई ्रदनतेूल रर्ोटा दानाल िहीं ेी र्थी इभनल् उभेे नालाि लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम,
1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेोई ेायार्ाही श्रू िही ेी जा भेती है। नशेायतेताा िे इभ ्रदनतनर्रोा ेे
नर्रु्ध ्रदेर्थि देया र्था दे डीईओ िे अ्िी रर्ोटा में ेेर्ल यह ्रद् त्त देया र्था दे लेाा उ्य् त िॉमेट में
दानाल िहीं देया र्था तर्था उन्द होंिे अनभेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ेे भंदभा में देभी ्रदेार ेी जांच िहीं ेी र्थी। यह भी दे
II
(iii)
21
तर्थाेनर्थत मामला अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा बिाम माार्रार् देन्द हालेर ्र्ं अन्द य (ऊ्र) ेे मामले में ्ैरा 70 में
उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा ्हले ही नि ीत देया जा च्ेा है जो निम् िाि्भार ्रद् त्त है:-
70. निर्ााचि ेा भंचालि ्नब्ले डोमेि में होिे ेे िाते, सभे निर्ााचि ेा ्रदचालि ्रदत् ये
निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में, भम् त निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में िैले ुआ् इलाेे में होगा। यह ेहिा आर्च ये है दे ये
जरूरी िहीं है दे भंबंनात अभ् यर्थर्थायों ्ारा देभी ्रदेार ेी अर्ैाता या अनियनमतता में नलप् त
होिे ेी जािेारी निर्ााचि आयोजेों ेो अर्च य ही हो बेशे निर्ााचि अनाेारी, भ्रक्षा
ेार्थमाे आदद जैभे नर्नभन्द ि ेार्थमाे निर्ााचि आयोग ेे नियंत्र ााीि निर्ााचि ेरािे ेे उद्देच य
भे अिन्द य रू् भे ेाम यों ि ेर रहे हों। इभनल्, निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र ेे ेनत्य क्षेत्रों में निर्ााचि में
लड़िे र्ाले अभ् यर्थर्थायों ्ारा ेी गई अर्ैाताओं ेे सभे उदाहर े्प र्् यनगयों ेी जािेारी में
आ भेते ह नजिेा सभे अभ् यर्थी ेे ्ाभ उ्लब् ा ाि बल ेी भहायता भे निर्ााचि ेी ्रददक्रया
ेा द्रु्योग ेरते ुआ् अभ् यर्थी ेे आचर ेे भंबंा में गंभीर ्रर ाम हो भेता है। इभनल्,
यदद ेोई व् यनग नियम 88 ेे अंतगात निरीक्ष ेरेे देभी अभ् यर्थी ्ारा निर्ााचि ेी ्रददक्रया
में नियमों ेे सभे द्रु्योग ेा ्रदाख् याि ेरिे में भक्षम होता है और यदद भंबंनात व् यनग यह
्ाता है दे निनायों ेा सभा द्रु्योग घरटत ुआआ है, नजभेा निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे ेे नर्र्र
में ्रदेटि िहीं देया गया र्था, तो उभेे ्ाभ उभे निर्ााचि आयोग ेी जािेारी में लािे ेा ्ूरा
अनाेार होगा और ाारा 10े ेे भार्थ ्रठत नियम 87 और 88 ेे अंतगात सभा अनाेार
्रददाि ेरिे ेा भही तात् ्या यह है दे उभेे ्ाभ नशेायत ेरिे ेा आाार होगा,। भार्थ ही,
ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात ेी गई जांच ेी ्रददक्रया में, निर्ााचि आयोग तर्थाेनर्थत ाारा ेे अंतगात
निरहाता ेे उ्य् त आदेश ्ाररत ेरिे ेे नल् निर्ााचि आयोग ेो भक्षम बिािे हेत् भंबंनात
व् यनग ेो नशेायत ेो ्रदमान त ेरिे ेे नल् भंगत भामग्री ेे भार्थ ब्ला भेता है। इभनल्
अ्ीलार्थी ेे नर््ाि र्ररष् ठ ेांउभेल ेा यह तेा दे नशेायतों ेा ेोई आाार िहीं है, ् र्ीेार
िहीं देया जा भेता है।
(vi)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे ्रदनतनर्रोा देया है दे ररेाडा में राी गई े्प भमाचार मदें
िोटोेान्यां र्थीं नजन्द हें ् र्ीेारा िहीं जा भेता। यह भी दे ररेाडा में ्रददशों ेे रू् में द् तार्ेजों ेे अि्नचत अंेि
ेा अत् यनाे भहारा नलया गया र्था। नशेायतेताा िे इभ ्रदनतनर्रोा ेे नर्रु्ध ऑल ्ाटी नहल लीडभा ेान्द रेंभ बिाम
डब् ल् यू.्.भंगमा (्आईआर 1977 ्भभी 2155) ेे मामले ेा उदाहर ददया र्था नजभमें यह अनभनिनचित देया
गया र्था दे निर्ााचि आयोग भंनर्ााि ेे अि् पेद 136(1) ेे अर्था ेे भीतर ्े न्द यायानाेर है और इभनल्
भारतीय भाष् य अनानियम, 1872 ेे नियम आयोग ेे भमक्ष होिे र्ाली ेायार्ानहयों ्र लागू िहीं होते ह ।
(vii)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे भमाचार मदों ेे जाली या गढ़े ुआ् होिे ेे बारे में ्रदेर्थि िही
देया है अन्त्, नर्रोा ेेर्ल इभ बात ेा देया र्था दे अनभेनर्थत भमाचार मदों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे नल् ेोई िेदी
या ्रदनतिल िहीं ददया गया र्था। यहां ते दे भमाचार-्त्र ्जेंनभयों ेे ्त्रों में भी अनभेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों भे इंेार
िहीं देया र्था ्रन्द त् ेेर्ल इभ बात ेी घोष ा ेी गई र्थी दे ्रदेाशिों ेे भंदभा में ्रदत् यर्थी या उिेी ओर भे ेोई
भ्गताि िहीं देया गया र्था। भार्थ ही, भाक्षी, रमेश राज्ूत जो ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्क्ष में उ्न्र्थत ुआ् र्थे, िे नशेायतेताा
ेे ेांउभेल ्ारा ेी गई ्रदनत्रीक्षा में ् र्ीेार देया र्था दे भमाचार ्त्रों में ्रदेाशि ुआये र्थे।
(viii) नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे भमाचार-्त्र ्जेंनभयों ्ारा ्रद् त्त ्त्रों ्र नर्च र्ाभ िहीं देया जा
भेता है योंदे र्े देभी भी श्र्थ ्त्र ेे ्ारा भमर्थर्थात िहीं ह । भार्थ ही, नजि व् यनगयों िे ्त्र जारी दे् ह र्े
ेभी भी आयोग ेे भामिे उ्न्र्थत िहीं ुआ्। तत् ेालीि ेले टर भी ्त्रों ेो ्रदमान त ेरिे ेे नल् आयोग ेे
भमक्ष ेभी भी उ्न्र्थत िहीं ुआ् र्थे। ्त्रों ्र ्जेंभी ेी देभी ्रदेार ेी म्हर िहीं लगी र्थी तर्था उन्द हें उ्य् त ्त्र-
शीषा ्र भी जारी िहीं देया गया र्था।
22
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
(ix)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ेले टर दनतया, जो ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्क्ष में भाक्षी र्थे, िे नशेायतेताा ेे
ेांउभेल ्ारा ेी गई ्रदनत्रीक्षा में भाष् यों ेे जोड़-तोड़ ेे आरो्ों भे इंेार तो िहीं देया र्था ्रन्द त् उिेा उत्तर
देिे भे मिा ेर ददया र्था।
(x)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा ेे मामले में आयोग ेे आदेश ेी च्ितती में
ददल् ली उ् च न्द यायालय ेा नि ाय र्तामाि मामले में लागू िहीं होता है योंदे यह उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा
अनभनिाााररत िहीं देया गया है। ददल् ली उ् च न्द यायालय िे इभ मामले में ्रदत् यर्थी ेो जारी ेार बताओ िोरटभ
इभ आाार ्र अनभांनडत ेर ददया र्था दे इभे व् यय ेे बारे में जािेारी ्र्ं भहमनत भे भंबंनात नर्र्ाद्ये ेी
नर्रचिा दे् नबिा जारी देया गया र्था। ्रन्द त् र्तामाि मामले में, ेनर्थत नर्र्ाद्य आयोग ्ारा नर्रनचत देया
गया र्था। भार्थ ही, उमलेश यादर् ेे मामले में इलाहाबाद उ् च न्द यायालय ेी नडर्ीजि ्ीठ िे निर्ााचि आयोग ेे
आदेश ेो मान्द य ठहराया र्था जो आगे उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा भी मान्द य ठहराया गया र्था। इभ तरह, उमलेश यादर्
ेे मामले में निाााररत नर्ना ेा बाध् येारी ्रदभार् होगा।
(xi)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे िोरटभ में ्रदत् यर्थी ेो 20 ददिों ेी भमयार्ना ेे अंदर ेार बतािे ेा
अर्भर ददया गया र्था जो उभे निर्ााचिों ेा भंचालि नियम, 1961 ेे नियम 89(6) ेे अाीि अर्च य ददया जािा
चानह्। ्रन्द त्, गलती ेो ठीे ेरिे ेी बजाय ्रदत् यर्थी िे िोरटभ ेी नर्षय-र्् त् भे इंेार ेर ददया।
(xii)
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे निर्ााचिों ेे दतराि व् यय ्र अि्मेय भीमा ेे अनभर्चि ेो र्तामाि
मामले मे िहीं उठाया जा भेता है योंदे इभे ेेर्ल लो.्रद.अ. ेी ाारा 11 ेे अाीि उठाया जा भेता है।
(xiii) नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा ेे मामले में आगे ्रदेर्थि देया र्था
दे ददल् ली उ् च न्द यायालय िे भी.ई.आर. ेे नियम 89(5) ेे अाीि िोरटभ ेो अनभांनडत ेर ददया र्था। यहां ते
ेी ्रदत् यर्थी िे िोरटभ ेो मध् य ्रददेश उ् च न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष च्ितती दी और बाद में, उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे भमक्ष
भी ्रन्द त् ररट यानचेा ााररज ेर दी गई र्थी। इभनल्, निर्ााचि आयोग ्ारा निगात िोरटभ में ेोई त्र्रट िहीं है।
अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा ेा उ त नि ाय र्तामाि मामले ेे त् यों ्र लागू िहीं होता है।
(xiv) नशेायतेताा ेे ेाउंभेल ्ारा ्रदनत्रीक्षा में ्रददशों ेे रू् में नचन्ित े्प िोटो्रदनतयों ेे म्द्दे ्र
नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे उभिे अ्िी नशेायत ेे भार्थ भंलग् ि द् तार्ेजों ेे भमर्थाि में श्र्थ-्त्र ददया है।
उभिे भमाचार्त्रों ेी मूल ्रदनतयों ेे भार्थ िोटो्रदनतयां भी दानाल ेी ह । भार्थ ही, उभिे उल् लेा देया दे मूल
्रदनतयों भे ््नत दे् जािे ेे ्च चात िोटो्रदनतयों ्र ्रददशा नचन्ित दे् ग् ह ।
(xv)
इभ बात ्र दे या भमाचार मदों में उभ व् यनग ेे िाम ेी घोष ा अर्च य होिी चानह् जो मद ेो
्रदेानशत ेरिा चाहते ह , नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे ्रदत् ये भमाचार मद में ्रदत् यर्थी ेे िाम ेा उल् लेा होता
है और यह मामला दे भमाचार मदें ्ेड न्द यूज ह या िहीं, उभेा नि ाय आयोग ्ारा देया जा्गा।
(xvi)
भमाचार ्त्रों ्ारा ् र्ैन्पे ्रदेाशि ेे मामले ्र, नशेायतेताा िे तेा ददया र्था दे र्ह इभ त् य भे
अभहमत ह दे भमाचार ्त्रों ्ारा लेा/अ्ील/नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदत् ये अभ् यर्थी ेी, उभेे निर्ााचि क्षेत्र भे उभेी
लोेन्रदयता ेे भंबंा में, भूचिा ् ेनत्रत ेरिे ेे ्च चात,् र्े् पा भे ्रदेानशत दे् ग् र्थे।
(xvii) उ्य्ा त ्रदनतनर्रोाों ेे दृनतगत, नशेायतेताा िे ्रदार्थािा ेी दे ्रदत् यर्थी लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा
10े ेे अाीि तीि र्षों ेे नल् निरानहत घोनषत दे् जािे ेा ्ात्र है।
34.
्रदत् यर्थी िे अ्िे नलनात तर्था मतनाे ्रद् त्तीेर ों में निम् िनलनात प्र ेर्थिों ेा भहारा नलया है:-
(i)
्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे उभे जारी देया गया ेार बताओ िोरटभ निम् िनलनात बातें ् ्ष् ट ेरता है:-
II
(iii)
23
े.
इभे निर्ााचिों ेे ्रर ाम ेी घोष ा ेे चार र्षों ेे ्च चात जारी देया गया है जो 08 ददभम् बर, 2008
ेो घोनषत देया गया र्था।
ा.
इभे ेेर्ल ्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत ेे आाार ्र जारी देया गया र्था तर्था ददिांे 15 जिर्री, 2013 ेो िोरटभ
जारी ेरिे भे ्हले आयोग ्ारा त् यों ेा ् र्तंत्र रू् भे आेलि ्र्ं नर्चार िहीं देया गया। 2003(1)
्म्ी्लजे 180, में यह भी अनभनिाााररत देया गया है दे यदद िोरटभ नबिा भोचे-भमूे जारी देया जाता
है तो यह नर्ना में ् र्ीेाया िहीं है।
(ii)
्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे ेार बताओ िोरटभ ेेर्ल ्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत ेे ्रदेक्ष ेे आाार ्र जारी देया
गया र्था जो दे देभी भाष् य ्र आााररत िहीं र्था तर्था उ त भनमनत ेा ेेर्ल ‘‘्े ्रदेक्ष ’’ मात्र र्था जो ्े
बार दिर, उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे नि ाय िामत: ्आईआर 1952्भभी16 ्र्ं (1997)7्भभीभी622 ेे
आलोे में नर्ना में अाार ीय है।
(iii)
्रदत् यर्थी िे अ्िे ्रदनतनर्रोाों में 42 नर्र्ाददत भमाचार मदों ेे ्रदेाशि भे इंेार देया है तर्था ेार बताओ
िोरटभ ेे उत्तर में ेहा है दे उभेे ्ारा ्रद् त्त निर्ााचि व् यय नर्ना ेे अि्भार ह ।
(iv)
्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे चूंदे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा र्षा 2013-2014 में आयोनजत निर्ााचि में ्े बार दिर
भार्ाजनिे जिादेश ्रदाप् त देया गया है इभनल् उ त भार्ाजनिे जिादेश ेेर्ल इभनल् रद्द िहीं देया जा
भेता योंदे लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि उनचत भमय में ेोई ेारार्ाई िहीं ेी गई
र्थी।
(v)
्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे इभ मामले में निम् िनलनात नर्नाे ्रदार्ााि लागू होते ह :
े.
अनानियम ेी ाारा 123 भ्रष् ट आचर ेो ्ररभानषत ेरती है तर्था उ्-ाारा (6) ाारा 77 ेे
उल् लंघि में व् यय ेे उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत ेरिे ेे बारे में बताता है। भार्थ ही, निर्ााचिों ेा भंचालि नियम,
1961 ेे नियम 89 ेे भार्थ ्रठत अनानियम ेी ाारा 146 में जांच ेरिे ेी शनग ेा उ्बंा देया गया है
नजभमें आयोग ेो, जांच ेरते भमय, ाारा में इंनगत तरीेे भे नभनर्ल ्रददक्रया भंनहता, 1908 ेे ्रदार्ाािों
ेा अि्भर ेरिा है। इभ ्रदेार, लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि भं्ू ा जांच
ेी जािी चानह्।
ा.
ाारा 10े ेे अाीि, निर्ााचि आयोग निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा दानाल ेरिे में अभिल होिे ेे
नल् ही देभी व् यनग ेो उभ ्ररन्र्थनत में निरानहत घोनषत ेर भेता है जब उभेा भमाााि हो जा् दे
व् यनग लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ्ारा या उभेे अाीि यर्था्ेनक्षत भमय ेे भीतर और रीनत भे
निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा दानाल ेरिे में अभिल रहा है। इभेे अनतरर त, इभमें ेहा गया है दे अभ् यर्थी
अनानियम ेी ाारा 77 ेे अाीि निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में उभेे या उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट ्ारा उ्गत या
्रदानाेृत भभी व् यय ेा ्े अलग और भही लेाा राेगा।
उ्य्ा त भभी ्रदार्ाािों तर्था निर्ााचिों ेा भंचालि नियम, 1961 ेे नियम 86 भे 89 ेे भंय् त ्ठि भे
निम् िनलनात बातें ् ्ष् ट होती ह :-
े.
अभ् यर्थी, निर्ााचि अनाभूचिा ेी तारीा भे लेर ्रर ाम ेी घोष ा ेी तारीा ते निर्ााचि
अर्ना ेे दतराि उभेे या उभेे ्जेंट ्ारा उ्गत निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा रािे ेे नल् बाध् य है।
ा.
