# [1955] 2 S.C.R. 450

- **Citation:** [1955] 2 S.C.R. 450
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1953-12-23
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 139 of 1955
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1955-2-s-c-r-450-1500
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

1955
Stpttmbr 6
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
SHRI S.
S.
ELECTION
SUCHETA KRIPALANI
ti.
DULAT, I.C.S., CHAIRMAN OF THE
TRIBUNAL, DELHI AND OTHERS.
[VIVIAN
BosE,
BHAGWATI,
JAGANNADHADAS,
B. P.
SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.]
Election Dispute-Election petition by unsuccessful rival-A/legations of r12ajo1· co"upt practices and falsity in the return of election
expenses against the returned candidate-Return of election expenses
found defective and returned candidate disqualified by the Election
Commission-Removal of such disqualification on lodging of fresh return-furisdiction
of Election
Tribuna/_:_If competent to inquire
into identical allegations of falsity against the second return-Repre·
sentation of the People Act (XL/II of 1951), s. 143-The Representa·
tion of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules,
1951, rule 114(4), (5) and (6).
The provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the
Rules framed thereunder assign distinct and different jurisdictions
to the
Election Commission and an Election Tribunal so far as a
Re.turn of election expenses is concerned.
Where there are allegations of major corrupt practices and a
Tribunal constituted is in lawful seisin Of the dispute, s. 143 of the
Act gives it the sole jurisdiction and makes it incumbent on it to inquire into the falsity of any particulars mentioned in
the return
where such falsity is alleged and brought into issue and is reasonably connected with the major corrupt practices.
What the Election Commission has to do under Rule 114( 4) is
to satisfy itself that the return is in the prescribed form.
It is no
part of its function to inquire into the correctness of any particulars
mentioned therein.
That question can only arise when some one
raises a dispute and brings the matter into issue.
Consequently, in a case where, as in the present, the Election
Commission removed the disqualification it had imposed on the returned candidate for lodging a defective return of election expenses
on the lodging of a fresh return; Held, that the decision of the Election Commission removing the disqualification attaching to the first
return in no way precluded the
Tribunal from inquiring into the
falsity of the particulars in the second return although they were
identical with those challenged in the first return;
that the removal of the disqualification only
meant that the
accepted return was the only valid return, being the first to be correct in form, and the Tribunal had only that return before it.
-----------
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
451

## Text

1955
Stpttmbr 6
450
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
SHRI S.
S.
ELECTION
SUCHETA KRIPALANI
ti.
DULAT, I.C.S., CHAIRMAN OF THE
TRIBUNAL, DELHI AND OTHERS.
[VIVIAN
BosE,
BHAGWATI,
JAGANNADHADAS,
B. P.
SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.]
Election Dispute-Election petition by unsuccessful rival-A/legations of r12ajo1· co"upt practices and falsity in the return of election
expenses against the returned candidate-Return of election expenses
found defective and returned candidate disqualified by the Election
Commission-Removal of such disqualification on lodging of fresh return-furisdiction
of Election
Tribuna/_:_If competent to inquire
into identical allegations of falsity against the second return-Repre·
sentation of the People Act (XL/II of 1951), s. 143-The Representa·
tion of the People (Conduct of Elections and Election Petitions) Rules,
1951, rule 114(4), (5) and (6).
The provisions of the Representation of the People Act and the
Rules framed thereunder assign distinct and different jurisdictions
to the
Election Commission and an Election Tribunal so far as a
Re.turn of election expenses is concerned.
Where there are allegations of major corrupt practices and a
Tribunal constituted is in lawful seisin Of the dispute, s. 143 of the
Act gives it the sole jurisdiction and makes it incumbent on it to inquire into the falsity of any particulars mentioned in
the return
where such falsity is alleged and brought into issue and is reasonably connected with the major corrupt practices.
What the Election Commission has to do under Rule 114( 4) is
to satisfy itself that the return is in the prescribed form.
It is no
part of its function to inquire into the correctness of any particulars
mentioned therein.
That question can only arise when some one
raises a dispute and brings the matter into issue.
Consequently, in a case where, as in the present, the Election
Commission removed the disqualification it had imposed on the returned candidate for lodging a defective return of election expenses
on the lodging of a fresh return; Held, that the decision of the Election Commission removing the disqualification attaching to the first
return in no way precluded the
Tribunal from inquiring into the
falsity of the particulars in the second return although they were
identical with those challenged in the first return;
that the removal of the disqualification only
meant that the
accepted return was the only valid return, being the first to be correct in form, and the Tribunal had only that return before it.
-----------
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
451
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
139 of 1955.
-
. suC11efa- Kri'p~lani
Appeal under Articles 132and 133 of the Constitution of India against the Judgment and Order dated
the 23rd December 1953 of the High Court of Judicature for the State of Prinjab,in Civil \Vrit Application No. 24 of 1953.L_____ ·;- 0 •
"·.
.
·
•
•
'
'
. ~: 1-tl -. . .
