REGISTERED NO. D(D)-72 The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No. 62] NEW DELHI, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1978/MAGHA 18, 1899
Separate paging is given to this part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation
296 GI/77
(169)
170 T.TD p n E T Tc nc rvrr"iA - RYTRADRniMARV TPART ll—SEC. 3(Y\)]
MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE & COMPANY AKKAIRS
(Legislative Department)
OKDER
New Delhi, the 7th February, ly7fi
S.O. 78(E).—The following Order made by the President is published for general information :—
Whereas Shri K. Madhusudan Reddy, a returned candidate to the Legislative Assembly of the State of Andhra Pradesh at the general elections held in 1972, has incurred dis- qualification for a period of six years under section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (thereinafter loferred to as the said Act) as it stood immediately before the commencement of the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975 (40 of 1975)
And whereas the said period of disqualification has not expired;
And whcicas the said Shri K. Madhusudan Reddy has submitted u pelition to the President under sub-section (2) of section 8A of the said Act for the removal of the dis- qualification for the unexpired portion of the said period;
And whereas the President has sought the- opinion of the Election Commission on the said petition in pursuance of sub-section (3) of section 8A of the said Act;
And whereas the Election Commission has given its opi- nion (vide Anncxiirc) that the petition of the returned candi- date under section 8A(2) of the said Act be rejected;
Now, therefore, I, Neciam Sanjiva Reddy, President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub-
171
section (3) of section KA of the said Act do hereby reject the petition of the said Shri K. Madhusudan Reddy.
NF.HLAM SANJIVA REDDY, Piesidcnt oJ India
R&Alrapati Bhavan, New Delhi,
I •inuary 31, 1978.
ANNFXURE
BHFORETHE ELHCTION COMMISSION OF INDIA In re :—Reference from the Piesidcnt under Section 8A(3) read with Section 8A(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 regarding the case of Shri K. Madhusudan Reddy, cx-member of Andhra P u- desh Legislative Assembly.
OPINION
This is a reference to the Flection Commission fiom the President of India undei Section SA(3) read with Section 8A(2) of the Rcpi esentation of the People Act, 1951 (herein- after referred to as the Act). The election of Shri K., Madhusudan Reddy (hereinafter relerrcd to as the icuinied candidate) to the Legislative Assembly of Andhui lJi
2, The biief facts of the case are as follows :
(i) The returned candidate stood as an independent candidate from the Chcnnur Assembly Constitu- ency at the CLnenu' election to the Andhra Pra- desh Legislative Assembly held in 1972. He de- feated his rival candidate Smt. N. Vimla Devi, a Congress candidate, by a maigin of 1714 votes and was declared elected. His election was challenged by Smt. N. Vimla Devi btforc the Andhra Pradesh High Court by election petition No. 7 of 1972 in which it was alleged that the returned candidate, his agents and other persons with the consent of the returned candidate or his election agent, had committed various acts which constitute oomipl practices as defined in sections 123(1), (2), (3), (3A), (4), (5). (6) and (7) of the Act. The High Couit framed 20 issues for the trial of the petition; but answered all those issues in favour of the leturned candidate. Accordingly, the High Couit dismissed the petition by its judgment and order dated 22-12-1972.
(ii) On appeal, the Supreme Court re-appraised the evi- dence afresh on one of the issues pressed before it relating to publici'iion and distribution of a de- famatory pirnphlet within the mear.ins of section 123(4) of the Act against Smt. N. Vimla Devi by or at the instance of the returned candidate. The Supreme Court observed that the Hi^h Court had adopted an erroneous appioach in the appreciation of the dial i\idi.nce Hid also hud dissbclicved the evidence led by Sml. N. Vimla Devi as being par- tisan but i1 id not apply a like standard in assessing the evidence of the witnesses of the returned can- didate. On reappraisal of the evidence on the abovesaid issue, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the impugned defametory pamphlet was printed and distributed at (he instance of the returned candidate. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the returned candidate guilty of the
[PART 1I-SEC. 3(ii)]_ 172 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY
commission of corrupt practice under section 123(4) of the Act and declaicd his election void on 20-12-1974, Consequently, the returned candidate also incurred disqualification under section ISA, as it then stood, for a period of 6 years, i.e., upto 19-12-1980.