देभी ्रदेार ेा व् यय, जो अभ् यर्थी या उभेे ्जेंट ्ारा उ्गत िहीं देया गया है या अभ् यर्थी या
उभेे ्जेंट ्ारा ्रदानाेृत िहीं देया गया है, ेा ेोई लेाा रािे ेे भंबंा में लो.्रद. अनानियम, 1951 ेे
अाीि ेोई ्रदार्ााि िहीं है।
(vi) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे नशेायतेताा ्ारा दानाल ्ूरी नशेायत ेो भीाे-भीाे ्ढ़िे ्र यह तेा िहीं
नमलता है दे ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे ्जेंट या उिेे ्रदानाेार ेे अाीि तीभरे व् यनग ्ारा नर्र्ाद-ग्र् त 42
भमाचार मदों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे ्रदनत े्प भी भ्गताि देया र्था। आयोग ्ारा मतेे दद् जािे ेे बार्जूद
नशेायतेताा ्ारा इभ बात ेा सभा ्ेल भाष् य भी िहीं ्रद् त्त देया गया र्था जो यह दशाा् दे उ त
भमाचार मदें ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्रदानाेार ेे अाीि ्रदेानशत ेी गई र्थीं। इभ ्रदेार, उभेे ्ारा दायर नशेायत
आाारहीि, त् प है तर्था अनभांनडत दे् जािे योग् य है।
24
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
(vii) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे भमाचार ्त्रों ेी ओर भे श्री रमेश राज्ूत (दैनिे भा् ेर) ्र्ं श्री भ्रेश शमाा
(दैनिे आचर ) ेी भी जांच ेी गई र्थी तर्था उन्द होंिे ् ्ष् ट रू् भे उ त भमाचार मदों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे ्रदनत
देभी ्रदेार ेे ाि ेे ाचा भे मिा देया है। िोटो-्रदनतयां जो ्रददशों ेे रू् में नचन्ित ेी गई ह , भी भाष् य
ेे रू् में ् र्ीेाया िहीं ह ।
(viii) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा बिाम माार् रार् देन्द हालेर ्र्ं अन्द य (ऊ्र) ेे
मामले में यह अनभनिाााररत देया गया र्था दे नजभ अभ् यर्थी ेे नर्रु्ध अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे
अाीि ेार बताओ िोरटभ जारी देया जाता है, उभे भ्िे जािे ेा ्ूरा अर्भर ददया जािा है तर्था
नशेायतेताा ेो नबिा भंदेह ेे ्रदमान त ेरिा है दे नर्जेता अभ् यर्थी ्ारा निर्ााचि व् यय ेा लेाा ्रद् त्त
िहीं देया गया र्था। र्तामाि मामले में, नशेायतेताा नशेायत ेा आरो् नभ्ध ेरिे में अभिल रहे।
(ix) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा बिाम माार् रार् देन्द हालेर ्र्ं अन्द य (ऊ्र) में यह
अनभनिाााररत देया गया र्था दे चूंदे नर्ााि भभा ेा ेायाेाल भमाप् त होिे जा रहा र्था इभनल् निर्ााचि
आयोग ेो ेायार्ाही दैनिे आाार ्र अर्च य चलािी चानह् नजभेा अर्था यह है दे उ् चतम न्द यायालय
इभ बात ेे ्रदनत भजग र्था दे ेालार्ना भमाप् त होिे ेे ्च चात अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि
ेोई आदेश ्ाररत िहीं देया जा भेता। र्तामाि मामले में, नर्र्ादा-ग्र् त निर्ााचि ेी ेालार्ना र्षा
2013 में भमाप् त हो गई तर्था ्रदत् यर्थी अ्िे ्रददशाि, ईमािदारी तर्था भार्ाजनिे जिादेश ेे आाार ्र ््ि:
निर्ाानचत हो गया र्था। इभ ्रदेार, उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे उ्य्ा त िैभले ेे दृनतगत लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र्
अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ्रदत् यर्थी ेे नर्रु्ध आदेश ्ाररत िहीं देया जा भेता।
(x) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे जहां ते भंभाव् यताओं ेे ्रदमा ाना य ेे नभ्ध ांत ेा भंबंा है, उभे नशेायतेताा
ेे ्क्ष में िहीं लागू देया जा भेता अन्त्, यह नभ्ध ांत भरल ेार भे उभेे नालाि जा्गा दे मामले में
उ्लब् ा भंभाव् यता्ं इभ बात ेा भंेेत देती ह दे नशेायतेताा िे ि तो अनभर्चि ददया है और ि ही
्रदमान त देया है दे व् यय ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे ्रदानाेार ेे अाीि दे् ग् र्थे।
(xi) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा (ऊ्र) ेे मामले में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा नि ाय
दद् जािे ेे ्च चात आयोग िे उभेे भंदभा में निराहता ेा ्े आदेश ्ाररत देया ्रन्द त् बाद में ददल् ली
उ् च न्द यायालय िे, ्रामशी क्षेत्रानाेार ेा ्रदयोग ेरते ुआ्, आयोग ेे आदेश ेो इभ आाार ्र अ्ा् त
ेर ददया दे जो व् यय तर्थाेनर्थत रू् भे शानमल िहीं देया गया है, जो यदद अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा ेे
निर्ााचि व् यय में शानमल देया जा् और र्ह ाचों ेी नर्नहत ऊ्री भीमा ेे भीतर हो तो उभ दशा में
अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े अाीि ेोई आदेश ्ाररत िहीं देया जा भेता। ्रदत् यर्थी िे यह भी ्रद् त्त
देया है दे अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े भे भंबंनात भभी ्रदार्ाािों ेे भंय् त ्ठि भे यह ्ू ातया
् ्ष् ट हो जाता है दे निर्ााचि व् यय, नर्ना ेे अाीि नर्नहत अनाेतम भीमा भे अनाे िहीं होिे चानह् जो
दे नर्ना ेा ध् येय है। र्तामाि मामले में व् यय, देभी भी तरह भे, व् यय ेी नर्नहत भीमा भे अनाे िहीं ुआआ है।
(xii) ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे डीईओ िे आयोग ्ारा मंगर्ाई गई रर्ाटा ेे भंदभा में अ्िी जांच में ् ्ष् ट रू् भे
्ाया दे ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा निर्ााचि व् यय उनचत ्रदेार भे ्रद् त्त दे् ग् र्थे।
(xiii) ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रद् त्त निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे में ााली ेॉलम ेे म्द्दे ्र ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे जो भी व् यय
ााते में अर्च य ददाा् जािे चानह् र्थे र्ो ्हले ही ्रद् त्त ेर दद् ग् ह ।
(xiv) राज् य भरेार में मंत्री ेे ्द ेा द्रु्योग ेरिे ेे मामले में ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया र्था दे उभिे आयोग ेे
अनाेाररयों ेे भार्थ नमली-भगत भे ेोई भबूत गढ़िे ेे नल् अ्िे ्द ेा ेभी भी द्रु्योग िहीं देया र्था।
(xv) या भमाचार ्त्रों िे उभेे दबार् में आयोग ेो ूूठे ्त्र ्रद् त्त दे् र्थे, इभ नर्षय ्र ्रदत् यर्थी िे तेा ददया
र्था दे र्ह सभे देभी आरो् भे मिा ेरता है और उभिे देभी भी भमाचार ्त्र ्र ेभी भी अि्नचत ्रदभार्
ेा उ्योग िहीं देया।
(xvi) इभ नर्षय ्र दे उभे अनभेनर्थत भमाचार मदों/नर्ज्ञा्िों/इम् ्ै ट िीचरों आदद ेे बारे में भूचिा/जािेारी
ेब ्रदाप् त ुआई, उन्द होंिे े हा दे चूंदे उभिे अनभेनर्थत भमाचार मदों ेे नल् देभी ्रदेार ेा भ्गताि िहीं
देया र्था इभनल् इभेे भंबंा में जािेारी होिे ेा ्रदच ि ही िहीं उठता।
(xvii) ्रदत् यर्थी ेे इभ ्रद् त्तीेर ्र दे भमाचारों ेा ्रदेाशि भारतीय ्रदेभ र् ट ेी रर्ोटों ्र आााररत र्था,
्रदत् यर्थी भे ्ूपा गया दे या इभेे नल् देभी ्रदेार ेा श्रेय भारतीय ्रदेभ र् ट ेो ददया गया र्था, उन्द होंिे
ेहा दे उन्द हें इभ बात ेी ेोई जािेारी िहीं र्थी दे भारतीय ्रदेभ र् ट भमाचारों ेो देभ ्रदेार ्रदेानशत
ेरती है ्रन्द त् उन्द होंिे भमाचार्त्रों ेो देभी ्रदेार ेे ाि ेा भ्गताि िहीं देया है।
II
(iii)
25
(xviii) ्रदत् यर्थी ेे अनतरर त, श्री मदि े्मार ग्प् ता, ेले टर दनतया भे भी ्रदत् यर्थी ेे भाक्षी ेे रू् में ्रदनत्रीक्षा
ेी गई र्थी। उन्द होंिे आयोग ्ारा दानाल निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे ेा निरीक्ष ेरिे भे इंेार देया और ेहा
दे जो भी ररेाडा निर्ााचि ेायाालय में नर्द्यमाि र्थे र्े भभी उभेे ्ारा आयोग ेे भमक्ष ला् ग् ह । उन्द होंिे
यह भी उल् लेा देया दे उिेे ्ाभ नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी दनतया भे ेायों ेे भंबंनात ्रदच िों ्र देभी
्रदेार ेी रटप् ्न यां िहीं र्थीं, योंदे ये ्रदच ि उिेे ेायाेाल भे भंबंनात िहीं ह ।
(xix) ्रदत् यर्थी ेे अलार्ा, श्री रमेश राज्ूत, भं्ादे, दैनिे भाभ् ेर ेी ्रदत् यर्थी ेे भाक्षी ेे रू् में ्रदनत ्रीक्षा ेी
गयी। उन्द होंिे बताया दे ्जेंभी ् तर या रर्ोटारों ेे ् तर ्र देभी ्रदेार ेा ्ेड न्द यूज ्रदेाशि भंभर् िहीं
है। उन्द होंिे बताया दे उन्द हें ि तो देभी ्रदत् यर्थी िे और ि ही देभी और िे ेोई ्ेड न्द यूज उ्लब् ा ेराया र्था।
उन्द होंिे यह भी बताया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी भे ्रदाप् त देभी ्रदेार ेे भ्गताि ेा इंेार ेरते ुआ् दैनिे भा् ेर ेे
ेायाालय भे जारी देया ्त्र उिेी जािेारी में है और इभे ्जेंभी ेे ्े नजम् मेदार अनाेारी ्ारा जारी
देया गया र्था। उन्द होंिे यह भी बताया दे यह भंभर् है दे ्े भमाचार ्त्र में ्रदेानशत भमाचार मदें दूभरे
भमाचार ्त्रों में भी ्रदेानशत ेी जा भेती ह । उन्द होंिे ररेाडा में दैनिे भा् ेर ेे दर ेाडा ेो ् र्ीेार
देया। उिेी ्जेंभी में उिेे ्ारा ररेाडा में राे जािे र्ाले नर्ज्ञा्िों/यानचेाओं ेे नबलों, ेो रनज् टर
ेरिे ेे ्रदच ि ेे भंबंा में, उन्द होंिे उत् तर ददया दे उ त रनज् टर ्र ्रदत् यर्थी ेे भंबंा में देभी ्रदेार ेी
भूचिा िहीं र्थीं और इभीनल् इभे ररेाडा में ्रद् त्त ेरिे ेी आर्च येता िहीं र्थी।
(xx) ्रदत् यर्थी ेे अलार्ा, दैनिे आचर ेे क्षेत्रीय भं्ादे, श्री भ्रेश शमाा ेी ्रदत् यर्थी ेे भाक्षी ेे रू् में ्रदनत
्रीक्षा ेी गयी। उन्द होंिे बताया दे उिेी ्जेंभी ेेर्ल भमाचारों/नर्ज्ञा्िों ेा ्रदेाशि ेरती है और ्ेड
न्द यूज ेा ्रदेाशि िहीं ेरती है। उन्द होंिे यह भी बताया दे सभी ेोई नर्नशष् ट दर भूची िहीं है नजभे उभेी
्जेंभी ्ारा निर्ााचिों ेे दतराि जारी देया गया है। श्ल् े ेाडा ्ररर्तािााीि है ्रंत् भार्थ ही इभे नर्शेष
ततर ्र निर्ााचिों ेे भंबंा में भी जारी िहीं देया जाता है। उन्द होंिे यह भी बताया दे नजभ नजला निर्ााचि
अनाेारी ेो ्त्र ्रद् त्त देया गया है, उिेे ्ारा ्रदत् यर्थी ेो बचािे ेे देभी आशय ेे नबिा जारी देया
गया है।
35.
्रदम्ा म्द्दों ्र नर्चार दे् जािे भे ्हले, ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा उठाई गयी ्रदारंनभे आ्नत्तयों ेो भंक्षे् में ्रद् त्त ेरिा
उनचत होगा ।
(i)
आयोग ेी ेायार्ाही में नर्लम् ब ेे भंबंा में ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा अ्िी भभी ्रद् त्नतयों में ्े ही तेा है। ्रदत् यर्थी यह
्रदच ि भी उठाता है दे चूंदे उिेे ्द ेा ेायाेाल र्षा 2013 ेे ्च चात भमाप् त हो गया र्था, इभनल् उन्द हें
ेार बताओ िोरटभ िहीं भेजा जा भेता है। आयोग ्ारा दलों ेो आयोग में भ्िर्ाई ेे नल् ब्ला् जािे
ेा नि ाय लेिे ेे ्च चात, ्रदत् यर्थी िे भ्िर्ाइयों ेो निरन्द तर आ् र्थनगत ेरिे ेे नल् अिे आर्ेदि दायर
दे् र्थे। उन्द होंिे रााा मोहि भोिी ्ारा दायर ेी गयी ररट यानचेा (रर.या.3512/2011) में आयोग ेे
ेायाक्षेत्र ेे म्द्दे ्र दी जा रही अंतररत भहायता ेे मद्देिजर ेायार्ानहयों ेो नर्लंनबत ेरिे ेी भी ेोनशश
ेी। उिेे निरंतर आर्ेदिों ेे बार्जूद, आयोग िे भ्िर्ाईयों ेो आ् र्थनगत ेरिे ेे ेेर्ल औनचत् य्ू ा ेार ों
्र ध् याि ददया। भ्िर्ाइयां जो 22 अ टूबर 2013 ेो श्रू ेी गयी र्थी, 17 माचा, 2017 ेो ्ूरी ुआई। इभमें
इभेे ऊ्र बता् ग् ेार ों ेी भी र्जह भे, इभ मामले में नर्लंब ुआआ है।
(ii)
्रदत् यर्थी िे आयोग ेे यह जांच आयोनजत ेरिे ेे आयोग ेे ेायाक्षेत्र ेे बारे में ्रदारंनभे आ्नत्तयां उठायी
र्थीं। ाारा 77 और 78 ेे अंतगात ्रद् त्त व् यय ेे लेाों ेी यर्थार्थाता या अभत् यता ेो जाििे ेे नल् लोे
्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात आयोग ेी शनग ेी ्ल.आर. नशर्रामगतडा बिाम
टी.्म. चन्द रशेार (्आईआर 1999 उ् चतम न्द यायालय 252) ेे मामले भे भ ही ््नत हो जाती है और
अशोे चव् हा ेे मामले में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा इभेी ््ि: ््नत ेी गयी है। अशोे चव् हा ेे मामले
में उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे यह भी अनभनिाााररत देया दे जांच आयोनजत ेरिे ेा उद्देच य ेेर्ल ्े
औ्चाररेता िहीं र्था बनल्े यह भ्निनचित ेरिे ेी ्े व् या्े जांच र्थी दे दायर देया गया लेाा भत् य,
भही और ्रदमान े है।
(iii)
इभेे अनतरर त, ्रदत् यर्थी िे यह तेा ददया दे भंदेहात् मे व् यय ेो रर्ोटा दे् ग् व् यय में जोड़ दद् जािे ेे
बाद, यदद यह नर्ना ्ारा अि्मत अि्ज्ञेय भीमा ेे अंतगात आता है तो ाारा 10े ेे अंतगात ेोई ेारार्ाई
िहीं ेी जा भेती है। तर्थान् अशोे चव् हा ेे मामले में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा अ् पी तरह भे यह ््नत
26
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
और ््ि: ््नत ेी गयी है दे ाारा 10े ेे उद्देच यों ेे नल् लेाे ेी भत् यता और अभत् यता महत् र््ू ा है, चाहे
अि्ज्ञेय भीमा ेा उल् लंघि ुआआ हो या िहीं।
(iv)
अंत में, जैभा दे उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे अशोे चव् हा बिाम डा.माार्रार् ंेंहलेर ्र्ं अन्द य (्आईआर
2014 उ.न्द या. 3102) ेे मामले में यह रटप् ् ी ेी दे यह जरूरी िहीं दे आयोग ेो दी गयी नजला
निर्ााचि अनाेारी ेी रर्ोटा भीईआर 1961 ेे नियम 89(5) ेे अंतगात आयोग ेी भंत्नत बिा् रािे ेे
नल् भं्ू ा और ्े मात्र आाार तैयार ेरे।
36.
आयोग अब उि ्रदम्ा म्द्दों ्र नर्चार ेरेगा जो दोिों ्क्षों ्ारा उिेे भंबंनात मामलों ेे भमर्थाि में दद् ग्
्रदनत् ्ाी तेों और ्रद् त्नतयों ेे उल् लेा में उठते ह । सभा ेरिे में हम आयोग ्ारा 8 नभतंबर 2014 ेो इभ मामले
में तैयार दे् ग् म्द्दों ेा उल् लेा ेर भेते ह ।
म्द्दा भं.1:
या नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों िामत: दैनिे भा् ेर, िई द्निया, दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश, आचर
ग् र्ानलयर और बी्ी्ि टाइम् भ में दनतया निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में निर्ााचि ्रददक्रया ेे दतराि ्रदेानशत भमाचार लेा,
्रदत् यर्थी ेे िोटो ेे भार्थ ‘यानचेा्ं’, नर्ज्ञा्ि आदद ्रदत् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में ‘‘्ेड न्द यूज/ नर्ज्ञा्ि’’ मािे
जा्ंगे?
37.
्हला म्द्दा इभ ्रदच ि भे भंबंा राता है दे या मध् य ्रददेश में र्षा 2008 ेे निर्ााचिों में ्रदचार अर्ना ेे दतराि
्रदेानशत अनभेनर्थत भमाचार मद ‘‘्ेड-न्द यूज’’ मािे जा्ंगे। ्ेड न्द यूज ्र राष् रीय ् तर भनमनत िे अ्िी बैठे में
अंनतम रू् भे अनभनिाााररत देया दे भभी अनभेनर्थत 42 भमाचार मदें ्ेड-न्द यूज ेी श्रे ी में आती ह । चूंदे
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा अनभेनर्थत ्ेड न्द यूज ेे भंबंा में नजला या राज् य ् तर ्र देभी ्रदेार ेी ् ेैहिंग या रर्ोर्टिंग िहीं ेी
गयी र्थी, इभनल् ्ेड न्द यूज भंबंाी आयोग ेी भनमनत िे इभ मामले में उ् चतम ् तर ्र जांच ेा ेाया देया।
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ददिांे 28 मई, 2012 ेो अ्िी नशेायत ेे अनभेनर्थत भमाचार ्त्र ेे ्रदेाशि ेी मूल ्रदनतयां
दायर ेरिे ेे बाद ्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत िे अ्िी बैठेें आरंभ े। और निम् िनलनात ेारेों ेे आाार ्र अ्िे
निष् ेषों ्र ्ुआंची: (i) ्रदेाशिों ेा भमय (ii) ्रदेाशिों में नर्नशष् ट रू् भे दी गई नर्षय भामग्री, (iii) ्रदेाशिों ेी
उत् तोत् तर तारीाों ्र ्े भमाचार ्त्र भे दूभरे भमाचार ्त्र ्र नर्षय भामग्री ेी ््िरार्ृनत्त (iv) भमाचार मदों ेे
शीषाे नजन्द होंिे नर्शेष रू् भे ्रदत् यर्थी ेो जोरदार ंंग भे ्रदोत् भानहत देया (v) भबभे अनाे महत् र््ू ा रू् भे, देभी
रर्ोटार ेे िाम ेा उल् लेा दे् नबिा मद ेा ्रदेाशि। भनमनत ्ारा दी गई ये रटप् ्न यां इभ निष् ेषा ेा भमर्थाि
ेरती ह दे उ त भमाचार मदें ‘‘्ेड न्द यूज’’ र्थीं।
38.
भभी 42 ्ेड न्द यूज मदें ्रदनतर्ादी ेे ्क्ष में अत् यनाे रू् भे ्क्ष्ात्ू ा र्थीं। इिमें भे अनाेांश ‘‘इं्ै ट िीचभा’’ ेे
रु् में म्दरत र्थीं नजन्द हें ्ूर्ा मोल तोल ेी गई शतों ्र भंबंनात भमाचार ्त्र ेी ्रदचनलत नर्ज्ञा्ि िीनत ेे अि्भार
्रदारून्े रू् भे भ्गताि देया जाता है। उ त मदें ्ेड न्द यूज भंबंाी आयोग ेे भार भंग्रह में अंतर्थिानहत उदाहर ों ेे
भार्थ ्ूरी तरह भे नमलती ह ।
39.
अ्िी ्रदनत-्रीक्षा में ्रदत् यर्थी िे यह तेा ददया दे भारतीय ्रदेभ र् ट जैभी भमाचार ्जेंनभयों िे अनभेनर्थत ्ेड
न्द यूज मदों ेा ्रदेाशि देया है। उभेे तेा भे आगे यह अि्माि लगाया जाता है दे भारतीय ्रदेभ र् ट जैभी भमाचार
्जेंनभयों ेे ्ाभ देश भर में भंर्ाददाता होते ह जो निर्ााचि भमाचारों, अभ् यर्थर्थायों ेी जीत ेी भंभार्िा आदद ेो
ेर्र ेरते ह और जमीिी न्र्थनत ेी रर्ोटा देते ह । भमाचार ्त्रों ्ारा सभी रर्ोटा ्रदाय: नबिा भं्ादि दे् ही च्ि
ली जाती ह और ्रदाय: ्े ही रर्ोटा शब् दश: शब् द आती है। इभ ्रदेार ्रदत् यर्थी िे इभ ंंग भे भंबंनात भमाचार ्त्रों
में अनभेनर्थत मदों ेे ्रदेटि ेो ् ्ष् ट ेरिे ेा ्रदयाभ देया। यद्यन्, इभ नर्शेष मामले में ्रदत् यर्थी ेा तेा
य्नगभंगत िहीं है योंदे नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार ्त्रों में ्रदेानशत इि ‘‘ररनप्लेा’’ मदों में भे देभी में भी ्ीटीआई या
भंबंनात ्जेंभी या रर्ोटार ेे िाम ेे ्रदनत क्रेनडट लाइि िहीं दी गयी है जो दद् ग् त् य ेो नभ्ध ेरिे ेे नल्
जरूरी है। भार्थ ही, ेेर्ल जब भमाचार ्जेंभी रर्ोटा भे भूचिा ली जाती है और अन्द य त् यों भमेत देभी मद ेो ि्
नभरे भे ्रदारून्त देया जाता है तभी सभे क्रेनडट ेो इंेारा जा भेता है।
उ्य्ा त ेे अनतरर त, नशेायतेताा ्ारा ररेाडा में दायर ेी गयीं भमाचार ्त्रों ेी मूल ्रदनतयों ेी जांच
ेरिे ्र निर्ााचि में मतों ेे नल् निम् िनलनात मदें ्रदत् यक्ष अ्ील मािी गयी ह नजभेी नर्षय भामग्री भे इभ दृनत
भे इंेार िहीं देया जा भेता है दे इभे ् र्यं ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे ्जेंट या उभेे ्रदानाेार ेे अंतगात देभी अन्द य
व् यनग ्ारा ्रदेानशत देया गया हो।
II
(iii)
27
(े)
डा. िरोत् तम नमश्र, श्री नशर्राज नभहं चतहाि ेे िोटो और भारतीय जिता ्ाटी ेे ्ाटी ्रदतीे ेे भार्थ
ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो दैनिे भा् ेर में ्रदेानशत ‘‘नर्िम्रआग्रह’’। भमाचार मदों में भे अनभेनर्थत नर्षय
भामग्री इभ ्रदेार है:-
‘‘म डॉ.िरोत् त् म नमश्र, आ् भभी ेो भाक्षी माि ेर
भंेल् ् लेता ूँ ेी आज आ्िे म्ूे भहयोग ददया
तो म आिे र्ाले बरभों में र्े भारे भंेल् ् और
(ा)
डॉ. िरोत् तम नमश्र ेे िोटो ेे भार्थ ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो दैनिे िई द्निया में ्रदेानशत ‘‘िरोत् तम
ेी जीत भे होगा दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ’’ यह भमाचार मद निर्ााचि क्षेत्र में मतदाि ददर्भ ्र ‘‘िई द्निया ररभ्ांभ
िीचर’’ ेे रू् में म्दरत ेी गयी है। भमाचार मदों में अनभेनर्थत नर्षय भामग्री इभ ्रदेार है-
‘‘म आ्भे नर्िम्रता भे ेरब्ध निर्ेदि ेरता ूँ दे
क्षेत्र में चल रहे नर्ेाभ ेायों ेो तीव्र गनत देिे ेे
नल् हर हार्थ ेो ेाम नमले, क्षेत्र ेे र्ातार्र में
शांनत और भमृन्ध रहे, क्षेत्र में िये उद्योग और ांाे
लगें इभेे नल् आज होिे र्ाले मतदाि में आ्
ेमल ेे िूल ्र बटि दबायें.’’
28
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
II
(iii)
29
(ग)
डा. िरोत् तम नमश्र ेे िोटो और भारतीय जिता ्ाटी ेे ्ाटी ्रदतीे ेे भार्थ ददिांे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008
ेो दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश में ्रदेानशत ‘‘मतदात बंा्ओं भे िम्र निर्ेदि’’। यह भमाचार मद मतदाि ददर्भ ्र
्रदेानशत देया गया र्था और जो ‘‘ आ्ेा डॉ. िरोत् तम दाभ नमश्र, भाज्ा ्रदत् याशी नर्ााि भभा क्षेत्र 22’’ शब् दों ेे
भार्थ भमाप् त होता है। भमाचार मदों में अनभेनर्थत नर्षय भामग्री इभ ्रदेार है:-
‘‘दनतया क्षेत्र ेे भम् मानित िागररेों, माता-बहिों ्र्ं
उिेे ेंाे भे ेंाा नमलेर चलिे र्ाले य्र्ाितजर्ािों भे
डॉ.िरोत् तम नमश्रा िे ेमल ेे िूल ्र मतदाि ेरिे ेा
आग्रह देया है.’’