.
.
-
; .
N. 0. Chatterjee·, (R. S. N!irula, with him) for the
appellant.
. . .
· . . . ·
·.
a:s. Pathak and Veda Vyds',-(Ganpat :R~i, ~ith
them), for respondent No. 5
·
"" . -~- ·- ..
· i955.
Septe~ber, 6.'
The ·Judgment _of the
Court was delivered by • ,. · · ·,
BosE J.-· The proceedings that have given rise fo
this appeal arise out of an·eJection petition liefore the
Election Tribunal; Delhi.
'
. ·
. · .. ' ·
The appellant Shrimati Sucheta·Kripalani together
with the contesting respondent Shrimati Manmohirii
Sahgal and others were candidates for· election to the
House of the People from the Parliamentary ,Con-
. stituency of New Delhi.
The polling took place on -
14th January, 1952, and when the' votes.were counted
on 18th January, 1952; it was foun·d that the appellant had secured the largest number of votes an_d that
the contesting respondent 1\Ianmohlni came next; The
appellant '.was accordingly notified as the returned
candidate on 24th January, 1952. · ·
.·
·
. On 6th ~larch, 1952, ·the appellant filed her return
of election expenses. This was found to· be defective,
and on .17th April, 1952, tlie Election· Commission
published a notification in the Gazette of India dis-·
qualifying the appellant under Rule·ll4(5) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Electio_ns and
Election Petitioris) Rules, 1951, ori the ground that
she had · · .
.
· · '•-" • · : · · _
.
: "failed to lodge the rel urn' of election expenses
in the manner required" and that she· had· thereby
"incurred the disqualifications under clause (c)
of section 7 and section 143 of the Representation of
the People Act, 1951':, _
·
--
·v.
Sh~i S.S.- Duiat~
I.C.S., Chairman
Of the Eiection
Tribunal~ Delhi
·and others
1955
Sru;hlta Jrripalairi
••
Sht'i S. S. Dulal,
J.C.S., Chairman
of the El<di°"
T ribunol, Ddhi
and oth"s
Bose].
452
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
In view of this the appellant submitted a fresh
return with an explanation under Rule 114(6) on 30th
April, 1952.
This was accepted . by the Commission
and on 7th May, 1952, it
published
a
notification
in the Gazette of India under Rule 114(7) stating that
the disqualification had been removed.
In the meanwhile, on 7th April, 1952, the contesting respondent Manmohini filed
an election petition
praying
that the appellant's election be declared void
and that she (the petitioner) be declared to have been
duly elected.
It will be noticed
that this was before
17th April, 1952, the date on which the Election Commission
disqualified the
appellant.
The validity
of
the election was attacked on many grounds.
A number of major corrupt practices were alleged and the
return which
the
appellant
had filed on 6th March,
1952, of
her election expenses' was challenged
as a
minor corrupt practice on two grounds :
(1) that the return was false in material particulars
and (2) that it was not in accordance with the rules
and so
was no return at all in
the eye of the law.
Particulars of the instances
in which
the return was
challenged as false were then set out.
The appellant filed her written statement in reply
on 7th October, 1952.
It will be noticed that this was
after she had put in her second return and after the
Election Commission had removed the disqualification
due to the first return.
Her reply was as follows :
(I) That as the disqualification
with respect to
the return of her election expenses had been removed
by the Election Commission under section 144 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951, this question
could not be reopened;
(2) That a minor corrupt practice which cannot
vitiate
an
election
and which
is
not capable of
materially affecting an election is wholly outside the
scope of a proper election petition and so no cognisance of. it can be taken by the Election Tribunal;
(3) That only such matters can be put in issue as
arc necessary to decide
whether the election of
the
returned candidate fo liable to be set aside within
the
meaning of section 100(2) of the Act.
2 S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
453
The contesting respondent Manmohini filed a replication on 15th October, 1952. In it she said:-
(1) that the Election
Commission did hot
and
could not decide whether
the return was or was not
false in material particulars and
so the question was
still open.
(This had
reference to the first
return
dated 6th March, 1952.) ;
(2) that in any event
"even the revised return is false in material particulars and the objections with
regard to the original
return also apply exactly with regard to the revised
return".
The broad propositions of law raised by points (2)
and (3) in the appellant's written statement were also.
denied.
Then followed an item by item reply to the
allegations made by the appellant in the list which she
had appended to her written statement.
That
lisc
was a reply to
the particulars
of false return and
corrupt practices furnished by the
contesting
respondeilt Manmohini. It is evident then that
Manmohini
attacked
the
second
return
on exactly
the same
grounds
as
the first and furnished
the same particulars.
Now we have spoken of these
returns as the first
and the second.
But
counsel on both sides agreed before us that the first return was in fact no return at
all in the eye
of the law and that therefore the contesting respondent's real attack was on the second return which
must be regarded as the only return wi1ich
the law will recognise as a valid return. It was agreed
that there cannot be two returns of expenses: either the
one originally filed is amended or it is treated as a nullity so far as it purports to be a return.