3. The icturned candidate has submitted ihe present pe- tition on 24 October, 1977, to the President for lcmaval of disqualification for the unexpircd portion of the period ot his disqualification. On 9 December, 1977, the returned candidate along with his Counsel appeared before me for a personal hearing. The Counsel urged that the disqualification of ihe returned candidate may be removed in the light of the following submissions :—
(i) that the liability for publication and distribution of pamphlets has been affixed on the returned candi- date vicariously;
(ii) that the returned candidate has been an active social worker and servant of the public with spot- less public career marked with failhfullness to the organisation and leadership;
(iii) that he had been the President of the Panchayut Samithi for 10 years; but had to resign that office on his election as membei of the Andhra Pradesh Legislative Assembly to retain his seat in the Assembly. The result of the Supreme Court's deci- sion has been very harsh inasmuch as he has lost his seat in the Assembly also and now he is with- out any public office;
(iv) that if his disqualification is not removed now and he is not made eligible to contest the next general election to the State Assembly which is due to be held early next year, ho will virtually remain dis- qualified for much longer period than 6 years as no election might be held thereafter for a number of years.
4, I have carefully considered tho above submissions made on behalf of the returned candidate. As the Com- mission has already stated many times before, the Commis- sion is bound by the findings of tho Courts in such matters and cannot go into the merits of the case as made out by the parties before the Court. What the Commission has to look into in such cases is whether there are any mitigating circumstances which warrant the exercise of the discretionary power of the President to remove the disqualification before it has run its full period of 6 years. I do not find any such mitigating circumstance or special reason for exercise of )hc above discretionary power by the President in the present case, Nor has the returned candidate been able to show me any such mitigating circumstance in his above sub- missions. The returned candidate, according to his own case, has been active in public life for a long time and he ought to know that for the maintenance of healthy poli- tical atmosphere it is absolutely necessary that no one in- dulges in character assassination of his opponents. And for this purpose, whether the defamatory material is published or distributed by a person himself or at his instance does not make any material difference. As regards the submis- sion of the returned candidate about his faithfulness to the organisation and leadership, it will suffice to say that he admitted before me at the personal hearing that ho was a member of the Congress party before the election but left that party to fight the election against tho official candidate put up by that paily. Further the plea of the returned candidate that he has been without any public office is hardly a ground for removal of the disqualification as the holding of a public office is not the prerequisite for sincere public service. Likewise, the plea that the elections might not take place for a number of years after the next general election due early in 1978 is also not a sufficient reason for removing the disqualification about 3 years in advance which will in ordinary course run upto the end of the year 1980. In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the dis- qualification of the returned candidate should not be re- moved prematurely and should be allowed to subsist for the full period of 6 years. Recently, in another case (of Shri Jasdcv Singh Sandhu, an ex-MLA from Punjab) which was like case of publication of pamphlet which offended the provisions of sections 123(3) and (3A) of the Act, the peti- tion for the removal of the disqualification has been reject- ed by the President on the opinion tendered by the Com- mission.
5. In passing, I may mention that some voters of the constituency represented by one Shri Venkatanarasu, Presi- dent, Farmers Service Society (Regd.), Kodakandla, Warran- gal District (A.P.) represented to the Commission that the present petition of the returned candidate Shri K. Madhu- sudan Reddy should not be accepted, I do not propose to refer to the grounds urged in their representation in view of my opinion as expressed above on the main petition of Shri Madhusudan Reddy.
6. I, accordingly, hereby tender my opinion under section 8A(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, that the disqualification incurred by Shri K. Madhusudan Reddy should not be removed by the President under section 8A(2) of the said Act.
S. L. SHAKDHPR, Chief Hlection Commissioner of India
New Delhi : 15th December, 1977.
[No. F. 7(3)/78-Lcg.IT] K. K. SUNDARAM, Secy.