‘‘ म आ्भे नर्िम्रता भे ेरब्ध निर्ेदि ेरता ूँ दे क्षेत्र
में चल रहे नर्ेाभ ेायों ेो तीव्र गनत देिे ेे नल् हर
हार्थ ेो ेाम नमले, क्षेत्र ेे र्ातार्र में शांनत और
भमृ्ध ी रहे, क्षेत्र में िये उद्योग और ांाे लगें इभेे नल्
आज होिे र्ाले मतदाि में आ् ेमल ेे िूल ्र बटि
दबायें.’’
30
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
40. आयोग ्रदत् यक्ष रू् भे अ्ील ेरिे ेे उ्य्ा त भाष् य ेे दृनतगत अनभनिाााररत ेरता है:
i.
्हली भमाचार मद डॉ. िरोत् तम नमश्रा, श्री नशर्राज हभंह चतहाि और भारतीय जिता ्ाटी ेे दलीय
्रदतीे ेे िोटो ेे भार्थ ्रदेानशत ेी गई र्थी। भार्थ ही,‘‘म डॉ. िरोत् तम नमश्रा...’’ शब् दों ेे उल् लेा र्ाली
भमाचार मद ेी नर्षय-र्् त् यह भ् ्ष् ट रू् भे दशाा ती है दे अ्ील ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ् र्यं/अ्िे ्क्ष में
मतदाि ेरर्ािे ेे नल् निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र में लोगों ेो ्रदभानर्त ेरिे ेे नल् ्रदेानशत ेरर्ाई गई र्थी। इभी
तरह, दूभरी ्र्ं तीभरी भमाचार मद, जो डा. िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेे िोटो ेे भार्थ मतदाि ददर्भ ेो ही
्रदेानशत ुआई र्थी नजभमें ‘‘म आ्भे नर्िम्रता भे ेरब्ध निर्ेदि ेरता ूँ....’’ शब् दों ेे उल् लेा र्ाली नर्षय-
र्् त् भी उभी बात ेा ्रदेटि ेरती है। तीभरी भमाचार मद भी शब् दों, ‘‘आ्ेा डॉ.िरोत् तम नमश्रा,
भाज्ा ्रदत् याशी नर्ााि भभा क्षेत्र 22’’ ेे भार्थ भमाप् त होती है और इभ बात ेा ्रदबल भंेेत देती है दे
उ्य्ा त भमाचार मद ् र्यं ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ्रदेानशत ेरर्ाई गई र्थी।
ii
डॉ. िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेे िोटो ्र्ं भारतीय जिता ्ाटी ेे दलीय ्रदतीे ेे भार्थ र्ा यांश ‘‘म डॉ. िरोत् तम
नमश्रा .....’’ और ‘‘ म आ्भे नर्िम्रता भे ेरब्ध निर्ेदि ेरता ूँ....’’ ्े सभा ्ररन्र्थनतजन्द य ्रदनत्ादि
्ेश ेरता है नजभमें ्रदत् यर्थी यह तेा िहीं दे भेते दे उ्य्ा त भमाचार मद उिेे या उिेे ्जेंट ्ारा
िहीं ्रदेानशत देया गया र्था।
41.
इभ ्रदेार, आयोग ्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत ेी यह रर्ोटा ् र्ीेृत ेरता है दे 42 अनभेनर्थत भमाचार मदें ्रदत् यर्थी ेे
निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में र्ा् तर् में ‘‘्ेड न्द यूज/नर्ज्ञा्ि ेे अन्द तगात आती ह ।
म्द्दा भं.2: या लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम 1951 ेी ाारा 77 ेे अनभ्रदाय ेे अंतगात अनभेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ्र
व् यय या तो ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट या देभी अन्द य व् यनग ्ारा ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट ेी
नर्र्नक्षत राय या जािेारी भे उ्गत/्रदनाेृत देया गया है?
42.
दूभरा म्द्दा यह है दे या लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 ेे अनभ्रदाय ेे अंतगात अनभेनर्थत
्रदेाशिों ्र व् यय या तो ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट या अन्द य देभी व् यनग ्ारा ्रदत् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि
्जेंट ेी ्रदत् यक्ष या नर्र्नक्षत राय या जािेारी भे उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत देया गया र्था।
लोे ्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 िीचे उशाृत ेी जाती है:-
77. निर्ााचि व् ययों ेा लेाा और उिेी अनाेतम मात्रा---
(1) निर्ााचि में हर अभ् यर्थी निर्ााचि भंबंाी उभ भब व् यय ेा जो, (उभ तारीा ेे, नजभेो यह िामनिर्दाष् ट देया
गया है) और उभ निर्ााचि ेे ्रर ामों ेी घोष ा, ेी तारीा ेे, नजिेे अंतगात ये दोिों तारीाें आती ह , बीच
् र्यं ्ारा या उभेे निर्ााचि अनभेताा ्ारा उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत देया गया है, ्ृर्थे् और भही लेाा या तो र्ह
् र्यं राेगा या अ्िे निर्ााचि अनभेताा ्ारा रार्ा्गा। (् ्ष् टीेर 1---शंेाओं ेो दूर ेरिे ेे नल् यह
घोनषत देया जाता है दे,-- देभी राजिैनते दल ेे िेताओं ्ारा, राजिैनते दल ेे ेायाक्रम ेा ्रदचार ेरिे ेे
नल् नर्माि ्ारा या ्ररर्हि ेे देभी अन्द य भााि ्ारा ेी गई यात्रा म्ध े उ्गत व् यय इभ उ्ाारा ेे ्रदयोजिों
ेे नल् उभ राजिैनते दल ेे अभ् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि अनभेताा ्ारा निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत
व् यय िहीं मािा जा्गा:
(2) ाारा 123 ेे ांड (7) में र्र्थ ात र्गों में भे देभी भे भंबंनात देभी व् यनग ्ारा भरेार ेी भेर्ा में और ांड ेे
्रन्द त्े में यर्थार्र्थ ात अ्िे शाभेीय ेताव् य ेे निर्ाहि में या
(3) तात् ्र्थयात निर्ाहि ्र दे् ग् व् यय ेो इभ उ्ाारा ेे ्रदयोजिों ेे नल् अभ् य ्र्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि अनभेताा
्ारा निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत व् यय िहीं मािा जा्गा:
् ्ष् टीेर 2.—् ्ष् टीेर 1 ेे ांड (े) ेे ्रदयोजिों ेे नल्, देभी निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में, ‘‘राजिैनते दल ेे
िेताओं’’ ्द भे,-- (i) जहां सभा राजिैनते दल मान्द यता्रदाप् त दल है, र्हां भंख् या में चालीभ भे अिनाे सभे व् यनग,
और (ii) जहां सभा राजिैनते दल देभी मान्द यता्रदाप् त राजिैनते दल भे नभन्द ि है, र्हां भंख् या में बीभ भे अिनाे
सभे व् यनग, अनभ्रदेत है, नजिेे िाम राजिैनते दल ्ारा सभे निर्ााचि ेे ्रदयोजिों ेे नल् िेताओं ेे रू् में सभे
निर्ााचि ेे नल्, यर्थान्र्थनत, भारत ेे राज्त्र में या उभ राज् य ेे राज्त्र में इभ अनानियम ेे अाीि ्रदेानशत
अनाभूचिा ेी तारीा भे भात ददि ेी अर्ना ेे भीतर निर्ााचि आयोग और राज् यों ेे म्ख् य निर्ााचि अनाेाररयों
ेो भंभूनचत ेर दद् ग् ह :
्रन्द त् ेोई राजिैनते दल, उभ दशा में जहां, यर्थान्र्थनत, ांड (i) में यह ांड (ii) में निर्दाष् ट व् यनगयों में भे देभी ेी
मृत् य् हो जाती है या र्ह सभे राजिैनते दल ेा भद् य िहीं रहता है, निर्ााचि आयोग और राज् यों ेे म्ख् य निर्ााचि
अनाेाररयों ेो और भंभूचिा ्ारा, सभे निर्ााचि ेे नल् अंनतम मतदाि ्ूरा होिे ेे नल् नियत भमय भमाप् त
II
(iii)
31
होिे ेे ठीे अड़तालीभ घंटे ्हले भमाप् त होिे र्ाली अर्ना ेे दतराि, इभ ्रदेार मृत व् यनग या भद् य ि रहे व् यनग
ेे िाम ेे ् र्थाि ्र, ि् िेता ेो ्दानभनहत ेरिे ेे ्रदयोजिों ेे नल् िया िाम ्रदनत् र्थान्त ेर भेेगा।
(2) लेाे में सभी नर्नशनतयां अन्द तर्थर्ाष् ट होंगी जैभी नर्नहत ेी जा्ं।
(3) उ त व् यय ेा जोड़ उभ रेम भे अनाे ि होगा जो नर्नहत ेी जा्।
43.
नशेायतेताा िे दैनिे भा् ेर, िई द्निया, दैनिे दनतया ्रदेाश, आचर ग् र्ानलयर और बी्ी्ि टाइम् भ
भमाचार-्त्रों ेे उि ्ृष् ठों ेी मूल और िोटो-्रदनतयां दोिों ्रद् त्त ेी ह नजिमें ेनर्थत नर्ज्ञा्ि ्रदेानशत दे् ग्
र्थे। जैभदे ्ेड न्द यूज भनमनत िे िोट देया है, ये ्रदेाशि 8 िर्म् बर भे 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ते (्रदचार अर्ना ेे
दतराि) लगभग रोजािा ्रदेानशत ुआ् है; इिमें ्रदत् यर्थी ेे बारे में अिन्द य रू् भे भूचिा दी गई र्थी तर्था ये उिेे ्रदनत
ेािी ्क्ष्ात्ू ा ्रदतीत होते ह । ्े नर्शेष भमाचार मद, ‘‘तो इभीनल् भबभे अलग ह िरोत् तम’’ शीषाे भे
आचर में 15 िर्म् बर ेो, िई द्निया में 11 िर्म् बर ेो ्र्ं दैनिे भा् ेर में 9 िर्म् बर ेो भी उभी शीषाे ेे
भार्थ और मद ेे म्ख् य भाग ेे शब् दश: ््ि: ्रद् त्तीेर ेे भार्थ ्रदेानशत ुआआ र्था। इभेे अनतरर त, बुआत भे
भमाचार मदों ेी भ्र्थाायाँ भी उिेा जोरदार ंंग भे भमर्थाि ेरते ुआ् ्रदतीत होती ह नजिमें ेहा गया र्था दे ्रदत् यर्थी
इभ निर्ााचि क्षेत्र ेे नर्ेाभ ेे नल् यह जरूरी है; उिेी जीत निनच चत ्र्ं आभन्द ि है, इत् यादद। नर््क्षी अभ् यर्थर्थायों
अर्थर्ा उिेे घोष ा-्त्र या अनभयाि आदद ेा ेोई ेर्रेज िहीं देया गया र्था। महत् र््ू ा बात यह है, जैभा दे
उ्य्ा त में देाा गया है, अभ् यर्थी ्ारा ्रदत् यक्ष अ्ीलों ेे िामेट में तीि भमाचार मदें ्रदेानशत ुआई र्थीं जो मतदाि
ददर्भ ेे ददि तीि अलग-अलग भमाचार-्त्रों में ्रदेट ुआई र्थीं।
(i)
डा. िरोत् तम नमश्रा श्री नशर्राज हभंह चतहाि और भारतीय जिता ्ाटी ेे दलीय ्रदतीे ेी िोटोय् त ्े
मद 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो दैनिे भा् ेर में प्ी र्थी;
(ii)
डा. िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेी िोटोय् त ्े मद 27 िर्बंर, 2008 ेो दैनिे िई द्निया में और निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र में
मतदाि ेे ददि ‘‘िई द्निया रर् ्ांभ िीचर’ ेे रू् में म्दरत।
(iii)
डा. िरोत् तम नमश्रा ेी िोटो और भा.ज.्ा. ेे ्रदतीे ेे भार्थ ्े मद 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो दैनिे
दनतया ्रदेाश िे पा्ा र्था। यह मद 27 िर्बंर, 2008 ेो ‘‘आ्ेा डा. िरोत् तम नमश्रा, भाज्ा ्रदत् याशी
नर्ाािभभा क्षेत्र’’ शब् दों ेे भार्थ ््ि: ्रदेानशत ुआई।
44.
इभेे ्च चात, ्रदत् यर्थी ेी 26 मई, 2016 ेो नशेायतेताा ेे ेाउंभेल ्ारा आयोग ेे भमक्ष ्रदनत्रीक्षा ेी गई
र्थी और उिभे नर्शेष रू् भे ्ूपा गया दे नर्ााि भभा निर्ााचि 2008 में िाम-निदेशि ेे भमय भे लेर मतदाि
ददर्भ ेी अर्ना ेे दतराि प्ी ेनर्थत भमाचार मदों/नर्ज्ञा्िों/इम् ्ै ट िीचरों आदद ेा उन्द हें ेब ्ता
चला/भूचिा नमली। ्रदत् यर्थी िे उत्तर ददया दे चूंदे उन्द होंिे ेनर्थत भमाचार मदों ेे नल् ेोई भ्गताि िहीं देया र्था,
इभ ेार उिेे बारे में जाििे ेा ्रदच ि ही िहीं उठता। भं्ू ा ्रदनत्रीक्षा ेे दतराि ्रदत् यर्थी िे उभेे बारे में
जािेारी होिे भे नर्शेष रू् भे इंेार ेरिे ेे बजाय बार-बार इभ बात भे इन्द ेार देया दे उन्द होंिे देभी भी
भमाचार/मद ेे नल् भ्गताि देया है। ्रदत् यर्थी ेी ओर भे हानजर होिे र्ाले भानक्षयों िे भी उ त भमाचार मदों ेे
्रदेाशि ेे ्रदनत देभी ्रदेार ेी ाि रानश लेिे भे भी इन्द ेार देया। इि ्रदत् याख् यािों ेो ि तो मािा जा भेता है ि
ही उिेा भहारा नलया जा भेता है योंदे नशेायतेताा ्ारा यह ररेाडा में नभ्ध ेर ददया गया है दे दो ्रदनत्ं्ी
अभ् यर्थर्थायों िे इि न्द यूज ्जेंनभयों ेो इभी ्रदेार ेे ्रदेाशि पा्िे ेे नल् भ्गताि देया र्था। इभ ्रदेार, यह ेतई
नर्च र्ाभ िहीं देया जा भेता दे उ त न्द यूज ्जेंनभयों िे ेोई ्रदनतिल नल् बगैर उिेी ओर भे इभी ्रदेार ेी
भमाचार मदें पा्ी हों। महत् र््ू ा बात यह है दे भमाचार मदों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे त् यों और ्ररन्् ानतयों, ्रदचार
अर्ना ेे दतराि उिेे ्रदेाशिों ेी बारम् बारता, यह त् य दे ्रदच िगत नर्ज्ञा्ि दनतया ेे व् या्े ्ररचालि र्ाले
ेई ्रदम्ा भमाचार-्त्रों में ्रदेानशत ुआ् र्थे, ्रदत् यर्थी ेे नल् यह बात म्नचेल बिाती है दे र्ह मतदाि ेे ददि
अ्िे िोटो ्र्ं दलीय ्रदतीे ेे भार्थ उिेे ्ारा, उत्तम ््रुष में, ्रदेट रू् में ेी गई तीि ्रदत् यक्ष अ्ीलों ेे भार्थ
आक्षेन्त नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे इि भमाचार ्त्रों में ्रदेाशि ेे बारे में तेाभंगत रू् भे अिनभज्ञता ेा दार्ा ेरे।
45.
उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे ‘अशोे शंेर रार् चव् हा बिाम माार्रार् देन्द हालेर ्र्ं अन्द य’ ेे मामले में, लो े
्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि ेी गई जांच ेी ्रदेृनत, नजभेे अंतगात आयोग निर्ााचि व् यय ेे
ााते ेी यर्थात् यता ेी जांच ेरता है, ्र नि ाय देते भमय निम् िनलनात रटप् ् ी ेी:-’‘दोहरा् जािे ेे जोनाम
्र यह दोहराया जािा होगा दे ाारा 10े ेे अाीि जांच ेमोबेश नभनर्ल ्रदेृनत ेी होती है और इभनल्,
भंभाव् यताओं ेे ्रदमा ाना य ेा नभ्ध ांत लागू होगा।‘’
उ्रो त ्रद् त्त त् यों ेे आलोे में और इभेे भार्थ भार्थ इभ त् य ेो देाते ुआ् दे ्रदत् यर्थी तीभरी बार नर्ााि-
भभा ेे भद् य बिे ह ; राज् य नर्ााि भभा में दनतया निर्ााचि-क्षेत्र ेे ्े ्रदनतनिना ह , आयोग मतदाि ेे ददि तीि
नर्नभन्द ि भमाचार-्त्रों में ्रदेानशत उ त नर्ज्ञा्िों, नर्शेषेर ्रदत् यर्थी ेे िाम भे उत्तम ््रूष में ेी गई ्रदत् यक्ष
अ्ीलों जो, नर्ााि-भभा निर्ााचि में उिेे ् र्यं ेे राजिीनते अनभयाि भे भंब्ध ्र्ं भ्भंगत र्थीं, ेे बारे में
32
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
्रदत् यर्थी ेी अिनभज्ञता ेे दार्ों ेो माििे में ेरठिाई महभूभ ेरता है। तदि्भार, भंभाव् यताओं ेी त्ला ्र
आक्षेन्त भमाचार मदों ेे बारे में ्रदत् यर्थी ेो जािेारी होिे ेी बात इतिी अनाे भंभाव् य ्रदतीत होती है दे इभभे
यह नभ्ध होता है दे ्रदत् यर्थी ेो निनचित ततर ्र तर्थाेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ेी जािेारी र्थी। इभेे अनतरर त, ्रदत् यर्थी िे
अ्िे ्क्ष में प्ी तर्थाेनर्थत भमाचार मदों ेे भार्थ-भार्थ, उिेे िाम भे ्रदेानशत ्रदत् यक्ष अ्ीलों ेो, इभ बात ेे
नल् भंबंनात भमाचार-्त्रों ेो िोरटभ भेज ेर दे र्े सभी मदों ेो पा्िा बंद ेरें नजभभे राय बिे दे र्े उिेी
ओर भे पा्े ग् ह । भारतीय दंड भंनहता, 1860 ेी ाारा 171ज ेे अंतगात ‘‘्े अभ् यर्थी ेा निर्ााचि अग्रभर
ेरिे या निर्ााचि ेरा देिे ेे नल् ेोई भार्ाजनिे भभा ेरिे में या देभी नर्ज्ञा्ि, ्रर्त्र या ्रदेाशि ्र या
देभी अन्द य ंंग भे निर्ााचि व् यय ेरिा ्े दंडिीय अ्राा है, यह ाारा ेो तत् ेाल भंदभा हेत् िीचे ््ि: ्रद् त्त ेी
गई है:-
’’ाारा171ज. निर्ााचि ेे नभलनभले में अर्ैा भंदाय--जो ेोई देभी अभ् यर्थी ेे भााार
या नर्शेष नलनात ्रदानाेार ेे नबिा सभे अभ् यर्थी ेा निर्ााचि अग्रभर ेरिे या निर्ााचि
ेरा देिे ेे नल् ेोई भार्ाजनिे भभा ेरिे में या देभी नर्ज्ञा्ि, ्रर्त्र या ्रदेाशि
्र, या देभी भी अन्द य ंंग भे व् यय ेरेगा या ेरिा ्रदानाेृत ेरेगा, र्ह ज्माािे भे, जो
्ांच भत रु्् ते ेा हो भेेगा, दंनडत देया जा्गा: ्रन्द त् यदद ेोई व् यनग, नजभिे
्रदानाेार ेे नबिा ेोई सभे व् यय दे् हों, जो े्ल नमलाेर दभ रु्् भे अनाे ि हों,
उभ तारीा भे नजभ तारीा ेो सभे व् यय दे् ग् हों, दभ ददि ेे भीतर उभ अभ् य ्र्थी ेा
नलनात अि्मोदि अनभ्रदाप् त ेर ले, तो यह भमूा जा्गा दे उभिे सभे व् यय उभ
अभ् यर्थी ेे ्रदानाेार भे दे् ह ।‘’
्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा सभे नर्ज्ञा्िों ेी रर्ोटा ि ेरिे भे इभ निष् ेषा ेो और बल नमलता है दे र्े इभ मामले में नलप् त ह
तर्था उन्द होंिे जाि-बूेर इभमें भाग नलया या सभे नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे व् यय ेा िायदा उठाया।
46.
अभ् यर्थर्थायों भे अ्ेनक्षत है दे र्े नर्नहत िामेट में निर्ााचि व् यय ेा दैनिे ााता राें। िामेट में अ्ेक्षा ेी गई है दे
अभ् यर्थी ेॉलम बिाेर अ्िे निर्ााचि अनभयाि हेत् देभी भी स्रोत र्् त् रू् में ्रदाप् त और अभ् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि
्रदचार ेे नल् ्रदय् त भामािों या भेर्ाओं ेे मूल् य ेी घोष ा ेरे, और उभमें इभ घोष ा ेे नल् ् तंभ दद् ग् ह ।
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे दैनिे लेाे ेे अि्रक्ष ेे ददशा-निदेशों में ् ्ष् ट रू् भे निाााररत देया गया है दे ‘‘देभी ्ाटी
अर्थर्ा देभी व् यनग/निेाय/भं् र्था भे र्ाहिों, ्ो् टभा, ्चे, मीनडया नर्ज्ञा्ि, हैलीेॉप् टभा, ्अरेॉफ्ट इत् यादद’’
जैभी र्् त् रू् में ्रदाप् त भामािों या भेर्ाओं ेा नर्र्र दैनिे लेाे ेे भाग े में, नतनर्थ, नर्र्र , मात्रा ्र्ं ेनल््त
मूल् य ेे आाार ्र अि्मानित दर ्रदनत इेाई ेे भार्थ, अर्च य नलाा जािा चानह्। इभ ्रदेार, उ्य्ा त भे यह देाा
जा भेता है दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे रू् में ‘भहायता’ ्रदाप् त ेी र्थी नजभभे उिेी अभ् यर्थर्थाता ेो भमर्थाि नमला,
उिेी निर्ााचेीय भंभार्िा् अग्रभर ुआई और नजिेे बारे में यह मािा जा्गा दे उिेो इिेी जािेारी र्थी।
47.
