REGISTERED No. D. (D.)72
The Gazette of India
EXTRAORDINARY
PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)
PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY
No.276] NEW DELHI, MONDAY, JUNE 30, 1980/ASADHA 9, 1902
Separate paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate
compilation
(931)
349 GI/80
932 T HE GAZETTE OF INDIA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]933
ANNEXURE,
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
BEFORE THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF TNDIA
In re : Determination of the question of disqualification of Thakur Virendra Singh Ex-M.L.A. of Madhya Pradesh under Section 8 A(l) of the Representation of the People Act, J 951.
OPINION
In the present reference from the President of India under section 8 A(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') a two fold question arises for consideration of the Commission i.e. whe- ther Thakilr Virendra Singh, an cx-Memher of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly should be disqualified under section 8 A(l) of the said Act and if so, for what period.
The relevant facts of the case are briefly as under ;—
The election of Thakur Virendra Singh, who was elected to the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly at the general election hold in 1972 from 247-Khachrod assembly consti- tuency, was declared void by Ihe High Court of Madhya Pra- desht (Indore Bench on 26-4-74 as the High Court found him guilty of corrupt practice onder section 123(4) of the s^id Act. The High Court found that Thnkur Virendra Singh had got printed and published a pamphlet which contained a false statement in relation to the personal character and con- duct of Dr. Rajendra Jain—his main adversary at the election. The offending passage runs as follows :—-
" What to speak of other things, Rajendra Jain went on tour to those countries where beef is prepared and served in Hotels and there he took beef even. Do you want to cast your vote in favour of a person who is atheist who ,is a beef eater and is devoid of Dharma "
MINISTRY OF LAW, JUSTICE & COMPANY AFFAIRS
(Legislative Department)
NOTIFICATION
Neve Delhi, the 30th June, 1980
S.O. 475(E).—The following Order made by the President
Is published for general information :—
ORDER
Whereas the election of Thakur Virendra Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "returned candidate"), a returned candidate from 247-Khachrod constiruency in the State of Madhya Pradesh at the general election to the Legislative Assembly of Madhya Pradesh held in 1972 was set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Indore Bench) on 2fith April 1974, on the ground of commission by the returned candidate of the corrupt practice specified in clause (4) of section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (hereinafter refrred to as "the said Act");
And whereas the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Thakur Virendra Singh on 8th September, 1976 and up- held the decision of the High Court;
And whereas the President has sought the opinion of the Election Commission in pursuance of sub-section (3) of Sec- tion _8A of the said Act on the question whether the returned candidate should btf disqualified under sub-section (1) of that section of the said Act and, if so, for what period;
And whereas the Election Commission has given its opinion (vide Anncxure) that the returned candidate should be dis- qualified for a period of four years to be reckoned from 8th September, 1976 i.e. the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court from which date the order of the High Court under section 99 became effective;
Now, therefore, I, Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, President of India, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under sub- section (3) of section 8A of the said Act do hereby decide that the returned candidate should be disqualified for a period of four years from 8th September, 1976.
Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi, The 18th June, 1980.
NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY PRESIDENT OF INDIA The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by Thakur Virendra Singh on 8-9-76 and upheld the decision of the High Court. The interim order dated 13-9-74 of the Supreme Court staying the operation of the aforesaid decision and ordtr of the High Court was also vacated on 8-9-76, Accord- ingly, the decision and order of the High Court under section 99 of the said Act finding him guilty of th* aforesaid corrupt practice took effect from 8-9-76.
In terms of section 8 A(l) of Ihe said Act as amended by the Election Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, the Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha, in his letter dated 14-8-78, nubmittcd to the President the case of Thakur Virendra Singh for determination of the question of his disqualification. Hence the present reference from the President for the opinion of the Commission under section 3 A(3) of the said Act.
The Commission before formulating its opinion, decided to give opportunity to Thakur Virendra Sinah (hereinafter refer- red to a" the applicant') of being heard. The Commission also decided to tfive notice fo a]] National Politico! Parties asking them if they had anything to say in the matter, becausa certain certificates from some persons belonging to the politi- cal party (Janata Party) to which the applicant belonged were filed before the Commission on behalf of the applicant to show as a mitigating circumstance that the applicant was main- taining good public conduct after the decision of the .Supreme Court. Only the Indian National Congress (I) responded to that notice and authorised Dr, Rsnendra Jain, Advocate and the very candidate against whom the abovementioned offend- ing pamphlet was published, to represent it before the Comj mission at the hearing. The hearing fixed in the matter WM adjourned on several occasions at the request of one or the other party or for allowing the aDDlicant to file documents on which he relied. Tt was ultimately heard on the 1st March, 1980.