ेंर्र लाल ग्प् ता बिाम अमरिार्थ चार्ला ेे मामले में उ् चतम न्द यायालय ेे अि्भार, अभ् यर्थी अर्थर्ा उभेे
्रदानाेृत निर्ााचि ्जेंट भे इतर देभी भी व् यनग ्ारा उ्गत सभा ेोई व् यय, नजभेा अभ् यर्थी जािते ुआ् लाभ
लेता है, अर्च यतया उभ व् यनग ्ारा ्रदानाेृत देया गया मािा जािा चानह्। नर्द्यमाि रू् में ाारा 77 ेी
योजिा उि ेनत्य मामलों में नर्र्नक्षत ्रदानाेार ेो मान्द यता देती है नजिमें व् यय अभ् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि ेे भार्थ
अनभज्ञात देया जा भेता है (् टार ्रदचारेों ेे यात्रा व् यय ेे नल् अ्र्ाद ेी व् यर्् र्था ेी गई है), चाहे सभा व् यय
अभ् यर्थी ्ारा ्रदत् यक्ष रू् भे उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत ि देया गया हो।
ेॉमि ेॉज बिाम भंघ भरेार ेे मामले में उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे इभ हबंद् ्र नर्नि ाय ददया दे:-
‘‘ ्े अभ् यर्थी ेे निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में, अभ् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट ेी जािेारी में ुआआ- व् यय, (लो.्रद.अ. ेी
ाारा 77 ेे ् ्ष् टीेर 1 भनहत नजभेे अंतगात अभ् यर्थी भंरक्ष चाह रहा है) अभ् यर्थी या उभेे निर्ााचि ्जेंट
्ारा ्रदानाेृत देया ुआआ व् यय मािा जा्गा।‘’
उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे उमलेश यादर् ेे मामले में इलाहाबाद उ् च न्द यायालय ेी ाण् ड न्द याय्ीठ भे भहमत होते ुआ्
अशोे चव् हा बिाम निर्ााचि आयोग ेे मामले में अ्िे र्षा 2014 ेे नि ाय में इभ भं्रदेक्ष ेो दोहराते ुआ् ेहा
है दे न्द यायालय ेनत्य ्ररन्र्थनतयों में अभ् यर्थी ्ारा नर्र्नक्षत ्रदानाेार ेी उ्ाार ा बिा भेता है। यह
र्तामाि ्ररन्र्थनतयों में इभ त् य ेे दृनतगत नर्शेष रू् भे लागू है दे ्रदत् य ्र्थी ्रदच िगत ्रदेाशिों ेे भार्थ देभी भी
्रदेार ेे भम् बन्द ा ेो अ् र्ीेार ेरिे में अभिल रहे ह , और ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्रदानाेार ेे नबिा उिेे बारे में ्रदेाशि
ेरिे ेे नल् उि भंबंनात भमाचार ्जेंनभयों ेे नर्रु्ध ेायार्ाई ेरिे में भी अभिल रहे। इभ भंबंा में, यह भी िोट
देया जा् दे भारतीय दंड भंनहता ेी ाारा 171ज में भी े्प ेनमयां ह , नजभमें निर्ााचि ेे भंबंा में
अर्ैा/अिनाेृत भ्गताि हेत् ेेर्ल ्ांच भत रु्ये ेा दण् ड ही नर्नहत देया गया है। आयोग िे भरेार भे ्हले ही
नभिाररश ेी है दे ाारा 171ज ेे उ्बन्द ाों ेो और भख् त बिाया जा्।
II
(iii)
33
48.
इभ ्रदेार, त् यों ेी जांच और ररेाडा में उ्लब् ा भाष् य और उ् चतम न्द यायालय ्ारा दद् ग् नि ायों ेे
नर्च लेष ेो ध् याि में राते ुआ् आयोग ेा निष् ेषा है दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे ्रदच िगत नर्ज्ञा्िों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे नल् अ्िा
नर्र्नक्षत ्रदानाेार ददया र्था और ुआ् उभेा जाि-बू ेर लाभ उठाया र्था। ्रदत् यर्थी अनभेनर्थत मदों ेे ्रदेाशि ेे
्रदनत तेाभंगत रू् भे अिनभज्ञता ेा दार्ा िहीं ेर भेते और र्े इभ त् य ेे बार्जूद उभमें देभी ्रदेार ेी नलप् तता
भे भ्व् य त रू् में इंेार ेरिे में, दे मतदाि ेे ददि, 27 िर्म् बर, 2008 ेो उिेे िोटोग्राि य् त, उिेे िाम भे
्रदेानशत ऊ्र उनल्लनात ‘‘्रदत् यक्ष अ्ीलों’’ ेा ्रदेाशि भारतीय दण् ड भंनहता, 1860 ेी ाारा 171ज ेे अाीि
भी ्े अ्राा बिता है। इभेे अनतरर त, निर्ााचि व् यय ेे अ्िे लेाे में ्रदत् यर्थी िे ‘‘इले रॉनिे/ह्रदंट मीनडया ेे
माध् यम भे ्रदचार’’ ् तम् भ ेो ााली पोड़ा ुआआ है। तदि्भार, आयोग िे नि ाय नलया है दे ्रदत् यर्थी ेो लोे
्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 ेे अर्था ेे भीतर आक्षेन्त नर्ज्ञा्िों ेी जािेारी र्थी और उन्द होंिे
नर् र्नक्षत रू् भे उिेा ्रदेाशि ्रदानाेृत देया र्था।
म्द्दा भं.3: या सभे ्रदेाशिों में उ्गत/्रदानाेृत व् यय ेो ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा दानाल दे् ग् निर्ााचि व् ययों ेे ााते में
भनम्मनलत देया गया है?
49.
तीभरा म्द्दे ेा भंबंा इभ बात भे है दे या ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा ेनर्थ त ्रदेाशिों ्र उ्गत/्रदानाेृत व् यय ेो ्रद् त्त दे्
ग् निर्ााचि व् ययों ेे लेाे में भनम्मनलत देया गया है, या िहीं। नजला निर्ााचि अनाेारी, दनतया भे ्रदाप् त
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे लेाे ेी ्रदमान त ्रदनत भे ्रदेट होता है दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे देभी भमाचार-्त्र में ेोई नर्ज्ञा्ि ्र
उ्गत/्रदानाेृत व् यय ेो भनम्मनलत िहीं देया है। ्रदत् यर्थी ेे व् यय लेाे में व् यय ेे शीषों में भी मीनडया नर्ज्ञा्िों
अर्थर्ा ह्रदंट ्रदेाशिों ्र दे् ग् देभी भी ्रदेार ेे व् यय ्रदनतहबंनबत िहीं होते। ्रदत् यर्थी िे अनभेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ेे
भंबंा में देभी भी ्रदेार ेा भ्गताि ेरिे भे बार-बार इंेार देया है और उभेे देभी अभ् यारोन्त व् यय ेा
नहभाब देिे में अभिल रहे ह ।
50.
इभेे अनतरर त, ्रदत् यर्थी उभेे ्ारा अि्रनक्षत दे् जािे ेे नल् अ्ेनक्षत निर्ााचि व् यय ेे दैनिे लेाा में ऊ्र
उनल्लनात नर्ज्ञा्िों ेी रर्ोटा देिे में अभिल रहे ह । इभेे नल् नर्नहत िामेट में अभ् यर्थी भे अ्ेक्षा ेी गई है दे
र्ह देभी भी स्रोत भे र्् त् रू् में ्रदाप् त और अ्िे नल् ्रदय् त भामािों अर्थर्ा भेर्ाओं ेे मूल् य ेी घोष ा ेरे।
निर्ााचि व् यय ेे दैनिे लेाे ेे अि्रक्ष ेे ददशा-निदेशों में ् ्ष् ट रू् भे निाााररत देया गया है दे ‘‘देभी ्ाटी
अर्थर्ा देभी व् यनग/निेाय/भं् र्था भे र्ाहिों, ्ो् टभा, ्चे, मीनडया नर्ज्ञा्ि, हैलीेॉप् टभा, ्अरेॉफ्ट इत् यादद’’
जैभी र्् त् रू् में ्रदाप् त भामािों या भेर्ाओं ेा नर्र्र दैनिे लेाे ेे भाग े में, नतनर्थ, नर्र्र , मात्रा ्र्ं ेनल््त
मूल् य ेे आाार ्र अि्मानित दर ्रदनत इेाई ेे भार्थ, अर्च य नलाा जािा चानह्। यदद हम ्रदत् यर्थी ेा ्रदनतनर्रोा
माि भी लें दे उभिे अनभेनर्थत नर् ज्ञा्िों ेे नल् ेोई भ्गताि िहीं देया है तो भी उ त नर्ज्ञा्िों िे उभेी
अभ् यर्थर्थाता ेा भमर्थाि देया है और ्रदचार अर्ना ेे दतराि हजारों मतदाताओं ते ्ुआंचेर उिेी निर्ााचेीय
भंभार्िाओं ेो अग्रभर देया है। इभनल् ् ्ष् ट रू् भे उन्द होंिे उभेा लाभ उठाया है और इभ तरह, र्े इभ बात ेे
नल् बाध् य र्थे दे र्े सभे व् यय ेे ेनल््त मूल् य ेो अ्िे दैनिे लेाा रनज् टर में भनम्मनलत ेरते लेदेि उन्द होंिे सभा
िहीं देया।
52.
इभ तरह, आयोग ेा निष् ेषा है दे आक्षेन्त ्रदेाशिों ्र उ्गत ्रदानाेृत व् यय ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा दानाल निर्ााचि व् यय
ेे लेाा में भनम्मनलत िहीं दे् ग् ह ।
म्द्दा भं.4: या ्रदत् यर्थी निर्ााचि व् यय ेा र्ा् तनर्े और भही लेाे, नर्ना ्ारा और इभेे अंतगात यर्था्ेनक्षत, रीनत
भे दानाल ेरिे में अभिल रहे?
53.
चतर्था म्द्दा इभ नर्षय भे भंबंनात है दे या ्रदत् यर्थी निर्ााचि व् यय ेा र्ा् तनर्े और भही लेाा, नर्ना ्ारा और
इभेे अाीि अ्ेनक्षत रीनत भे दानाल ेरिे में अभिल रहे? ऊ्र ेी गई त् यात् मे जांच भे ् ्ष् ट हो जाता है दे
्रदत् यर्थी िे अनानियम ्र्ं नियमों ्ारा यर्था-्ररेनल््त व् यय ेा र्ा् तनर्े और भही लेाा दानाल िहीं देया है।
इभेे अनतरर त, ऊ्र उनल्लनात उ् चतम न्द यायालयों ेे नि ायों भे भी यह ् ्ष् ट हो जाता है दे निर्ााचि व् यय ेे
लेाा ेी यर्थात् यता और अभत् यता, चाहे र्ह अि्मेय भीमा भे बाहर अर्थर्ा भीतर हो, ही र्ह बात है जो ाारा
10े ेे अाीि निरहाता ेो न्द यतता देती है। चूंदे, ्रदच िगत नर्ज्ञा्ि उभ व् यय ेे भदृश है नजभे अभ् यर्थी ेो अ्िे व् यय
लेाे में अनिर्ाया रू् भे ददाािा चानह् र्था, चूंदे उन्द होंिे जािबू ेर इिेा लाभ उठाया इभनल्, यह मािा जाता
हे दे उन्द होंिे उ त व् यय ेो नर्र्नक्षत रू् भे ्रदानाेृत देया है, और इभीनल्, उन्द हें इभेी रर्ोटा ेरिी चानह् र्थी।
उ त व् यय ेी रर्ोटा ि ेरिे ्र आयोग िे नि ाय नलया है दे ्रदत् यर्थी नर्ना ्ारा और इभेे अंतगात अ्ेनक्षत रीनत
भे अ्िे निर्ााचि व् ययों ेा र्ा् तनर्े और भही लेाा ्रद् त्त ेरिे में अभिल रहे ह ।
म्द्दा भं.5: या ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्ाभ नर्ना ेे अाीि यर्था्ेनक्षत रीनत में निर्ााचि व् यय ेा अ्िा लेाा दानाल ि ेरिे
जैभी नर्िलता ेे नल् ेोई ठोभ ेार अर्थर्ा औनचत् य है?
34
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
54.
्ांचर्ा म्द्दा इभ नर्षय भे भंबंनात है दे या ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्ाभ नर्ना ेे अाीि यर्था्ेनक्षत रीनत में निर्ााचि व् यय ेा
अ्िा लेाा दानाल ि ेरिे ेे नल् ेोई ठोभ ेार अर्थर्ा औनचत् य है?
्रदत् यर्थी िे उभेे नर्रु्ध लगे ेनर्थत भमाचार मदों ेे ्रदेाशि ्र व् यय उ्गत या ्रदानाेृत ेरिे ेे आरो् भे निरंतर
इंेार देया है। उभे ेार बताओ िोरटभ जारी ेरते भमय आयोग िे उभे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा भही लेाा दानाल
ेरिे में अभिल रहिे ेे ेार ् ्ष् ट ेरिे ेा मतेा ददया र्था। तर्थान्, उ त िोरटभ ेे अ्िे जर्ाब में या
ेायार्ाही ेे दतराि ेभी भी ्रदत् यर्थी अ्िी अभिलता ेे नल् सभा ेोई ेार या औनचत् य बतािे में अभिल रहे
ह । ्रदत् यर्थी िे भही लेाा दानाल ेरिे ेी नर्िलता ेबूल िहीं ेी और ेनर्थत ्रदेाशिों ्र भ्गताि उ्गत/अनाेृत
ेरिे भे निरंतर इंेार देया। तशि्भार, आयोग िे यह नि ाय नलया है दे ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्ाभ नर्ना ेे अंतगात अ्ेनक्षत
रीनत भे अ्िे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा अ्िा लेाा दानाल ेरिे में अभिल रहिे ेे नल् ेोई ठोभ ेार या औनचत् य
िहीं है।
मद भंख् या 6: या ्रदत् यर्थी लो.्रद. अनानियम 1951, ेी ाारा 77 और 78 ेे भार्थ ्रठत ाारा 10े ेे अाीि
भारत निर्ााचि आयोग ्ारा निरर्थहात दे् जािे ेा भागी है?
55.
निर्ााचि आयोग ्ेड न्द यूज ेे ातरे ेो लेर हचंनतत है, जो निर्ााचेीय ्ररदृच य में हचंताजिे ् तरों ते ्ुआंच गया
है। यह ्ररघटिा, जो निर्ााचिों में ाि ेे हानिेर ्रदभार् ेा ्रदेटीेर है, हाल ेे ददिों में अिैनते ंंग भे बढ़
रहा है और े भर ेी भांनत िैल रहा है यह अत् यन्द त गंभीर निर्ााचेीय ेदाचार है जो निर्ााचि व् यय ेी भीमाओं ेी
्ररर्ंचिा ेरता है, ्े भमाि अर्भर ्रददाि ेरिे में व् यर्ााि डालता है और मतदाता ेो ्ूर्ा-भूनचत नर्ेल् ्
बिािे में अ्िे आ्ेो भक्षम ेरिे ेे नल् ठीे-ठीे भूचिा ्रदाप् त ेरिे ेे अनाेार ेे ्रदनतेूल ेाम ेरता है। नशर्
ेृ्ाल हभंह बिाम र्ी.र्ी.नगरी (्आईआर 1970 ्भभी 2097) में उ् चतम न्द यायालय िे अनभनिाााररत देया है दे
निर्ााचेीय अनाेार ेा ्रदयोग ेरिे ेे भार्थ बााा उत् ्न्द ि ेरिा, मि ेे भार्थ अत् याचार ेरिे ेे भदृश है। ्ेड
न्द यूज इभ ्रदेार ेे ् र्रू् ेा होता है दे यह या तो मतदाताओं ेो सभे अभ् यर्थी ेा भमर्थाि ेरिे भे भयो्रत ेरेगा
या उिमें उभभें भयो्रत होिे ेी ्रदर्ृनत्त ला्गा नजभेा र्े अ्िे निर्ााचेीय अनाेार ेा म् त ्रदयोग ेरिे ्र
भमर्थाि ेरते ्रंत् ्ेड न्द यूज ेे भजाे ्रदेाशे ्ारा ्रदभानर्त होेर या उिेे ्ारा ्रदभानर्त दे् जािे ेा ्रदयाभ
ेरिे ेे ेार सभा िहीं ेर ्ाते। भामान्द य जि, आम ततर ्र, राजिैनते दलों और अभ् यर्थर्थायों ेे नर्ज्ञा्िों ेी
अ्ेक्षा भमाचार ्त्रों ेी ाबरों ेो अनाे नर्च र्भिीय मािते ह और ्ेड न्द यूज ेे ्ारा ाबरों ेे भेष में सभे
नर्ज्ञा्िों ेा ्रदेाशि निर्ााचेों ेो ाोाा देिे ेे भदृश है। आयोग िे ्ेड न्द यूज ेी जांच ेरिे और उिेी रर्ोर्टिंग
ेरिे ेे नल् राज् य और नजला ् तरों ्र तंत्रों ेा गठि ेरेे इभ ब्राई ेा निराेर ेरिे ेा ्रदयाभ देया है।
तर्थान्, सभा ्रदतीत होता है, दे र्ांनपत उद्देच य ्ूरी तरह हानभल िहीं दे् जा भेे ह । जैभा दे र्तामाि मामले ेे
त् यों भे ् ्ष् ट है। इभ मामले ेी जांच भे यह ् ्ष् ट हो गया है दे ्रदत् यर्थी भमाचार मदों ेे रू् में आक्षेन्त ्ेड न्द यूज
ेे ्रदेाशि में भंनलप् त र्थे और उन्द होंिे उभेी रर्ोर्टिंग दे् या ् र्ीेार दे् नबिा उभेा िायदा उठाया और इभ
तरह, नर्ना ेी भनख्तयों ेो घता बतािे ेी ेोनशश ेी है।
56.
उ्य्ा त ेे मद्देिजर, आयोग िे ्ाया है दे इभेे बार्जूद दे या अनभेनर्थत व् यय ेो ्रदत् यर्थी ेे ्रदनतर्ेददत लेाा में
जोड़े जािे ्र अि्मेय भीमा ेा उल् लंघि होता है या िहीं, यह त् य बिा ुआआ है दे ्रदत् यर्थी िे जाि बूेर ि ेेर्ल
व् ययों ेा गलत लेाा ्रद् त्त देया बनल्े व् यय ्र ेािूिी रू् भे नर्नहत भीमा ेी ्ररर्ंचिा ेरिे ेा भी ्रदयाभ
देया है। सभे ्रदयाभों ्र भख् त उ्ायों ेे भार्थ अंे्श लगा् जािे और अि्ेर ीय अि्शान्तयों ेे भार्थ ेारार्ाई
दे् जािे ेी जरूरत है और इभ तरह, निर्ााचेीय मैदाि में भंत्लि बहाल ेरिे ेी जरूरत है। इभनल्, आयोग ेा
यह भ्नर्चाररत दृनतेो है और यह इभ बात ेो अनभनिाााररत ेरता है दे ्रदत् य ्र्थी डॉ. िरोत्तम नमश्रा ेो लोे
्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 10े ेे अाीि निरर्थहात देया जािा चानह्। तदि्भार, निर्ााचि आयोग,
्तद्वारारा घोष ा ेरता है दे डॉ. िरोत्तम नमश्रा ेो नर्ना ्ारा अ्ेनक्षत रीनत भे निर्ााचि व् यय ेा अ्िा लेाा
दानाल ेरिे में अभिल होिे तर्था सभी नर्िलता ेे नल् ेोई ठोभ ेार या औनचत् य िहीं बतािे ेे ेार लोे
्रदनतनिनात् र् अनानियम, 1951 ेी ाारा 77 तर्था ाारा 78 ेे भार्थ ्रठत ाारा 10े ेे अाीि इभ आदेश ेी
तारीा भे 3 र्षा ेे नल् निरर्थहात ेरता है।
57.
मामले भे नर्दा लेिे भे ्ूर्ा, यह उल् लेा ेरिा ्रदाभंनगे है दे मामले ेी इभ आाार ्र आगे ेी भ्िर्ाई ेे नल्
्रदत् यर्थी भे ेल (22 जूि, 2017) ्े आर्ेदि ्रदाप् त देया गया है दे नशेायतेताा िे नलनात ्रद् त्तीेर ों में े्प
ि् सभे त् य राे ह नजन्द हें ्ूर्ा में उिेे भम् ्ू ा अनभर्चिों में िहीं उठाया गया र्था। तर्थान्, आयोग ेी राय है दे
यह आर्ेदि ्रदत् यर्थी ेी ओर भे ेी गई ्े नर्लंबेारी य्नग है। यह आर्ेदि नर्लम् ब ्र्ं गिलतों ेे नभ्ध ांत भे
े््रदभानर्त है। ्रदत् यर्थी ्ारा अ्िे र्तामाि आर्ेदि में ेोई िया त् य ्रद् त्त िहीं देया गया है। दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे
्ाभ, ्रद् त्त दे् ग् नलनात भार-भंक्षे् ेे ्रदत् य्त्तर में ्यााप् त मतेे र्थे, नजन्द हें भ्िर्ाई ेी अंनतम तारीा, अर्थाात 17
माचा, 2017 ेो, जब आयोग ेा आदेश भ्रनक्षत र्था, भे ्ूर्ा दानाल देया गया र्था। इभेे अनतरर त, आयोग िे
्क्षेारों ेो नर्शेष रू् भे ्ूपा र्था दे या दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे तेों ेो अंनतम रू् भे तय देया गया मािा जा्, तो
II
(iii)
35
दोिों ्क्षेारों ेे नर््ाि ेाउंभलों िे ेहा दे उन्द हें ि तो नलनात में और ि ही मतनाे रू् में और े्प ेहिा है।
इभ तरह, तीि महीिे बीतिे ेे बाद आर्ेदि दानाल ेरिा े्प िहीं, बनल्े इभ मामले ेो और नर्लनम्बत ेरिे ेा
्े ेृत् य है।
इभनल्, इभ नर्लनम्बत चर में, इभ आर्ेदि ्र ेारार्ाई िहीं ेी जा भेती और ्तद्वारारा अ् र्ीेृत देया जाता है ।
(श्री ओ.्ी. रार्त)
(डॉ. िभीम जैदी)
(श्री ्.ेे. जोनत)
निर्ााचि आय् त म्ख् य निर्ााचि आय् त
निर्ााचि आय् त
् र्थाि: िई ददल् ली
ददिांे: 23/06/2017
[भं. 76/म. ्रद. नर्. भ. /2009]
डॉ. िभीम जैदी, म्ख् य निर्ााचि आय् त
ELECTION COMMISION OF INDIA
ORDER
New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2017
In re: Account of election expenses of Dr. Narottam Mishra, returned candidate from 22-Datia Assembly
Constituency at the general election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 2008-Scrutiny of
account under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
ORDER
O. N. 44(E).—This case arises out of a complaint, dated 13th April 2009, received from Shri Rajendra Bharti
(hereafter, “Complainant”), a candidate contesting from 22-Datia Assembly Constituency for the general election to the
Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2008.Shri Navin Chawla, the then Election Commissioner, received a copy of
the aforesaid complaint together with a complaint of Madhya Pradesh Congress Committee (hereafter “MPCC”), seeking
order of the Election Commission of India (hereafter “Commission”),under Section 10A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 on disqualification of Dr. Narottam Mishra (hereafter “Respondent”), a Member of M.P Legislative
Assembly from 22-Datia Assembly Constituency. It was alleged that the Respondent had lodged an incorrect account of
election expenditure in the general election to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly in 2008, which was not in
accordance with the manner provided under Section 77 and Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
(hereafter, “RP Act 1951”) and Rules 86-89 of the Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961 (hereafter, “CER 1961”).
2.
The complaint dated 13th April 2009 received from the Complainant, enclosed with the complaint of MPCC,
made the following allegations:
a.
The total expenditure shown by the Respondent was Rs. 2, 40,827 as detailed below:
Vehicles Rent
Rs. 16,800/-
Diesel
Rs.86, 727/-
Loud Speaker
Rs. 3,900/-
Banners
Rs. 11,400/-
Office Rent
Rs. 7,500/-
Wall Painting
Rs. 9,500/-
Rent to municipality
Rs. 10,000/-
Security Amount
Rs. 5,000/-
TOTAL
Rs. 2,40,827/-
36
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
However, the expenditure reported above did not include expenses on the following items:
(i)
Public Meetings and Rallies: It was alleged that expenses incurred on various public meetings and rallies at
various places in the constituency had not been shown in the accounts. The Complainant obtained 13 CDs from
the District Electoral Officer (“DEO”), Datia, which allegedly showed rallies and activities undertaken by the
Respondent for which no expenses have been reported in the account. The Complainant estimated that the
minimum expenditure incurred for all such activities was Rs. 5, 30,093.
(ii)
Folders and Calendars: It was also alleged that apart from these rallies, expenditure had also been incurred on
folders, calendars for Hindus and calendars for Muslims for which an estimated of Rs.1, 00,000 had been
prepared by the Complainant.
(iii)
Newspaper advertisements: It was also alleged that the Respondent had published various advertisements in
local newspapers circulated in the Datia Assembly Constituency and had incurred huge expenses on such
publications. The Complainant submitted that about 35 newspaper advertisements had been collected by him
and on the basis of name of the newspaper, date of publication and the size of publication, the minimum
estimated expenditure prepared by the Complainant was Rs. 4, 79,860.A copy of rate list of the newspapers
showing the rates of various paper publications according to their size had also been filed.
(iv)
Vehicle purchased and diesel consumed by the vehicle: It had also been alleged that the Respondent had
concealed the ownership of 8-seated diesel vehicle purchased by him bearing registration No. HR-37B-1282, in
his affidavit dated 04th Nov 2008 filed along with his nomination form and did not disclose the expenditure on
diesel consumed in the said vehicle which was used by his election agent Mr.Vivek Mishra.
b.
The Complainant alleged that the Respondent had incurred an estimated total election expenditure of Rs.
13,50,780 which was in excess of the then maximum limit of Rs. 10 lakh prescribed under Rule 90 of the CER
1961 and far more, in excess of the Rs. 2,40,827 reported by the Respondent in his account of election
expenditure.
c.
The Complainant also alleged that the Respondent was liable for punishment under section 125A of the RP Act,
1951 and Sections 199 and 200 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, for filing the false affidavits dated 04th Nov 2008
(submitted with the nomination papers) and 08th Dec 2008 (submitted with the account of election expenditure)
and concealing the information therein.
d.
The Complainant also contended that the Respondent was liable to be disqualified for a period of three years for
contesting any election to Parliament and State Legislature, under Section 10A of the RP Act, 1951.
3.
The complaint received from the MPCC, dated 13th April 2009, made the following allegations:
a.
The Respondent had engaged in gross violations of the Model Code of Conduct (hereafter “MCC”).
b.
Cases had been registered against the Respondent under Section 34(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Excise
Act 1915 regarding distribution of sarees and liquor as well as for offences relating to Sections 153A, 188, 191,
199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
c.
It was also alleged that the Police was not taking proper action in regard to the above-mentioned cases.
d.
It was further alleged that the affidavit submitted by Respondent was false and he was liable for penalty
under Section 125A of RP Act, 1951; the Respondent was also allegedly liable for disqualification under
Section 77, Section 8A and Section 10A of the RP Act, 1951 read with Rules 86-89 of the CER, 1961.
4.
On 13th April 2009, the date of the complaint, the Complainant filed Election Petition No. 26/2009 in the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench, challenging the election of the Respondent under Section 81 and
100(1)(b) of the RP Act, 1951 on ground of corrupt practices including incurring of election expenditure in excess
of the prescribed limit. The Respondent challenged the maintainability of EP No. 26/2009 and moved an
application for its dismissal, which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 26th March 2010. The order
dated 26th March 2010 of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court by an SLP (Civil) 14984/2010
in which the Supreme Court on 05th July 2010 passed an order staying further proceedings. Another application
(I.A No. 4603/2012) dated 29th Nov 2012 was filed by the Complainant for withdrawal of the Election Petition
No. 26/2009. After publication of the notice of withdrawal of the petition on the order of High Court dated 04th
Dec 2012, in the official gazette, two other applications were filed (namely, IA No. 564/2013, dated 20th Jan 2013
by Imtiaz Mohommad and I.A No.602/2013 dated 01st Feb 2013by Tarique Mohommad)for substitution as
petitioner in the Election Petition. The Supreme Court, by its order dated 1st Sep 2014, vacated the stay for the
limited purpose of enabling the High Court to decide the interim applications mentioned above. In the meantime,
the Complainant filed an application (I.A. No. 430/2015) to withdraw the withdrawal application (I.A No.
4603/2012) of Election Petition. The said interim applications were subsequently decided by the High Court vide
order dated 27th October, 2015 together with the application (I.A No. 4603/2015) filed by the Complainant for
withdrawal of the Election Petition. The High Court dismissed the applications in the said order. Furthermore,
II
(iii)
37
counsels for both parties submitted that there were some remaining applications, I.A.Nos.14727 of 2009, 13327 of
2009, 7629of 2010, 7628 of 2010 and 6178 of 2014 pertaining to the question of maintainability of the Election
Petition, framing of additional issues, amendment in the said petition and substitution of petitioner, which were
still pending. It was also argued by the counsels of both parties (the Complainant and the Respondent), that if the
SLP is allowed by the Supreme Court, in which the maintainability of this Election Petition has been challenged,
then, the Election Petition would stand dismissed automatically. Therefore, there is no need to decide the said
pending applications at this stage as the proceedings have already been stayed in compliance of the Supreme
Court's order dated 05th July 2010. Thereafter, Supreme Court passed an order dated 26th July, 2016 stating that
since according to the submission of the counsel for respondent in this case (the Complainant in Election Petition),
the application of withdrawal was entertained by the High Court in the matter (which was actually dismissed by
the High Court as stated above), the SLP is dismissed having become infructuous. Further, counsel for the
petitioner of SLP (the Respondent) submitted before the High Court that the order of the Supreme Court was
passed on erroneous submissions as the application of withdrawal of the election petition was dismissed by the
High Court vide order dated 27th October, 2015.The counsel for Respondents stated that since the SLP was
dismissed on erroneous submissions by the counsel for Complainant, it was further requested to the High Court to
dismiss the Election Petition with a liberty to the Complainant to make an application of revival of the Election
Petition if so directed by the Supreme Court. The Complainant prayed that time of two weeks be granted to him to
file his review petition in the Supreme Court against the order dated 26th July, 2016 and to produce the Supreme
Court orders on record. On 22ndSep 2016, the next hearing in the High Court, it was held that since the Supreme
Court’s orders in respect of the review petition (R.C. No. 003970/2016) could not be produced by the
Complainant on record as prayed by him earlier, the Election Petition is disposed of subject to the condition that if
the review petition is allowed before the Supreme Court, the Complainant would be entitled to make an
appropriate application to revive the Election Petition. The final fate of that Petition is not known.
5.
In so far as the complaint dated 13th April 2009 received from MPCC by the Commission is concerned, a copy of
the same was forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, (hereafter “CEO”) Madhya Pradesh on 29th April 2009 for
taking necessary action under intimation to the Commission, but no reply was received from the CEO, Madhya
Pradesh with respect to the letter of the Commission dated 29th April 2009.
6.
A subsequent complaint, dated 5th July 2009, was also received from the Complainant, alleging various corrupt
practices by the Respondent. The CEO, Madhya Pradesh vide letter dated 24th July 2009 was asked to take
following actions:
a.
To direct the Returning Officer for 22-Datia A.C to decide the issue regarding filing of false affidavit
by the Respondent and concealing the fact of his ownership of a diesel vehicle, which was seized by the Police
station, Zigna (issue raised in complaints dated 13th April 2009 and 5th July 2009) on the basis of the instructions
issued by the Commission under section 125A of the RP Act 1951. Immediate action was ordered in the matter,
under report to the Commission.
b.
To submit the present position of the cases registered against the Respondent regarding distribution of
liquor and sarees under Section 34 of Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 and Section 171B of IPC, 1860; cases
registered under Section 153A , 188 of IPC, 1860; and Section 125 of the RP Act, 1951;
c.
To submit a report to the Commission regarding alleged distribution of voter slips bearing photo of the
then Chief Minister of MP and Lotus symbol.
7.
A report from CEO, M.P in reply to the Commission’s letter dated 24th July 2009, was received in the
Commission on 12th Aug, 2009. As per the report of the DEO, Datia which was forwarded by the CEO, M.P, in
all the cases, action had been taken as per law and all cases were under consideration in the Courts. As regards
the account of election expenses submitted by the Respondent, as per report of the DEO, Datia, the Respondent
had submitted his account of election expenses within prescribed time on 6th Jan, 2009 and in the manner
provided under law, which was checked by the Observer from time to time. The total expenses mentioned in the
account were Rs. 2, 40,627. Thereupon, Commission's letter dated 26th Aug, 2009, directed the CEO, MP to
keep the Commission periodically apprised of developments in the above mentioned court cases.
8.
Thereafter, a further representation dated 18th April, 2010 was received in the Commission from the
Complainant regarding the following matters:
a.
Non-consideration of his complaint in the matter of non-submission of true account of expenditure
incurred by the Respondent.
b.
Filing a false affidavit, concealing the fact of his ownership of his diesel vehicle.
The Commission decided that an enquiry should be initiated into the matter. The Complainant’s
representation18th April, 2010, was subsequently forwarded to the CEO, MP for immediate detailed enquiry and
report, by the Commission vide its letter dated 12th Oct, 2010.
38
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
9.
Subsequently, a further complaint, dated 18th Sep, 2010 was received from the Complainant making following
allegations:
(i) That the account of election expenses submitted by the Respondent had been accepted by the DEO as
correct, under undue pressurefrom the Govt. of Madhya Pradesh;
(ii) That Dr.Narottam Mishra was being protected in other cases as well;
(iii) That the reports sent by the DEO were not correct,
(iv) That he had enclosed with his original complaint dated 9th April, 2009,to the Commission all relevant
documents and certified CDs, but the original complaint along with documents, certified CDs and list of
annexures, were not traceable in the Commission’s record,which raised a question on the impartiality of the
Election Commission.
10.
It is pertinent to mention that a Writ Petition No. 7553 of 2010 was filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by
the Complainant (Rajendra Bharti v. Election Commission of India and ors), praying therein for a direction to
Election Commission of India to carry out enquiry under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 and to decide the issue of disqualification in a time bound manner. The matter continued to pend before the
High Court. Finally, the High Court adjudicated the Writ Petition on 28th July 2016 wherein it decided that
Election Commission of India was free to decide the issue of disqualification raised by the petitioner.
11.
The Commission vide it’s letter dated 26th Nov 2010 to CEO M.P, called for the original copies of all the
newspaper advertisements as mentioned in the complaint of the Complainant and the scanned copies of the
original account of election expenditure submitted by the Respondent along with authenticated copy of
CDs/DVDs of all video recording of public rallies, public meetings (if taken).
12.
The Complainant yet again filed a new representation dated 14th Mar 2011 against the non-consideration of his
complaint filed under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 in respect of non-submission of the correct account of
election expenditure by the Respondent, making the following allegations in addition to the previous
complaints:
a.
That if a candidate fails to lodge a correct account of election expenditureor lodges an incorrect or false
account, then, he is liable to face action against him separately under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 by the
Commission, apart from a criminal litigation and also under an Election Petition in the High Court. The
Commissioncannot decline to interfere in the matter only because the matter is pending before civil and criminal
courts. The Commission is duty bound to make its own inquiry.
b.
The Commissionis fully empowered to conduct an inquiry with respect to correct account lodged by a
candidate in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in L.R. Shivaramagowda vs. T.M Chandra Shekhar
(AIR 1999 SC 252). The Complainant has submitted documentary evidence (original copies of the newspapers,
tariff cards/rate lists, folders, calendars and CDs as obtained from DEO Datia office) in support of his
complaint.
c.
The Complainant had submitted a reminder also with respect to consideration of his complaint but no
action has been taken so far.It is highly unfortunate that the original complaint dated 09th April 2009, of the
applicant has been misplaced from the Commission.
d.
No inquiry had been done with respect to the account submitted by the Respondent and it was
intimated that the account was verified by the accounts officer, who is not empowered to make any inquiry with
respect to the actual account submitted by the Respondent. DEO, Datia had also submitted the report under
influence of the Respondent.
e.
In spite of the letter of theCommission dated 12th Oct 2010 to DEO Datia, for an inquiry to be made
against the Respondent, no action was taken as the Respondent holds the post of Cabinet Minister in
Government of M.P and DEO Datia (Collector, Datia) was hand in glove with the Respondent.
f.
It was prayed that an independent inquiry must be conducted into the matter, as the allegations made by
the Complainant were enough to show what amount actually had been incurred by the Respondent in the
elections.
g.
That two years had lapsed and if the complaint filed by the Complainant was not decided now, it would
be renderedinfructuous.
13.
A letter from CEO, M.Pdated 17th Mar 2011was received in the Commission in reply to the Commission’s letter
dated 26th Nov, 2010, providing the CDs asked for, but the newspaper copies which were sought by the
II
(iii)
39
Commission in the said letter, were missing with the reply. In the meanwhile, another letter from the
Complainant was received along with posters, calendars and folders published by the Respondent in the
elections of 2008.The Commission again, vide its letter dated 4th May, 2011 asked the CEO, M.P, to obtain the
relevant portions of the newspapers in original form from the Editors of the Newspapers along with the bills
raised against the publications within 30 days for further scrutiny by the Commission. The xerox copies of the
same alleged publications in the complaints of Complainant and of the MPCC, both dated 13th April 2009 were
annexed with the letter. It was also stated that the Complainant had alleged publication of 35 newspaper
advertisements, etc. in his complaint before the Commission.A direction was also given by the Commission to
depute a senior officer to collect the requisite information from the Editors of the newspapers and their agencies
and submit them before the Commission in person within stipulated time.
14.
In the meanwhile, a further letter dated 12th May, 2011 was received from the Complainant enclosing 13 CDs
obtained by him from the DEO, Datiaoffice which were recorded during elections in 2008 in the Datia
Constituency.
15.
The Commission sent several reminders to CEO, M.P dated 12th May 2011, 2nd June 2011 and 15th June 2011,
and received a letter of response from CEO, M.P dated 28th June 2011 stating that out of five newspaper
agencies, three – namely, Acharan Gwalior, NaiDuniya, Gwalior and DainikDatiaPrakashhave provided the
information that there has been no publication of the news advertisement by their newspapers with respect to the
sent copies of the news items and the newspaper cuttings which are in question are only news reports.Letter
from Acharan Gwalior was sent by the ‘Head Moderator’ of the agency whereas letters from Nai Duniya and
Dainik Datia Prakash were sent by the respective ‘Editor’ of the agency. The other two agencies have not yet
given any response.
16.
A fresh complaint from the Complainant dated 28th May, 2012 was received in the Commission,in which 40
cases of suspected paid news were alleged along with the rate cards/tariffs of the relevant newspaper
agencies.The Complainant filed original copies of the newspaper pages of DanikBhaskar, NaiDunia,
DanikDatiaPrakashand B.P.N Times wherein publications of news in favour of the Respondent have been made.
The photocopies of news items along with photographspublished in newspaper Acharandated 15th Nov 2008,
25th Nov 2008, and an “appeal” published on 27th Nov 2008 in favour of the Respondent were attachedalong
with the complaint. Based on the rate cards/tariffs received by the newspaper agencies, the Complainant alleged
that a total expenditure of Rs. 6, 07,980/- on the publications was made by the Respondent. The Complainant
also alleged that the original copies of the alleged publications sought by the Commission from the Complainant
were deliberately not sent by the DEO, Datia and by the Public Relation Officer despite the repeated directions
of the Commission.
17.
A letter from the Commission dated 20th June, 2012 to DEO, Datia was sent askingthe following details:
(i)
Certified copies of the bills/vouchers against the items mentioned in (a), (b) and (c) of (ii) and (iii).
(ii)
Whether the Respondent had shown any amount against the publication of his appeal with photos in:
(a) ‘DainikBhaskar’, dated 27th Nov 2008,
(b) ‘Acharan’, dated 27th Nov 2008,
(c) ‘DainikDatiaPrakash’ dated 27th Nov 2008,
(iii)
Whether the Respondent had shown meeting expenses as reported by the Press in:
(a) ‘DainikBhaskar’, dated 20th Nov 2008,
(b) ‘Naiduniya’ dated 18th Nov 2008,
(c) ‘Naiduniya’ dated 26th Nov 2008,
(iv)
Whether the different newspapers had received any payment for publishing the same news verbatim
and the media houses concerned had submitted the declaration obtained from the publisher (signed by him) and
attested by two persons (as required under Section 127A of the RP Act) or not.
18.
The DEO, Datia vide his letter dated 25th July, 2012 sent the expenditure statement of Rs. 2,40,827 lodged by
the Respondenttogether with responses given by the aforementioned media houses in which all of them denied
that any bills or vouchers had been raised for publication. The details of the statements given by the media
houses are as follows:
40
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
S. No.
Name of the Document
Brief Contents
1.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from Editor,
Acharan(EX-D/7)
This office has not published any advertisement with
respect to Dr. Narottam Mishra. Thus, no verified copy
of related bill can be provided.
2.
Letter to Chief Electoral Officer from
Editor, DainikBhaskar(EX-D/8)
Dr. Narottam Mishra has not given any advertisement
and neither any such advertisement has been published.
Thus, no verified copy of related bill can be provided.
3.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from United
Head, NaiDuniya(EX-D/9)
This office has not published any advertisement with
respect to Dr. Narottam Mishra. Thus, no verified copy
of related bill can be provided.
4.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from District
Reporter, B.P.N Times(EX-D/10)
This newspaper has been discontinued from May, 2011.
Thus, no related payment with respect to any
advertisement has been made.
5.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from Bureau
Chief, DainikBhaskar, Gwalior(EX-
D/11)
No payment has been received with respect to above
subject.
6.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from District
Reporter,
Dainik
Acharan,
Gwalior(EX-D/12)
No payment has been received with respect to above
subject.
7.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from District
Reporter,
Dainik
Nai
Duniya,
Gwalior(EX-D/13)
No payment has been received with respect to above
subject.
8.
Letter
to
Collector
and
District
Election Officer, Datia from Editor-
in-chief, Dainik Datia Prakash,
Datia(EX-D/14)
No payment has been received with respect to above
subject.
19.
Considering the documents on record, the Commission decided to call the meeting of theCommission’s National
Level Committee on Paid News (hereafter, “Committee”)in order to examine the 42 suspected cases of Paid
News which were published in DanikBhaskar, NaiDunia, Aacharan, DainikDatiaPrakashand BPN Times,
Gwalior and brought to the notice of the Commissionthrough several representations by the Complainant. The
Committee comprised of the following members:
i.
Shri GhanshyamGoel, Additional Director General, Directorate of Audio Visual Publicity, Government
of India.
ii.
Shri S. Mathias, Additional Director General (News), All India Radio.
iii.
Shri NeerajBajpai, Senior Journalist, (Nominated by Press Council of India)
iv.
Shri Shangara Ram, Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India.
v.
Shri K. Ajay Kumar, Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India.
vi.
Shri K.F Wilfred, Principal Secretary, Election Commission of India.
vii.
Shri Bernard John, Secretary, Election Commission of India.
viii.
Ms. Padma Angmo, Deputy Secretary, Election Commission of India—Convenor.
The Committee held its meeting on 5th and 12th September, 2012 respectively.The Committee considered the following
42 paid news items in question:
II
(iii)
41
List of alleged publications scrutinised by the Paid News Committee:
S. No.
Headline of the news item
Name of the News paper
Date
1.
“शक्ति प्रदशशन में सबसे आगे रहे नरोत्िम”
Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior
08/11/08
2.
"....िो इसलिए सबसे अिग हैं : नरोत्िम"
Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior
09/11/08
3.
“दतिया का विकास नरोत्िम के हाथ"
Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior
10/11/08
4.
"एक कदम और बढे नरोत्िम"
Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior
12/11/08
5.
"हर समाज का समथशन नरोत्िम को"
Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior
13/11/08
6.
“जनिा के स्नेह से अलििूि नरोत्िम”
Dainik Bhaskar, Gwalior
15/11/08
7.