At the hearing held on the 1st March, 1980. Shri S. K. Gambhir, Counsel for the applicant, staled that he had no< much to submit on the question whether the anniiVnnt should be disqualified and conceded that the disqualification might be visited on the returned candidate for having committed the corrupt practice of which he had been found crm'lty bv the High Court and the Supreme Court, T, therefore, need not dilate more on this aspect of the question. I accordingly hold that the applicant should be disqualified.
934 THE GAZETTE OF 1NDTA : EXTRAORDINARY [PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]Now remains the question as to for what period the appli- cant should be. disqualified. The Counsel for the applicant "upmilted. that the applicant had already be,ett*"fiaeqiiate1y punished inasmuch as his election WHS declaredv-Vwidf He urged (hat having regard to the nature and gravitf'^of the corrupt practice in the present case, the Commission might exercise the discretionary power conferred on it by the amended Section 8A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, in favour of the applicant and may not fix the maximum period of 6 years disqualification. He submitt6d that the applicant had virtually remained dit>qualificd from 26-4-74, i.e. from the date of the High Court's judgment as only a limited stay was granted by Ihe Supreme Court. Even from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment on 8-9-76, nearly 3-1/2 years had elapsed during which period the applicant did not contest any election and thus suffered the disqualifi- cation.
It was therefore prayed that it would meet the ends of justice if the applicant was disqualified for the period already undergone by him from the date of the Supreme Court s judgment. The Counsel submitted that the latest trend of judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court was that the punishment meted out should have a reformative rather than punitive effect. In connection with the above submission. Tie invited a reference to the certificates from certain responjrtble persons produced on behalf of the applicant to the effect that he had been maintaining a good public conduct after the judgment of the Supreme Court.
Dr. Rajendra Jain, Advocate representing Indian National Congress (T), however, urged the Commission that maximum period of disqualification for 6 years should be inflicted upon the applicant. He submitted that no credibility might bo attached to the certificates filed on behalf of the applicant on the ground that all such certificates had been given by the persons belonging to the party to which the applicant be- longed. He pointed out that one of the persons from whom the above certificate was obtained was himself an accomplice In the publication of the offending pamphlet, as would be observed from the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court. He further submitted that even after the above- mentioned judgments, the applicant had indulged in several acts leading to institution of civil and criminal cases. He had, however, no material evidence to submit readily in support _of his above contention.
I have considered the above submissions of Shri Gambhlr, Counsel for the applicant and Dr. Raiendra Jain representing the Indian National Congress (I), ft hardly needs to be em- phasized that the candidates at elections should strive to main- tain purity of elections and any attempt at vilification or character assassination of lival candidates as in Ihe present case should be frowned upon and should not be counte- .nanced.
Nevertheless, I think there are certain mitigating circumstan- ces in th.e present case which would justify tha view that the maximum period of disqualification for 6 years is not warrant- ed here. The election of the applicant was called in question on several grounds of corrupt practices, but both the High Court and the Supreme Court had found the applicant guilty of only one corrupt practice of publishing the above-referred pamphlet. Tt is further significant to note that even here the applicant had been found guilty of corrupt practice of publishing a false statement ;n relation to the personal conduct of the rival candidate under section 123(4) of the Represen- tation of the People Act, 1951 and he had not been indicted for the corrupt practice of making appeal on the ground of religion under section 123C3A) of tha sHid Act on the basis of the said pamphlet. The above apart the applicant had submitted an affidavit before the Commission that be had been maintaining good public conduct after the decision of the Supreme Court and in support thereof had adduced certificates from some responsible persons like a former Union Minister, a veteran Parliamentarian and the liks. It would not be proper to discard wholly all such certificate solely on the ground that the persons giving such certificates belong- ed to the political party to which the applicant belonged. Having regard to he above I, think it would serve the interests of justice if the period of disqualification of the applicant is fixed for four years to be recokoned from the date of the decision of the Supreme Court.
I am thus of the opinion, and accordingly tender it to the President under .Section 8 A(3) of the ReDresentation, of the People Act, 1951, that Thakur Virendra Singh should be disqualified under section 8A of the said Act for a period of four years to be recokoned from 8-9-76, I.e. the date of the judgment of the Supreme Court from which date the order of the High Court under section 99 became effective.
New Delhi, the 15th March, 1980.
S. L. SHAKDHER, Chief Election Commissioner of Tndia
[No. F. 7(24)/80-Leg, II]
R. V. S. PERI SASTRI, Secy.