"साठ ददन में बुझाई साठ साि की प्यास: नरोत्िम"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
16/11/08
8.
"रोज़गार का सपना पूरा करेंगे नरोत्िम"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
18/11/08
9.
"क्षेत्र की सुरक्षा पहिी प्राथलमकिा: नरोत्िम"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
20/11/08
10.
"गुमराह करिे रहे नेिा: नरोत्त्म"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
20/11/08
11.
"श्री. लमश्र के समथशन में जनसैिाब उमडा"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
21/11/08
12.
"ये आम नही खास चुनाि है: नरोत्िम"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
22/11/08
13.
"क्षेत्र के विकास के लिए नरोत्िम लमश्रा की जीि ज़रूरी"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
23/11/08
14.
"दतिया िरेगा विकास की उडान:डॉ. नरोत्िम लमश्रा”
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
24/11/08
15.
"दतिया में लसर्फश िाजपा की ही ल़हेर, नरोत्िम ही पहिी पसंद"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
26/11/08
16.
“सबके ददि पर छा गये नरोत्िम लमश्रा"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
26/11/08
17.
"विकास की बाि पर नरोत्िम लमश्रा से जुडे मिदािा"
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
27/11/08
18.
"विनम्र आग्रह"(Direct Appeal)
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
27/11/08
19.
“क्षेत्रकाविकासहीएकमात्रमुद्दा: डॉ. नरोत्िमलमश्रा”
Dainik Bhaskar,Gwalior
27/11/08
20.
"....िो इसलिए सबसे अिग हैं : नरोत्िम"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
11/11/08
21.
“जनिा के स्नेह से अलििूि नरोत्िम”
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
15/11/08
22.
"िाजपा ही करा सकिी है दतिया का विकास"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
16/11/08
23.
"साठ ददन में बुझाई साठ साि की प्यास: नरोत्िम"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
17/11/08
24.
"िाजपा जो कहिी है िो करिी है: लमश्रा"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
18/11/08
25.
“समाजकादहिसिोपरर”
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
18/11/08
26.
"क्षेत्रा की सुरक्षा पहिी प्राथलमकिा: नरोत्िम"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
20/11/08
27.
"डॉ. लमश्रा के समथशन में जनसैिाब उमडा"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
21/11/08
28.
"ये आम नही खास चुनाि है: नरोत्िम"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
22/11/08
29.
"दतिया का विकास नरोत्िम की प्राथलमकिा"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
24/11/08
30.
"दतिया िरेगा विकास की उडान: डॉ. नरोत्िम लमश्रा"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
25/11/08
31.
"दतिया से नरोत्िम की जीि िगिग सुतनक्चचि"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
26/11/08
32.
"दतियाकाविकासऔरआमजनकीसुरक्षाहीमेराध्येय: डॉ. लमश्रा"
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
26/11/08
33.
"नरोत्िम की जीि से होगा दतिया का विकास"(Direct Appeal)
Nai Duniya, Gwalior
27/11/08
34.
"डॉ. लमश्रा के समथशन में जनसैिाब उमडा"
B.P.N Times, Gwalior
21/11/08
35.
"दतिया में नरोत्िम ने चुनािी समीकरण को ककया अपने पक्ष में"
B.P.N Times, Gwalior
25/11/08
42
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
36.
"दतिया में लसर्फश िाजपा की ल़हेर, नरोत्िम ही पहिी पसंद"
B.P.N Times, Gwalior
26/11/08
37.
“िो इसलिए सबसे अिग हैं : नरोत्िम"
Acharan Gwalior
15/11/08
38.
"दतिया िरेगा विकास की उडान: डॉ. नरोत्िम लमश्रा"
Acharan Gwalior
25/11/08
39.
"विकास की बाि पर स्ििः जुड रहे हैं नरोत्िम से मिदािा"
Acharan Gwalior
27/11/08
40.
"डॉ. लमश्रा के समथशन में कुशिाहा समाज सडकों पर"
Dainik Datia Prakash
27/11/08
41.
"दतिया में िजपा की ल़हेर: नरोत्िम बने पहिी पसंद"
Dainik Datia Prakash
26/11/08
42.
"मिदाि बंधुओं से नम्रा तनिेदन"(Direct Appeal)
Dainik Datia Prakash
27/11/08
On the scrutiny of each of the said 42 paid news items/articles of DainikBhaskar, NaiDuniya, Aacharan,
DainikDatiaPrakash and BPN Times, Gwalior, the Committee made the following observations:
i.
The items in question appeared nearly daily from 8thNov to 27th Nov, 2008 in the fivenewspapers.
ii.
The news items carried information only about Dr. Narottam Mishra and appeared heavily in his
favour. There werefeatures and appeals as well, among these clippings. The news items appeared to
read more like an election advertisement for the candidate than a news report.
iii.
One particular news item with same headline appeared on 15th Nov in Aacharan, on 11th Nov in
NaiDuniya and on 9th Nov in DainikBhaskar, with the body of the news items, reproduced verbatim.
iv.
News items carried headlines like, ‘VikaskeliyeNarottam Mishra kiJeetJaroori’, ‘Narottam Hi
Pehlipasand’, ‘DatiameinNarottamkijeetlagbhagSunishchit’ – which appeared to heavily promote Dr.
Narottam Mishra.
v.
Nearly all the news items appeared without the name of the Reporter. Most items had ‘Bhaskar Impact’
or ‘Election Special Series’, or ‘Impact Feature’ written at the corner of the item.
vi.
The articles didnot refer to any opposition candidate, or his/her campaign and did not carry any content
that to supply a balancing perspective.
The Committee agreed that all the 42 news items/articles werebiased, one-sided and aimed at furthering the
prospects of the candidate (Dr. Narottam Mishra). Some of the reported items weredirect appeals, while
othersreadlike advertisements in favour of the candidate. The Committee after detailed discussion and
afterexamining all aspects of the case, came to the conclusion that the articles/items published in various
newspapers appeared to be surrogate advertisements and fit to be taken under existing definition of Paid News
i.e. “any news or analysis appearing in any media (Print & Electronic) for a price in cash or kind as
consideration” as given by the Press Council of India.
20.
After due consideration of the above report of the Committee on Paid News, the Commission found it to be a fit
case for further inquiry. Accordingly, it issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15th January, 2013 to the Respondent
under sub-rule (5) of Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 wherein it was stated as follows:
“Whereas, General Election to Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly was called by the Governor of
the State under Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 vide notification no. 14-Law-3-Elec-IV-
MP-LA-2008, dated 31 October, 2008; and
Whereas, you had contested the said General Election from 22-Datia Assembly Constituency; and
Whereas, under Section 77(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, every candidate at an
election is required to keep a separate and correct account of all the expenditure in connection with an election
incurred or authorized by the candidate or his election agent between the date of filing of nomination paper and
the date of declaration of the election; and
Whereas under Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 the candidate is required to
lodge with the District Election Officer a true copy of the account kept by him under Section 77 within 30 days
of the declaration of result of the election; and
Whereas, you lodged your account expenses with the District Election Officer, Datia, on 06th Jan 2009;
and
Whereas it has been observed that 42(forty two) news items/articles appeared nearly daily from 8th to
27th November 2008 in 4 newspapers, namely, Dainik Bhaskar, Nai Duniya, Acharan and Dainik Datia
Prakash, which read more like an election advertisement in favour of you alone rather than a news report; and
II
(iii)
43
Whereas, these 42 news items/articles have been scrutinized by the Committee on Paid News
constituted by the Commission; and
Whereas the said Committee, after detailed discussions and after examining all aspects of the case, has
come to the conclusion that these articles/items, published in various newspapers appear to be advertisements
in the garb of news and merit to fall within the definition of ‘Paid News’ that is to say, ‘any news or analysis
appearing in any media (Print and Electronic) for a price in cash or kind as consideration’; and
Whereas, a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Committee on Paid News dated 12th Sep 2012,
together with the copies of the 42 relevant news items/articles, are attached herewith as Annexure to the notice;
and
Whereas, on the perusal of the said account of election expenses sent by the DEO, Datia, under Section
78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, it is observed that the expenditure incurred on release of these
advertisements in the nature of the Paid News has not been reflected in the said account of election expenses
maintained under Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and lodged with the District Election
Officer, Datia of the under Section 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951;
Now, therefore, under sub rule (5) of the Rule 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, the Election
Commission hereby gives you a notice to show cause why you should not be disqualified for your failure to
maintain a true and correct account of your election expenditure as required by law, for not lodging the true
account of your election expenditure by suppressing/undervaluing the expenditure towards advertisements
published in various newspapers, and thus having failed to lodge your account of election expenses in the
manner required by law.
The reasons of the said default should be explained by you in writing and should reach the Commission
within 20 days from the date of receipt of this notice.
In case, you fail to do so, within the time stipulated above, you will render yourself liable, without any
further reference in the matter, for disqualification under Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly
or Legislative Council of a State or Union Territory for a period of 3 years from the date of order of the
Commission declaring you to be so disqualified.
Extracts of the Sections 10A, 77 and 78 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and of the Rules
86 and 89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 are enclosed. The Commission also affords you an opportunity
to inspect, if you so desire, the relevant documents /files by giving prior intimation of three working days.
Given under the seal of the Election Commission of India on 15th January 2013.”
21.
The Respondent filed the first reply dated 28th Jan, 2013 to the show cause notice of the Commission wherein he
stated that the documents/materials on the basis of which the notice had been issued, had not been supplied to
him. In the reply he requested that the said documents/materials be supplied to him to enable him to file a
complete and effective reply to the notice. Accordingly, a letter dated 1st March 2013 was sent by the
Commission to the Respondent seeking further response from him, and allowed him an opportunity of
inspection of all relevant files in the Commission’s record. The Respondent had, in addition, raised some
preliminary objections regarding issue of show cause notice to himas follows:
(i)
The Respondent contended that the primary requirement to hold an inquiry in the instant matter
depended upon the report submitted by DEO under sub-rule (2) of Rule 89 of the CER, 1961 which is
reproduced as under:
“(2) Where the District election officer is of the opinion that the account of election expenses of any candidate
has not been lodged in the manner required by the Act and these rules, he shall with every such report forward to
the Election Commission the account of election expenses of that candidate and the vouchers lodged along with
it.”
The submission of an adverse report under the above sub-rule is a precondition to hold enquiry which is not so in
the present matter. Thus the show cause notice issued is contrary to Rule 89 of the CER, 1961.
(ii)
A suo moto inquiry by the Commission cannot be held in the present matter as it is held either on the
basis of the adverse report of the DEO.
(iii)
The allegation of incorrect furnishing of the account was raised after filing of the account and no
inquiry was initiated by the Commission in its wisdom till after four years of the filing of the account. The
inquiry now initiated by the Commission is highly belated and on account of delay, memory fades and this would
be disadvantageous to the Respondent.
44
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
(iv)
The election law insists that to unseat a returned candidate, the allegation must be specifically alleged
and strictly proved to have been committed bythe candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the
consent of the returned candidate. The present notice has been issued on the basis of the assumption and
presumption of the Committee on paid news. Therefore, holding of an inquiry would not be in consonance of
with the policy of law.
(v)
The notice issued on the basis of the report of the Committee on paid news appointed to hold inquiry,
does not disclose the source of information for reaching any conclusion, which is a material defect in the
conclusion drawn by the Committee and no such report can be the basis of holding inquiry in the matter. The
notice needs to be recalled on this ground.
22.
The Respondent then inspected the files in the Commission on 22nd May, 2013 and obtained the copies of the
relevant documentsasked for by him.After further requests made by the Respondent,regarding the further
remaining inspection, the second and final inspection of the files was done by him on 16th July, 2013.
23.
Thereafter, the Commission vide its letter dated 19th July, 2013 asked the Respondent to submit his reply to the
Commission's Notice dated 15th Jan, 2013 by 30th July, 2013. Then, final reply to the Commission’s notice by the
Respondent was received in the Commission on 29th July, 2013 making the following submissions:
(i)
Notice has been issued to the Respondent without considering if any prima facie case exists to do the
same as the notice is based only on the report of the Committee on the paid news and not on any finding which
has been made by the Commission itself. Also, the report of the Committee nowhere shows that the Noticee was
anywhere involved in the publication of the news articles under consideration.It is common knowledge that in
election, the opposite party also plays mischief with the candidate and apprehending the defeat, they try to create
a circumstance and collect materials for challenging the election after the result is declared. The notice has been
issued without recording any satisfaction of the Commission that the action taken against the Respondent is
necessary.
(ii)
Another basis on which the notice was sent were certain newspaper reports which are not admissible as
evidence (as held by the Supreme Court in AIR 1969 SC 1201 S.N. Balakrishna vs. Farnandez and AIR 1994 SC
1733 Quamarul Islam vs. S.K Kanta) until and unless manuscript is obtained from the concerned newspaper.
(iii) Considering the note-sheet of the Election Commission, there was a situation of confusion in the
Commission as to whether the notice must be issued to the Noticee or not.
(iv)
The notice and action is highly belated and the propriety demands that no action be taken just before
the ensuing elections.
(v)
A parallel proceeding on the same subject matter was instituted in the High Court by the Petitioner. If
the inquiry is initiated by the Election commission then the likelihood of the conflicting decisions cannot be ruled
out. Also, multiplicity of proceedings is neither in the interest of the party nor in the interest of the public (as held
in Ram Sumer vs. State of M.P 1985(1)SCC427).
(vi)
According tothe case of AIR1999SC252 L.R Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekhar, the complaint
should contain the information that the newspaper contained the paid news and that the newspaper was circulated
in the constituency for the purposes of general public.Also, there must be sufficient material to show that the
news was printed and the elected candidate was the source of such news.Unless this is shown, mere publication
of the news is of no consequence to the candidate. In absence of such allegations, the notice deserves to be
quashed.
(vii)
No complaint as to the nature of the publication of paid news was noticed or made to the Observer or to
the District Election Officer.
(viii)
In spite of the directions which were issued to the DEO, CEOs of all the States and Chief Secretaries of
all the States regarding advertisements in the Print Media, nobody was taking cognizance of the news and
everybody considered the news as routine news.On 08th June 2010, a circular was issued in which the paid news
was taken note of and the District Committee was required to keep a watch on the election news. In spite of these,
the District Committee was functioning at the time of election in which the relevant dispute has arisen did not
notice that the alleged news were so considered as paid news.
(ix)
It is submitted that the allegations that any account was spent by the Respondent in publication of the
newspaper reports is vehemently denied and the details of the disputes would be submitted after receiving
documents and consideration of the preliminary reply.
(x)
It is therefore prayed that the notice may kindly be recalled and the proceedings may be dropped.
24.
Simultaneously, a Writ Petition No.6023/2013 was filed by Respondent in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Gwalior Bench, challenging the validity of notice issued to him by the Election Commission and also the
competence of the Commission under Section 10A of the RP Act, 1951. A stay was granted on the proceedings
II
(iii)
45
of the Commission by an order of the High Court on 29thAug 2013 which was subsequently vacated by the order
dated 09th Oct 2013. Later, the petition was disposed of by the High Court by an order dated 28th July, 2016 with
a direction to the Commission to decide the interlocutory applications filed by the Respondent before the
Commission, if already not decided, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of
the order and proceed to decide the dispute in a time bound manner so as to maintain the faith of litigant in the
system.
25.
A Writ Petition No. 3512/2011 was also filed by one Radha Mohan Soni on 27th May 2011 before the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission under Section 10 A of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 to go into the depth of alleged incorrectness or falsity of the return of
election expenses maintained by any candidate under Section 77 (1) and 77 (2) as lodged under Section 78 of the
Representation of Peoples Act, 1951.An interim relief was granted to the petitioner in this case which had the
effect of staying the proceedings against the Respondent before the Commission.Later, it was decided by the
High Court that petitioner may take up the issue raised in this writ petition with respect to jurisdiction of the
Commission to decide the issue of disqualification under Section 10 (A) of the Representation of the People Act,
1951 before the Commission and which shall be decided by the said authority.
26.
Meanwhile, after considering the reply of the Respondent, the Commission decided to call the parties for hearing
on 22nd October 2013. After the said hearing, where the Respondent prayed for deferment of the hearing, he
filedan application to terminate the proceedings before the Commission on the ground of pendency of the
Election Petition filed by the Complainant and similar matters being subjudice before the courts. He again filed
an application for supplying the copy of minutes of the meetings dated 05th Sep 2012 of the Paid News
Committee in order to furnish the proper and complete response to the notice issued him. He also filed an
application for granting leave to cross examine the Members of the Paid News Committee. Parallely, Respondent
filed a Writ Appeal No. 486/2013 challenging the order of the Single Bench of the High Court in W.P No.
6023/2013 dated 09th Oct 2013 whereby the High Court had vacated the stay in the proceedings before the
Commission. An interim order was passed in the said Writ Appeal No. 486/2013 by the Division Bench of the
High Court dated 11th Oct 2013, wherein the Single Bench of the High Court was given the liberty to decide the
W.P No. 6023/2013 on merits and the Commission along with the respondents in the Writ Appeal were also
provided the liberty to move to the Supreme Court in regard to modification of the order of the High Court dated
11th Oct 2013. Thereupon, the Respondent filed an application before the Commission to recall the hearing on
22nd Oct 2013. He also filed an application for listing other cases related to the paid news along with his case. He
filed an objection regarding constitution of the paid news Committee and its proceeding which had taken place on
12th Sep 2012. He again filed an application to defer the hearing scheduled in the Commission on 22nd Oct 2013
on the date of hearing itself and prayed for time to file an SLP in the Supreme Court against the order of the High
Court dated 11th Oct 2013 in Writ Appeal No. 486/2013.
27.
On the other hand, Complainant filed an application dated 22nd Oct 2013, for early disposal of his complaint
against the Respondent. The Complainant also filed an application to restrict the Respondent to participate in the
elections of the year 2013 to the Legislative Assembly of M.P. The Commission further fixed the hearing on 18th
Nov 2013. The Respondent filed an another application dated 01st Nov 2013for postponing the date of hearing in
view of the elections scheduled on 25th Nov 2013 in M.P. The Commission thereupon fixed the next date of
hearing on 29th Nov 2013. The Respondent again filed an application on the date of hearing i.e. 29th Nov 2013, to
defer the hearing in view of the SLP No. 035006/2013 filed by him which was listed to be heard on 29th Nov
2013 itself in the Supreme Court. The SLP filed by the Respondent was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court
on 14th Oct 2014 holding that the Commission is empowered to enquire into the correctness of the account of
election expenditure filed by the Respondent, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Ashok Shankarrao
Chavan’s Case (AIR2014SC310).
28.
The Commission then conducted detailed hearings for both the parties on 22ndOctober 2013, 29th Nov 2013,8th
September 2014, 11th November 2014, 2nd February 2015, 12th February 2015, 10th March 2015, 09th July 2015,
15th July, 2015, 27th July 2015, 16th September 2015, 26th Oct 2015, 30th November 2015, 23rd December 2015,
21st Jan 2016, 13th April 2016, 26th May 2016, 08th August 2016, 24th August 2016, 06st September 2016, 21st
October 2016, 28th November 2016, 09th January 2017 and 17th March 2017. On the hearing on 8th September
2014, the Commission framed the following issues, in consultation with the learned counsels for both the parties:
i.
Whether the news articles, ‘appeals’ with photograph of the Respondent, advertisements etc. in various
newspapers namely, Dainik Bhaskar, Nai Duniya, Dainik Datia Prakash, Acharan Gwalior and B.P.N
Times, published during the election process in Datia Constituency, amount to “paid news”/advertisments
in connection with the election of the Respondent?
ii.
Whether the expenditure on the alleged publications has been incurred/authorised either by the Respondent
or by his election agent or by any other person with direct or implied consent or knowledge of the
Respondent or his election agent within the meaning of Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951
46
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
iii.
Whether the expenses incurred/authorised in such publications are included in the account of election
expenses lodged by the Respondent?
iv.
Whether the Respondent has failed to lodge the true and correct account of election expenses as required
by and under the law?
v. Whether the Respondent has good reason or justification for such failure to lodge his account of election
expenses in the manner as required under the law?
vi.
Whether the Respondent is liable to be disqualified by the Election Commission of India under section
10A read with Section 77 and 78 of the R.P Act, 1951?
29.
On 26th May 2016, the respondent submitted a list of 18 witnesses to be examined in his defense. On due
consideration, the Commission found that the evidence of only 4 of those witnesses (including Respondent) is
relevant. The Complainant submitted that he alone would like to be examined in support of his case.
Accordingly, the evidence of the above witnesses was recorded in the presence of both the parties on 9th July
2015, 15th July, 2015, 27th July 2015, 16th Sep 2015, 26th Oct 2015, 30th Nov 2015, 23rd Dec 2015, 21st Jan 2016,
13th April 2016, 26th May 2016, 08th August 2016, 24th August 2016 and 06st September 2016, as they were cross
examined at length by the counsels of both the parties.
30.
An interim order dated 18th March, 2015 was passed by the Commission to decide the question raised by the
Respondent whether the proceeding based on complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 10A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 is fit to be stayed in view of Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as
the Election Petition No. 26/2009 was pending before the High Court. It was decided by the Commission in view
of Section 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 that the language of the provision suggests that it is referable to a
civil suit instituted in the civil court and it cannot be applied to the proceedings of other nature instituted under
any other statute. Neither an Election Petition is a Civil Suit nor can a proceeding under Section 10A of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 be called as civil proceeding. Also, placing reliance on the judgment in
the case of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan v. ECI &ors, wherein it was held that the Election Petition pending before
a High court and the proceeding before the Commission under Section 10A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951, are two separate and independent proceedings and both can proceed simultaneously without inviting
any embargo from any corner. In the context of the matter, the Commission opined that Section 10 of CPC, 1908
is not applicable in this case and the present proceedings under Section 10A of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 cannot be stayed. The Commission further took note of the plea of the petitioner for expeditious
disposal of the matter.
31.
In the meanwhile, the Complainant submitted a representation stating that he had submitted rate lists/ tariff cards
of DainikBhaskar, B.P.N Times DainikAcharan vide his application dated 13th April 2016. The Respondent
requested to produce the said document in the hearing on 24th August 2016. As the said documents were not
found in the record, an inquiry was conducted in the Commission by the Registry section and the Receipt and
Issue Section with respect to the alleged misplaced files in the Commission. After scrutiny of the records in the
Registry Section, it was found that the representation was not received in the Registry Section. It was found that
the Receipt and Issue Section admitted that the representation was received in the Receipt and Issue Section but it
was sent to the concerned section without being entered in the dairy of the said section. Considering the issue of
misplacement of the representation made by the Respondent dated 09th April 2009 and 13th April 2016, Receipt
and Issue section was directed that all the posts received in name of the RCC and Registry section would be
diarised without fail, and would be kept in a separate folder and would be delivered in the office of Director
(law)/Registrar after getting due acknowledgement.
32.
The Commission then heard the arguments of both the parties on 21st October 2016, 28th November 2016, 09th
January 2017 and 17th March 2017. Both the Parties also submitted the written synopses of their arguments in
addition to their oral submissions before the conclusion of the hearings on 17th March 2017 which were also
exchanged between the parties themselves. At such conclusion of the hearings on 17th March 2017, the learned
counsels for both the parties confirmed that they had no further submissions to make either orally or in writing in
this matter.
33.
The Complainant relied on the following averments in hiswritten as well as oral submissions:
(i) The Complainant had contended that the Committee on paid news, which observed the 42 alleged news items
in the category of the “paid news”, was composed of the members of the Press Council of India and experts from
the Election Commission. On the basis of the report of the said Committee, the Show Cause Notice was issued to
the Respondent.Also, the Show Cause Notice didnot mention anything about the Complainant and the
Commission is fully empowered to initiate such a proceeding.
(ii) The Complainant had contended that the Respondent in his reply had stated that proceedings under Section
10A of the RP Act 1951 attract only when there is a failure to lodge the account of election expenditure. The
Respondent has also stated that when an Election Petition is pending against him in the High Court, the
proceedings under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 are not maintainable. The Complainant,against the above
II
(iii)
47
issuesraised by the Respondent, had contended that they have already been decided by the Supreme Court on 05th
Mar 2014, in Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and Ors (AIR2014SC310) in Para no. 59
as follows:
59. As compared to the nature of proceedings of an Election Petition, when we examine the scope
and jurisdiction of the Election Commission under Section 10A, at the outset it must be stated that
the power and jurisdiction therein does not clothe the Election Commission to deal with the
successful election of the candidate concerned. In other words, exercising power Under Section
10A, the Election Commission cannot set aside the election of a successful candidate. Section 10A
talks of only an order of disqualification that can be passed by an Election Commission. Further,
such disqualification order can be passed for failure to lodge an account of election expenses and
such failure was within the time and in the manner required by or under the Act. Therefore, the
scope of an Election Petition to be tried by an Election Tribunal (High Court) and the scope of an
order of disqualification to be passed Under Section 10A are entirely different and it must be
stated that one does not conflict with the other.
(iii)The Complainant had contended that the Respondent had averred that since the complaint relates to the
election of 2008 and the Show Cause Notice was sent in 2013, thus the proceedings against him are not
maintainable under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951. The Complainant hadaverred against this contention that
there is no bar to continue with the proceedings under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 whereas the Respondent
himself had adopted the delaying tactics.
(iv) The Complainant had contended that the proceedings under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 are purely civil
in nature and be decided on the basis of preponderance of probability in view of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and Ors (Supra) as has been laid down in
Para 86 which is produced as follows:
86. In the first place, the enquiry to be held Under Section 10A is not to examine any allegation of
corrupt practice falling Under Section 123 of the Act. The only area of examination to be made in
an enquiry Under Section 10A is with regard to the lodging of the account of election expenses
and whether such lodgment was done in the manner and as required by or under the Act. In the
second place, when such an enquiry is held, the scope would be as contained in Section 77(1) and
(3) as well as Section 78. The said provisions require a contesting candidate to maintain a true
and correct account of the election expenses to ensure that such expenses are within the limits
prescribed under the Act and that a copy of such statement of accounts is filed within the time
prescribed Under Section 78. When it comes to the question of a corrupt practice Under Section
123, it is needless to state that the scope of examination of the said issue would be within the four
corners of an Election Petition, as has been prescribed in Chapter I of Part VI of the Act to
Chapter V of the Act. At the risk of repetition it will have to be reiterated that the enquiry Under
Section 10A would be more or less of a civil nature and therefore, the principles of preponderance
of probabilities alone would apply and it is relevant to note that even after the order of
disqualification, if any, is passed Under Section 10A, after following the requirement of issuance
of show cause notice, receipt of reply, etc., there is a further remedy available to the contesting
candidate Under Section 11 by which the aggrieved candidate can demonstrate before the Election
Commission as to how the order of disqualification cannot stand and that it has to be varied. Even
if by invoking Section 11 the aggrieved candidate is not able to get his grievance redressed, the
Constitutional remedy Under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution is always available to
question the correctness of any order that may be passed by the Election Commission under
Sections 10A and 11 of the Act.
(v) The Complainant had contended that the Respondent had raised a contention that since there was no adverse
report filed by the DEO, Datia in this case, the proceedings against him cannot be initiated under section 10A of
the RP Act 1951. The Complainant had averred against this contention that the DEO had only submitted in the
report that the account was lodged in the proper format and he had not conducted any inquiry with respect to the
alleged publications. Also, the said issue had already been decided by the Supreme Court in Ashok Shankarrao
Chavan vs. Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and Ors (Supra) in Para 70 which is produced as follows:
70. The conduct of election being in the realm of public domain, the operation of such election
would take place in each constituency, in an area spread over the whole of the constituency. It
will have to be stated that the Election Commission may not be in a position to have access to
any kind of illegality or irregularity indulged in by the candidates concerned, irrespective of
the various personnel such as Election officers, security personnel, etc. functioning
exclusively for the purpose of holding the election under the control of the Election
Commission. Therefore, such instances of illegalities committed by the candidates contesting
in the election in certain areas of the constituency may come to the notice of some individuals,
48
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
which may have a serious ramification relating to the conduct of the candidate by abusing the
process of the election with the aid of money power available with such candidate. Therefore,
if someone is able to assert such misuse of funds in the process of election by a candidate by
making an inspection Under Rule 88 and if the concerned individual finds out that such
misuse of funds had taken place, which was not disclosed in the statement of account of
election expenses, he will have every right to bring it to the notice of the Election Commission
and the very purport of providing such a right Under Rule 87 and 88 when read along with
Section 10A makes it clear that he would have every locus to prefer a complaint. Also in the
course of an enquiry made Under Section 10A, the Election Commission can call upon the
concerned individual to substantiate the complaint with relevant materials to enable the
Election Commission to pass appropriate orders of disqualification under the said Section.
Therefore, the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant that the Complainants
have no locus cannot be accepted.
(vi)
The Complainant had contended that the Respondent had raised a contention that some of the news
items placed on record were photocopies which could not be accepted. Also, a strong reliance had been placed
on the improper marking of the documents as exhibits on record. The Complainant against this contention had
cited case of All Party Hill Leaders Conference vs. W.A. Sangma (AIR1977SC2155) wherein it had been held
that the Election Commission is a tribunal within the meaning of Article 136(1) of the Constitution and
therefore, rules of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are not applicable in the proceedings before the Commission.
(vii) The Complainant had contended that the Respondent had not averred about the news items being forged or
fabricated but had only disputed that no cash or consideration had been made to publish the alleged news items.
Even the letters from the newspaper agencies had not disputed the alleged publications but had only declared
that no payment had been made from the Respondent or in his behalf in respect of the alleged publications.
Also, the witness, Ramesh Rajpoot, who appeared in favour of the Respondent, in the cross examination by the
counsel of the Complainant,had admitted that the publications were made in the newspapers.
(viii) The Complainant had contended that the letters submitted by the newspaper agencies could not be relied
upon as they are not supported by any affidavit. Also, the people who have issued the letters never appeared
before the Commission. The then Collector had also not appeared before the Commission to prove the letters.
The letters did not bear any seal of the agency and were not even issued on a proper letter head.
(ix) The Complainant had contended that the Collector Datia, who was a witness in favour of the Respondent
had not denied the allegations of manipulations of the evidence in the cross examination by the counsel for the
Complainant but had refused to answer the same.
(x) The Complainant had contended that the judgment by the Delhi High Court in the challenge to the order of
the Commission in case of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan is not applicable in the present case as it had not been
upheld by the Supreme Court. The Delhi High Court had quashed the Show Cause Notice issued to the
Respondent in the case on the ground that it had been issued without framing of an issue regarding the
knowledge and consent about the expenditure. But in the present matter, the said issue had been framed by the
Commission. Also, in the matter of UmleshYadav the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court had upheld
the order of the Election Commission which was further upheld by the Supreme Court. Thus, the law laid down
in the case of UmleshYadav shall have the binding force.
(xi) The Complainant had contended that the opportunity to show-cause was given to the Respondent in the
notice within 20 days’ time satisfying the opportunity which must be granted to him under Rule 89(6) of CER
1961. But instead of curing the default, the Respondent denied the contents of the notice.
(xii) The Complainant had contended that plea of permissible limit on the expenditure during elections cannot
be raised in the present matter as it can be only raised under Section 11 of the RP Act.
(xiii) The Complainant had contended that the Respondent had further averred in the matter of Ashok
ShankarraoChavan that the Delhi High Court had quashed the notice under Rule 89 (5) of CER. Even the
Respondent challenged the notice before the High Court of Madhya Pradeshand subsequently before the
Supreme Court but the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, there is no defect in the notice issued by the Election
Commission. Therefore, the said judgement of Ashok Shankarrao Chavan is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
(xiv) On the issue of some photocopies being marked as the exhibit in the cross-examination by the counsel of
the Complainant, the Complainant had contended that he has given an affidavit in support of the documents
attached with his complaint. He filed the photocopies along with the original copies of the newspapers. Also, he
stated that the exhibits are marked on the photocopies after confirmation from the original copies.
II
(iii)
49
(xv) On the issue of whether the news items must declare the name of the person who wishes to publish the
item, the Complainant had contended that the every news item mentions the name of the Respondent and the
issue of whether the news items are paid news or not, shall be decided by the Commission.
(xvi) On the issue of voluntary publications by the newspapers, the Complainant had contended that he
disagrees with the fact that the articles/appeals/advertisements were voluntarily published by the newspapers
after collecting information about every candidate from his constituency regarding his popularity.
(xvii) In view of the above contentions, the Complainant prayed that the Respondent deserves to be disqualified
under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 for three years.
34.
The Respondent relied on the following averments in hiswritten as well as oral submissions:
(i)
The Respondent had contended that the Show-Cause Notice issued to him makes the following things
clear:
a.
It has been issued four years after the declaration of the result of elections which was declared on 08th
December 2008.
b.
It was issued only on the basis of Paid News Committee and there is no independent assessment of
facts and application of the mind by the Commission before issuing of notice on 15th Jan 2013. It has
also been held in 2003 (1) MPLJ 180, that if the notice is issued mechanically, it is not acceptable in
law.
(ii)
The Respondent had contended that the Show-Cause Notice was issued only on the basis of Paid News
Committee observation which was not based upon any evidence and was simply ‘an observation’ of the
said Committee which is again unsustainable in law in the light of judgements of the Supreme Court
namely AIR 1952 SC 16 and (1997) 7 SCC 622.
(iii)
The Respondent in his contentions denies the publication of 42 disputed news items and had stated in
the reply to the Show-Cause Notice, that the election expenses submitted by him is in accordance with
law.
(iv)
The Respondent had contended that since the public mandate has been received by the Respondent
again in the election held in the year 2013-2014, the said public mandate cannot be nullified only
because no action was taken within a reasonable time under Section 10A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951.
(v)
The Respondent had contended that the following legal provisions are applicable in the case:
a. Section 123 of the Act defines the corrupt practices and sub-section (6) speaks the incurring or
authorizing of expenditure in contravention of Section 77. Also, Section 146 of the Act read with Rule
89 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961, provides for the power of inquiry, wherein, the Commission
has to follow the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the manner indicated in the section,
while conducting the inquiry. Thus, a full-fledged inquiry has to be done under Section 10A of the RP
Act 1951.
c.
Under Section 10A, the Election Commission can only disqualify a person for failure to lodge
account of election expenses, if it is satisfied that the person has failed to lodge an account of election
expenses within time and in the manner required by or under this the Representation of the People Act,
1951. Further he says that a candidate shall keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure
under Section 77 of the Act, which is incurred or authorised by him or his election agent in connection
with the election.
From a combined reading of all the aforesaid provisions and Rules 86 to 89 of the Conduct of Election
Rules, 1961, following things are clear:
a.
The candidate is obliged to keep the account of election expenses from the date of election
notification till the date of declaration of the result which he or his agent has incurred during the course
of election.
b. There is no provision under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 with respect to keeping of
any account of any expenses which is not incurred by the candidate or his agent or not authorised by
the candidate or his agent.
(vi)
The Respondent had contended that a bare reading of the entire complaint lodged by the
Complainantdid not contend that the Respondent or his agent or under authorization by third person,
had paid anything against the publication of disputed 42 news items. Even single evidence had not been
led by the Complainant despite of opportunity given by the Commission which would show that the
50
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
said news items were published under the authorization of the Respondent. Thus, the complaint filed by
him is baseless, frivolous and deserves to be quashed.
(vii)
The Respondent had contended that on behalf of the newspapers, Shri Ramesh Rajpoot
(DainikBhaskar) and Shri Suresh Sharma (DainikAcharan) had been examined who have clearly
denied expenses of any money against the publication of the said news items. The photocopies which
have been marked as the exhibits are also not acceptable as the evidence.
(viii)
The Respondent had contended that in the case of Ashok Shankar RaoChavan, vs. Madhav Rao
Kinhalkar and others (Supra), it had been held that the candidate against whom the show-cause notice
under Section 10A of the Act, 1951 is issued, had to be provided with full opportunity of hearing and
the Complainant had to prove beyond doubt that account of election expenses was not submitted by the
winning candidate. In the present case, Complainant failed to establish the allegation of complaint.
(ix)
The Respondent had contended that it was held in Ashok Shankar RaoChavan, vs. MadhavRao
Kinhalkar and others (Supra)since the tenure of Assembly was going to expire, the Election
Commission must hold the proceedings on day- to-day basis, which means that the Supreme Court was
conscious that after the tenure is over, no order under Section 10A of the Act, 1951 can be passed. In
the present matter, the tenure of election in dispute came to an end in the year 2013 and the Respondent
had been re-elected on the basis of his performance, honesty and public mandate. Thus in view of the
above judgment of the Supreme Court, the order cannot be passed against the Respondent under
Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
(x)
The Respondent had contended that as far as the principle of preponderance of probabilities is
concerned, the same cannot be attracted in the favour of the Complainant, but will act against him for
the simple reason that the probabilities available in the case suggest that the Complainant has neither
pleaded nor proved that the expenses were made by the Respondent or under his authorization.
(xi)
The Respondent had contended that after the Supreme Court decided the case of Ashok Shankar Rao
Chavan (supra), the Commission passed an order of disqualification in his respect, but later on the
High Court of Delhi had set aside the order of the Commission, exercising advisory jurisdiction on the
ground that the election expenses which is said to have not beenincluded, which if included in the
election expenditure of Ashok Shankar RaoChavan, and it is within the prescribed ceiling of expenses,
then in that case, no order under Section 10A of the Act, 1951 can be passed. The Respondent also
submits that by a combined reading of all the provisions related to Section 10A of the Act, 1951, it
makes it crystal clear that the election expenses should not exceed the maximum limit prescribed under
the law, which is the object of the law. In the present case, anyway, the expenses do not exceed
prescribed limit of the expenditure.
(xii)
The Respondent had contended that the DEO had categorically found in his inquiry in terms of report
called by the Commission that the election expenses were rightly submitted by the Respondent.
(xiii)
On the issue of blank columns in the account of election expenditure submitted by the Respondent, the
Respondent had contended that whatever expenses must have been submitted in the account, have
already been submitted.
(xiv)
On the issue of misusing position as a Minister in the State Government, the Respondent had contended
that he had never misused his position to fabricate any evidence in connivance with the officers of the
Commission.
(xv)
On the issue of whether the newspapers submitted false letters to the Commission in his coercion, the
Respondent had contended that he denies any such allegation and no undue influence was ever used on
any of the newspapers.
(xvi)
On the issue as to when did he gain information/knowledge about the alleged news
items/advertisments/impact features, etc., he has stated that since he had not made any payment for the
alleged news items, the question of knowledge regarding the same did not arise.
(xvii)
On the submission of the Respondent that the publicationof news was based on reports of the Press
Trust of India, the Respondent was asked whether any credit was attributed to the Press Trust of India,
he stated that he had no idea as to how Press Trust of India publishes the news but he had not paid any
money to the newspapers.
(xviii)
In addition to the Respondent, Mr. Madan Kumar Gupta, Collector Datia had also been cross examined
as a witness to the Respondent. He denied the inspection of the account of election expenses filed by
the Commission and stated that whatever records were present in the election office have been brought
by him before the Commission. He also stated that he had no comments on the questions with respect
to the functions of the DEO Datia, as the questions do not relate to his tenure.
II
(iii)
51
(xix)
In addition to the Respondent, Mr. Ramesh Rajpoot, Editor, Dainik Bhaskar, had been cross-examined
as a witness to the Respondent. He had stated that no paid news publication is possible at the agency
level or at the level of the reporters. He had stated that neither the Respondent nor any one had provided
any paid news advertisement to him. He also stated that the letter issued from the office of Dainik
Bhaskar declaring the denial of any payment received from the Respondent, is within his knowledge and
had been issued by a responsible officer of the agency. He also stated that it is possible that the news
items published in one newspaper can be published in others also. He admitted the rate card of Dainik
Bhaskar on record. Regarding the question on register of the bills of advertisements/appeals in his
agency, to be placed on record by him, he replied that there was no information regarding the
Respondent on the said register and that is why it was not necessary to produce the same on record.
(xx)
In addition to the Respondent, Mr. Suresh Sharma, Regional Editor of Dainik Acharan, had been cross-
examined as a witness to the Respondent. He had stated that his agency only publishes news/
advertisements and doesn’t publish paid news. He also stated that there is no special rate list which is
issued by his agency during elections. Tariff card is subject to change but is also not issued specially
with respect to elections. He also stated that the letter which has been submitted to the DEO has been
issued by him without any intention to save the Respondent.
35.
Before the main issues are considered, it is appropriate to sum up briefly the preliminary objections raised by
the Respondent.
(i)
There has been a contention by the Respondent in all his submissions regarding the delay in the
proceedings of the Commission. The Respondent also raises a question that since the tenure of his
office was once over after 2013, the Show-Cause Notice cannot be sent. After the Commission decided
to call the parties for hearing in the Commission, several applications were filed by the Respondent to
defer the hearings constantly. He also tried to delay the proceedings in view of an interim relief being
granted on the issue of jurisdiction of the Commission in a Writ Petition filed by Radha Mohan Soni
(W.P 3512/2011). In spite of his repeated applications, the Commission only took note of the
reasonable reasons to defer the hearings. The hearings which were commenced on 22nd October 2013
got concluded on 17th March 2017. With respect to the reasons stated hereinabove, the delay has been
caused in the matter.
(ii)
The Respondent had raised preliminary objections regarding the Commission’s jurisdiction to hold this
enquiry. The power of the Commission under Section 10A of the RP Act 1951 to enter into the
correctness or falsity of the account of expenses submitted under sections 77 and 78, is well established
from the case of L.R. Shivaramagowda vs. T.M. Chandrashekar (AIR 1999 SC 252) and reaffirmed by
the Supreme Court in Ashok Chavan’s case. The Supreme Court in Ashok Chavan’s case also held that
the purpose of holding the enquiry was not a mere formality, but a comprehensive enquiry to ascertain
that the account filed was a true, correct and genuine one.
(iii)
Furthermore, the Respondent has contended that if the impugned expenditure when added to the
reported expenditure, if falls within the permissible limit allowed by law, no action may lie under
Section 10A. However, it is well established and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Ashok Chavan’s
case that it is the truth or falsity of the account that is critical for the purposes of section 10A,
irrespective of whether the permissible limit is breached or not.
(iv)
Finally, as the Supreme Court noted in Ashok Chavan v.Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar and Ors (AIR 2014
SC 3102), the DEO’s Report to the Commission need not form the sole and exclusive basis for the
formation of the Commission’s satisfaction under Rule 89(5) of the CER 1961.
36.
The Commission will now consider the main issues that arise in light of the rival contentions and submissions
made by both parties in support of their respective cases. In doing so, we may advert to the issues framed by
the Commission in this matter on 8th September 2014:
Issue No. 1:
Whether the news articles, ‘appeals’ with photograph of the Respondent, advertisements etc.
in various newspapers namely, Dainik Bhaskar, Nai Duniya, Dainik Datia Prakash, Acharan Gwalior and B.P.N
Times, published during the election process in Datia Constituency, amount to “paid news”/advertisments in
connection with the election of the Respondent?
37.
The first issue relates to the question whether the alleged news items published during the campaigning period
in the elections of 2008 in Madhya Pradesh amount to “paid news”. The National Level Committee on paid
news conclusively held in its meeting that all the alleged 42 news items fall in the category of the paid news.
Since no scanning or reporting was done at the District or State Level with respect to the alleged paid news by
the Respondent, the Commission’s Committee on Paid News functioned at the highest level in its enquiry into
the matter. The Paid News Committee commenced its meetings after the Respondent filed the original copies
of the alleged newspaper publications with his complaint of 28th May 2012 and arrived at its conclusions on the
basis of the following factors: (i) timing of the publications, (ii) content specifically carried in the publications,
(iii) the repetition of content from one newspaper to another on successive dates of publication, (iv) headliners
52
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
of the news items which heavily promoted the Respondent in particular and (v) most importantly, publication
of the item without the mention of any reporter’s name. These observations made by the Committee support
the conclusion that the said news items were “paid news”.
38.
All 42 paid news items are extremely biased in favour of the Respondent. Many of these are printed ‘impact
features’ which are typically paid for on pre-negotiated terms according to the prevailing advertorial policy of
the concerned newspaper. The said items identify strongly with the illustrations contained in the Commission’s
Compendium on Paid News.
39.
The Respondent in his cross examination contended that news agencies such as Press Trust of Indiahave made
the publications of the alleged paid news items. It is further inferred from his contention that the news agencies
such as Press Trust of India, have correspondents all over the country, who cover electioneering news and report
the ground situation, the winnability of candidates etc. Such reports are often picked up by newspapers, without
editing, and often the same report appears, word for word. The Respondent thus tried to explain the appearance
of the alleged items in the concerned newspapers, in this manner. However, the Respondent’s argument is not
tenable in this particular case as none of these ‘replica’ items published in different newspapers carry a credit
line to the PTI or concerned agency, or reporter’s name which is essential for proving the stated fact. Also, only
when information is taken from news agency reports, and an item is drafted de novo, including the other facts,
can such a credit be denied. In addition to the above, on examining the original copies of the newspapers filed
on record by the Complainant, the following items have been concluded to be direct appeals for votes in the
election the contents whereof cannot be deniedto have been published by the Respondent himself or his agent or
any other person under his authorization:
a. "नर्िम्र आग्रह" published in Dainik Bhaskar, on 27th Nov, 2008, with a photograph of Dr. Narottam Mishra,
Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan and the party symbol of Bhartiya Janata Party. The alleged contents in the news
items are as follows:
"म डॉ. िरोत्तम नमश्र, आ् भभी ेो भाक्षी माि ेर भंेल्् लेता ूँ ेी आज आ्िे म्ूे भहयोग ददया
तो म आिे र्ाले बरभों में र्े भारे भंेल्् और आ्ेे भ्िे ््रे ेरूँगा जो आ्ेे भमक्ष ले रहा ूँ."
II
(iii)
53
b. "िरोत्तम ेी जीत भे होगा दनतया ेा नर्ेाभ" published in Dainik Nai Duniya, on 27th Nov, 2008, with a
photograph of Dr. Narottam Mishra. This news item is printed as “Nayi duniya response feature” on the day of
poll in the Constituency. The alleged contents in the news items are as follows:
"म आ्भे नर्िम्रता भे ेरब्ध निर्ेदि ेरता ूँ ेी क्षेत्र में चल रहे नर्ेाभ ेायों ेो तीव्र गनत देिे ेे
नल् हर हार्थ ेो ेाम नमले क्षेत्र ेे र्ातार्र में शांनत और भमृ्ध ी रहे, क्षेत्र में िये उद्योग और ांाे लगें
इभेे नल् आज होिे र्ाले मतदाि में आ् ेमल ेे िूल ्र बटि दबायें."
54
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
c. "मतदात बंा्ओं भे िम्र निर्ेदि" published in Dainik Datia Prakash, on 27th Nov, 2008, with a photograph of Dr.
Narottam Mishra and the party symbol of Bhartiya Janata Party. The news item was published on the day of poll
and ends with the words “Aapka Dr. Narottam Mishra, Bhajpa Pratyashi Vidhan sabha kshetra 22”. The alleged
contents in the news items are as follows:
"दनतया क्षेत्र ेे भम्मानित िागररेों, माता-बहिों ्र्ं उिेे ेंाे भे ेंाा नमलेर चलिे र्ाले य्र्ाितजर्ािों भे
डॉ .िरोत्तम नमश्रा िे ेमल ेे िूल ्र मतदाि ेरिे ेा आग्रह देया है."
"म आ्भे नर्िम्रता भे ेरब्ध निर्ेदि ेरता ूँ ेी क्षेत्र में चल रहे नर्ेाभ ेायों ेो तीव्र गनत देिे ेे नल् हर हार्थ
ेो ेाम नमले क्षेत्र ेे र्ातार्र में शांनत और भमृ्ध ी रहे, क्षेत्र में िये उद्योग और ांाे लगें इभेे नल् आज होिे र्ाले
मतदाि में आ् ेमल ेे िूल ्र बटि दबायें."
II
(iii)
55
40.
The Commission holds, in view of the above said evidence of direct appeals, that:
i.
The first news item was published along with a photograph of Dr. Narottam Mishra, Shri Shivraj Singh
Chauhan and the party symbol of Bhartiya Janata Party. Also the content of the news item mentioning
the words “Main Dr. Narottam Mishra....” clearly shows that the appeal was published by the
Respondent himself to influence people in the Constituency to vote in his favour. Similarly, the second
and third news items, which were published on the poll day itself along with photograph of Dr.
Narottam Mishra, wherein the contents mentioning the words “Main aapse vinamrata se karbaddh
nivedan karta hun....” manifest the same. The third news item also ends with the words “Aapka Dr.
Narottam Mishra, Bhajpa Pratyashi Vidhan sabha kshetra 22” and strongly suggests its publication by
the Respondent himself.
ii.
The phrases “Main Dr. Narottam Mishra....” and “Main aapse vinamrata se karbaddh nivedan karta
hun....” along with a photograph of Dr. Narottam Mishra and the party symbol of Bhartiya Janata Party
place a situational exposition where the Respondent cannot contend that the above news item was not
published by him or his election agent.
41.
The Commission thus accepts the report of the Committee on paid news that the 42 alleged news items did
constitute “paid news”/advertisments in connection with the election of the Respondent.
Issue No. 2:Whether the expenditure on the alleged publications has been incurred/authorised either by the
Respondent or by his election agent or by any other person with direct or implied consent or knowledge of the
Respondent or his election agent within the meaning of Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act,
1951.
42.
The second issue is whether the expenditure on the alleged publications was incurred or authorized either by the
Respondent or his election agent or by any other person with direct or implied consent or knowledge of the
Respondent or his election agent within the meaning of section 77 of the RP Act, 1951.
Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is reproduced here:
“77. Account of election expenses and maximum thereof.—
(1) Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a separate and correct
account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election
agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof,
both dates inclusive. Explanation 1.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that— (a) the
expenditure incurred by leaders of a political party on account of travel by air or by any other means of
transport for propagating programme of the political party shall not be deemed to be the expenditure in
connection with the election incurred or authorised by a candidate of that political party or his election
agent for the purposes of this sub-section. (b) any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements
made, facilities provided or any other act or thing done by any person in the service
(2) of the Government and belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (7) of section 123 in the
discharge or
(3) purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso to that clause shall not be deemed to be
expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorised by a candidate or by his election agent
for the purposes of this sub-section.
Explanation 2.—For the purposes of clause (a) of Explanation 1, the expression “leaders of a political party”,
in respect of any election, means,— (i) where such political party is a recognised political party, such persons
not exceeding forty in number, and (ii) where such political party is other than a recognised political party, such
persons not exceeding twenty in number, whose names have been communicated to the Election Commission
and the Chief Electoral Officers of the States by the political party to be leaders for the purposes of such
election, within a period of seven days from the date of the notification for such election published in the Gazette
of India or Official Gazette of the State, as the case may be, under this Act:
Provided that a political party may, in the case where any of the persons referred to in clause (i) or, as the case
may be, in clause (ii) dies or ceases to be a member of such political party, by further communication to the
Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officers of the States, substitute new name, during the period
ending immediately before forty-eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of the last poll for
such election, for the name of such person died or ceased to be a member, for the purposes of designating the
new leader in his place.
(2) The account shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed.
(3) The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.
56
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
43.
The Complainant has produced both original and photocopies of the newspaper pages of Danik Bhaskar, Nai
Dunia, Danik Datia Prakash, Acharan Gwalior and B.P.N Times in which the alleged advertisments have been
made. A perusal of these publications, which as the Paid News Committee has noted, have appeared almost
daily from 8th November to 27th November 2008 (during the campaign period); carried information exclusively
about the Respondent and appeared strongly biased towards him. One particular news item under the heading
“to isiliyesabsealaghain Narottam”, appeared on 15th November in Aachran, on 11th November in Nai Duniya,
and on 9th November in Dainik Bhaskar, with the same headline and a verbatim reproduction of the body of the
item. Futhermore, the headlines of many of the items appeared to strongly promote the Respondent, stating that
the Respondent was necessary for development of the constituency; calling the Respondent’s victory certain and
imminent, etc. There was no coverage of opposition candidates or their manifestoes, or campaigns, etc.
Importantly, as noted above, there were three news items published in the format of direct appeals by the
candidate, appearing in three different newspapers on the day of the poll:
(i)
An item published in Dainik Bhaskar, on 27th November 2008, with a photograph of Dr. Narottam
Mishra, Shri Shivraj Singh Chauhan and the party symbol of Bhartiya Janata Party;
(ii)
An item in Dainik Nai Duniya, on 27th November 2008, carrrying a photograph of Dr. Narottam
Mishra and printed as “Nayiduniya response feature” on the day of poll in the Constituency;
(iii)
An item published in Dainik Datia Prakash, on 27th Nov 2008, with a photograph of Dr. Narottam
Mishra and the party symbol of Bhartiya Janata Party. This item, again published on the day of the
27th November, 2008 ends with the words “Aapka Dr. Narottam Mishra, Bhajpa Pratyashi
Vidhansabha kshetra”.
44.
Furthermore the Respondent was cross-examined before the Commission by counsel for the Complainant on
26th May, 2016 and was specifically asked about when he gained knowledge/information about the alleged
news items/advertisments/impact features, etc. published during the period of nomination till the date of the poll
in the 2008 assembly elections. The Respondent replied that since he had not made any payment with respect to
the alleged news items, the question of knowledge regarding the same did not arise. During the entire cross
examination, the Respondent repeatedly denied having made payment for any news items, rather than
specifically denying knowledge regarding the same. The witnesses appearing on the behalf of the Respondent
had also denied having received any money against the publication of the said news items. These denials cannot
be accepted and relied upon because it is proved on record by the Complainant that the two rival candidates had
made payments for similar type of publications to the these news agencies. Thus, it is hard to believe that the
said news agencies had published similar news items on behalf of the Respondent without receiving any
consideration from him. Importantly, the facts and circumstances of the issue of the news items, their frequency
of publication during the campaign period, the fact that the advertisements in question appear in a number of
prominent newspapers in Datia with fairly widespread circulation, make it difficult for the Respondent to validly
claim ignorance about the appearance in these newspapers, of the impugned advertisements, including three
direct appeals apparently made by him in first person, with his photograph and party symbol, on the day of the
poll.
45.
The Supreme Court in Ashok Shankarrao Chavan Vs. Dr. Madhavrao Kinhalkar &Ors., while deciding on the
nature of the enquiry undertaken under Section 10A of the RP Act, where the Commission enquires into the
correctness of an account of election expenditure noted as follows:
“At the risk of repetition it will have to be reiterated that the enquiry under Section 10A would be more or less
of a civil nature and therefore, the principles of preponderance of probabilities alone would apply.”
In light of the facts presented above, as well as the fact that the Respondent was a third-time Member of
Legislative Assembly; a representative of Datia in the State Assembly, the Commission finds difficulty in
accepting the Respondent’s claims of ignorance regarding the said advertisements, especially the direct appeals
made in first person in the name of the Respondent, appearing in three different newspapers on the day of the
poll. which were germane and relevant to his own political campaign in the Assembly election. Accordingly, on
the balance of probabilities, the existence of knowledge on the part of the Respondent about the impugned news
items appears so highly probable as to establish that the Respondent did have knowledge of the said
publications. Furthermore, the Respondent failed to disavow the said news items appearing in his favour, as well
as the direct appeals appearing in his name, by sending notice to the newspapers concerned, to cease publication
of such items that could create the impression that they were published at his behest. Incurring of expenditure
“on account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or publication, or in any
other way whatsoever for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of [a] candidate” is a punishable
offence under Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, reproduced below for ready reference:
II
(iii)
57
“Section 171H. Illegal payments in connection with an election.—Whoever without the
general or special authority in writing of a candi-date incurs or authorises expenses on
account of the holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement, circular or
publi-cation, or in any other way whatsoever for the purpose of promot-ing or procuring the
election of such candidate, shall be pun-ished with fine which may extend to five hundred
rupees: Provided that if any person having incurred any such expenses not exceeding the
amount of ten rupees without authority obtains within ten days from the date on which such
expenses were in-curred the approval in writing of the candidate, he shall be deemed to have
incurred such expenses with the authority of the candidate.”
The Respondent’s failure to report such advertisements further strengthens the conclusion of his complicity in
the same. It also strengthens the conclusion that he knowingly participated or took advantage of the expenditure
on such advertisements.
46.
Candidates are required to maintain a day to day account of election expenditure in a prescribed format. The
format requires the candidate to declare, and contains columns for, the declaration of the value of goods or
services received in kind from any source and used for electioneering of the candidate. The Guidelines for
Maintenance of Day to Day Accounts of Election Expenditure clearly stipulate that goods or services received
in kind like “vehicles, posters, pamphlets, media advertisement, helicopters, aircrafts etc. from party or any
person/body/association” must be attributed in Part A of the Day to Day accounts, with date, description,
quantity and rate per unit, estimated on the basis of notional value. Thus, it can be seen from the above that, the
Respondent had received ‘assistance’ in the form of advertisements which supported his candidature, furthered
his electoral prospects and which he can be deemed to have had knowledge of.
47.
According to the Supreme Court in Kanwar Lal Gupta v. Amar Nath Chawla, any expenditure incurred by any
person other than the candidate or his authorized election agent, which the candidate knowingly takes advantage
of, must be considered as presumed to have been authorized by him. The scheme of section 77 in its current
form does recognise implied authorization in certain cases where expenditure can be identified with the election
of a candidate (an exception for the travel expenses of star campaigners is carved out) even if such expenditure
is not directly incurred or authorized by him.
In Common Cause v. Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled on this point that:
“The expenditure, (including that for which the candidate is seeking protection under Explanation 1 to Section
77 of the RP Act) in connection with the election of a candidate – to the knowledge of the candidate or his
election agent – shall be presumed to have been authorised by the candidate or his election agent.”
The Supreme Court reiterated this observation, in its 2014 decision in Ashok Chavan v. Election Commission
agreeing with the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Umlesh Yadav’s case, that the court could
draw a presumption of implied authorization by the candidate, in certain circumstances. This is particularly
applicable in the present circumstances; in view of the fact that the Respondent has failed to disavow any
connection with the publications in question, and failed to take action against the news agencies concerned for
making publications in respect of the Respondent without his authorization. In this connection, it may also be
noted that there is a lacuna/weakness in Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code, which prescribes punishment of
only Rs. five hundred for illegal/unauthorized payments in connection with an election. The Commission has
already recommended to the Government for making the provisions of Section 171H more stringent.
48.
Thus, in view of the examination of the facts and evidence on record and the analysis of the decisions rendered
by the Supreme Court, the Election Commission concludes that the Respondent had given his implied
authorization for the publication of the advertisements in question and had knowingly taken advantage of the
same. The Respondent cannot validly claim ignorance of the publication of the alleged items and has failed to
expressly disavow any involvement in the samedespite the fact that the publications of the above mentioned
“direct appeals” in his name, containing his photograph, published on the day of the poll, on 27th November,
2008, also constitute an offence under Section 171H of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.Moreover, in his account of
election expenses, the Respondent has left the column on “campaign through electronic/print media” blank.
Accordingly, the Commission has decided that the Respondent had knowledge of, and impliedly authorized
publication of the impugned advertisements within the meaning of section 77 of the Representation of People
Act, 1951.
Issue No. 3: Whether the expenses incurred/authorised in such publications are included in the account of
election expenses lodged by the Respondent?
49.
The third issue relates to whether the account of election expenses submitted by the Respondent included the
expenses incurred/authorised on the alleged publications. It is apparent from the certified copy of the account of
58
THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
[PART II—SEC. 3(iii)]
election expenditure received from DEO Datia, that the Respondent has not included the expenses
incurred/authorized on any publication in any newspaper. The heads of expenditure in the Respondent’s account
of expenses, do not reflect any expenditure made on media advertisements or print publications. The
Respondent has also repeatedly denied making any payments with regard to the alleged publications and has
failed to account for any imputed expenditure thereof.
50.
In addition, the Respondent has failed to report the abovementioned advertisements in the day to day account of
election expenditure required to be maintained by him. The prescribed format of the same, requires the
candidate to declare the value of goods or services received in kind from any source and used for his. The
Guidelines for Maintenance of Day to Day Accounts of Election Expenditure clearly stipulate that goods or
services received in kind like “vehicles, posters, pamphlets, media advertisement, helicopters, aircrafts etc. from
party or any person/body/association” must be attributed in Part A of the Day to Day accounts, with date,
description, quantity and rate per unit, estimated on the basis of notional value. Even if we accept the contention
of the Respondent that he has not paid for the alleged advertisements, the said advertisements have supported
his candidature and furthered his electoral prospects by offering outreach to thousands of voters during the
campaign period. He has therefore, clearly derived benefit from the same, and was thus obliged to have included
a notional estimate of such expenditure in his Day to Day accounts register, but has failed to do so.
51.
The Commission thus concludes that expenditure incurred/authorized on the impugned publications have not
been included in the accounts of election expenses lodged by the Respondent.
Issue No. 4:Whether the Respondent has failed to lodge the true and correct account of election expenses as
required by and under the law?
52.
The fourth issue relates to whether the Respondent has failed to lodge the true and correct account of election
expenditure as required by and under the law. The factual examination conducted above make it clear that the
Respondent has not lodged a true and correct account of expenditure as envisaged by the Act and Rules.
Furthermore, the decisions of the Supreme Court adverted to above, make it clear that correctness or falsity of
an account of election expenditure, regardless of whether it falls outside or within the permissible limit, is what
attracts the disqualification under section 10A. Since the advertisements in question, amount to expenditure that
the candidate ought to have reported in his expenses account since he knowingly took advantage of them, he is
presumed to have impliedly authorized the said expenditure and therefore, was required to report it. Having
failed to report the said expenditure, the Commission has decided that the Respondent has failed to lodge a
correct and true account of his election expenses as required by and under the law.
Issue No. 5:Whether the Respondent has good reason or justification for such failure to lodge his account of
election expenses in the manner as required under the law?
53.
The fifth issue relates to whether the Respondent has a good reason or justification for failure to lodge his
account of election expenses in the manner required under the law. The Respondent has constantly denied the
allegation against him for incurring or authorizing the expenditure on publication on the alleged news items.
While issuing the Show Cause Notice to him, the Commission gave an opportunity to explain the reason of the
failure to lodge the correct account of election expenditure. However, the Respondent has failed to explain any
such reason or justification for his failure, in his reply to the said notice or at any point during the proceedings.
In addition to his reply and written submissions, the Respondent did not admit the failure to lodge the correct
account and constantly denied the incurring/authorizing the payment on the alleged publications. Accordingly,
the Commission decides that the Respondent has no good reason or justification for his failure to lodge his
account of election expenses in the manner as required under the law.
Issue No. 6:Whether the Respondent is liable to be disqualified by the Election Commission of India under
section 10A read with Section 77 and 78 of the R.P Act, 1951?
54.
The Election Commission is concerned about the menace of paid news which has been assuming alarming
proportions in the electoral landscape. This phenomenon, a manifestation of the pernicious effect of money in
elections, has been growing increasingly vicious and spreading like cancer, in recent times. It is a grave electoral
malpractice which circumvents election expenditure limits, disturbs the level playing field and militates against
the voters’ right to accurate information to enable him to make informed choice. Supreme Court in Shiv Kripal
Singh vs. V.V. Giri (AIR 1970 SC 2097) has held that what amounts to interference with the exercise of an
electoral right is tyranny over the mind. The paid news is of such a character that it would either deter or tend to
deter voters from supporting that candidate whom they would have supported from free exercise of their
electoral right but for their being affected or attempted to be affected by the maker or publisher of the paid news.
The public, in general, land more credence to news in the newspapers than to the advertisements of the political
parties and candidates and the publication of such advertisements in the garb of news by way of paid news
II
(iii)
59
amounts to deceiving the electorate. The Commission has attempted to address this menace by constituting
mechanisms at the state and district levelsto investigate and report instances of paid news. However, the desired
objective does not seem to have been fully achieved as is evident from the facts of the present case. It is clear
from an examination of this matter, that the Respondent was complicit in the publication of the impugned paid
news as news items and has derived benefit from and taken advantage of the same, without reporting or
acknowledging it, and thereby attempting to bypass the rigours of the law.
55.
In view of the above, the Commission finds that irrespective of whether the alleged expenditure when added to
the Respondent’s reported account, breaches the permissible limit or not, the fact remains that the Respondent
has not only knowingly submitted a false account of expenses, but also attempted to circumvent the legally
prescribed limit on expenditure. Such attempts need to be curbed with strong measures and visited with
exemplary sanctions and restore the balance in the electoral playing field. Therefore, the Commission is of the
considered view and holds that the Respondent, Dr. Narottam Mishra, should be disqualifiedunder Section 10A
of the RP Act 1951. Accordingly, the Election Commission hereby declares that Shri Dr. Narottam Mishra,
stands disqualified, for three years from the date of this order, under Section 10A read with Sections 77 and 78
of the Representation of People Act, 1951 for failure to lodge his account of election expenses in the manner
required by the lawand for having no good reason or justification for such failure.
56.
Before parting with the case, it is pertinent to mention that yesterday (22nd June 2017)an application has been
received from the Respondent for further hearing of the matter on the ground that the complainant has placed
some new facts in written submissions which were not raised earlier in his entire pleadings. The Commission is,
however, of the view that this application is a dilatory tactic on the part of the Respondent. This application is
hit by principles of delay and laches. There are no new facts brought out by the Respondent in his present
application. Both the parties had ample opportunities to respond to the written synopses submitted which were
filed before the last date of hearing i.e. 17th March 2017 when the order of the Commission was reserved.
Further, the Commission had specifically asked the parties whether the arguments from both the parties could be
taken as finally concluded, on which the learned counsels for both the parties stated that they had nothing more
to submit either in writing or orally. Thus, to file an application after a lapse of three months is nothing but an
act to further delay this matter.
Hence, at this belated stage, this application cannot be entertained and is hereby rejected.
(Shri. O.P. Rawat)
(Dr. Nasim Zaidi)
(Shri. A. K. Joti)
Election Commissioner
Chief Election Commissioner
Election Commissioner
Place: New Delhi
Date: 23-06-2017
[No. 76/MRLA/2009]
Dr. NASIM ZAIDI, Chief Election Commissioner
Uploaded by Dte. of Printing at Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064
and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.
ALOK KUMAR
Digitally signed by ALOK KUMAR
Date: 2017.07.06 11:25:40 +05'30'