In view of this
agreement,
it is not necessary for us to express any
opinion on the matter and we will concentrate our
attention on what, for convenience, we will continue
to call the second return.
The first point that now arises is whether the decision of the Election Commission to remove the
disqualification
attaching to the first
return
precludes
an enquiry into the falsity of the second return simply
because the respondent Manmohini alleged
that
the
1955·
Sue hi ta K ripalart
v.
Shri S. S. Dulat,
I.C.S., Chairmart
of lire Ek&tion
Tribunal, Delhi
and others
Bose].
1955
llwhtla Kripal<uii
v.
Slwi S. S. Dulal,
1.c.s., Ch.airman
of '"' Ellai.,.
1" ri/Junal Delhi
and others
454
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
particulars
of the falsity
are
exactly the same as
before.
Our answer to that is No. If the first return
is no return in the eye of the law, then the only return we are concerned with is the second and that
must be treated in the same way as
it
would
have
been if it had been the only return made.
If there
had been no other return and this
return had been
challenged on the grounds now raised, it is clear that
the truth of
the allegations made would have to be
enquired into.
That enquiry cannot be
shut out
simply because
the
allegations
against
the
second
return .. happen
to be exactly the same
in the matter
of its falsity as in the case of the first return.
We
are therefore
of opinion that the jurisdiction
of the
Tribunal to enquire into these matters was not ousted
on that account. Opr reasons for this are these.
Section 76 of the Act requires every
candidate to
file a return of election expenses in a particular form
containing certain
prescribed particulars.
The form
and particulars are set
out in the Rules.
Section 143
prescribes
the penalty
for
failure
to observe those
requirements.
It is disqualification.
This ensues if
there is a "default"
in making the return.
It also
ensues:-
"if such a return is found ........ upon
the
trial
of an election
petition under
Part VI ........ to be
false in any material particular".
That places the matter beyond doubt.
The trial of
an election petition is conducted by an Election Tribunal and this section makes it incumbent on the Tribunal to enquire into the falsity of a return when that
is a matter raised and placed in issue and the allegations are reasonably connected
with other allegations
about a major corrupt practice.
The jurisdiction
is
that of the Tribunal
and not of the Election Commission. The duty
of
the Election
Commission is
merely to decide
under Rule 114(4) wh~ther any candidate has, among other things,
"failed to lodge the return of election expenses ....
m the manner required by the Act and these rules''.
It is a question of form and not of substance. lf
2 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
455
the return is in proper form no question of falsity can
arise unless somebody raises the issue. If it is raised,
the allegations
will
be made in some other document
by some other person and the charges so preferred
will be enquired into by the Tribunal.
If the return is not in proper form, disqualification
ensues but the Election Commission
is invested with
the power to remove the disqualification under Rule
114(6).
If it does, the position becomes the same as
it would
have been had the Election
Commission
decided that the form was proper in the first instance.
That would still leave
the question of falsity for
determination by the
Tribunal
in cases
where the
issue is properly raised.
Mr. Chatterjee contended on behalf of the appellant that we
were
not concerned with the second
return in this appeal
and strongly protested against
Mr. Pathak being
allowed
to argue this
point. But
that has been
the main bone
of
contention almost
from the start.
When the election petition was filed,
there was only one return to attack.
The second had
not been put in. Later, when it was put in, the contesting respondent, Manmohini,
attacked both
and the
appellant herself said that questions about the
falsity
of
the return could not be gone into because of the
Election Commission's order removing the
disqualification.
That argument applies as much to the second
as to the first return and raises
an issue
about the
respective jurisdictions
of the
Election Commission
and the Election Tribunal on this point.
The Tribunal decided against
the appellant
on this point and
held, as we do, that
the Election
Commission was
not concerned with the issue of fact about the falsity
of the return.
The
appellant
then filed
a petition
under article 226 to
the High Court
and questioned
the Tribunal's jurisdiction to enquire
into the issue
of
falsity.
The
High Court upheld the Tribunal's
decision and the appellant pursued the matter here
both in her grounds of appeal and in her statement
of the case.
She cannot at this stage ask us to leave
1955
Suto Kripalani
,,.
Sltri S. S. Du/al,
1.c.s., C/iainun
oftlwEUdittti
T mllllal, Dllhi
4lld olhm
Bm].
1955
Sueheta Kripalani
Yo
Slwi S. S. Dulat,
l.C.S., Chairman
°"' tht Election
T ribMnal, Dtlhi
and others
Bose J.
456
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955)
the matter open so that she can come here again and
re-agitate
this
question.
We
accordingly
overrule
Mr. Chatterjee's objection.
The next question argued was whether an Election
Tribunal can enquire into a minor
corrupt practice
if it is of such a
nature that, standing by itself,
it could not have been made the basis of an election
. petition because
it could not materially
affect
the
result of the election.
We need not go into that because the question
is
purely
academic in this case.
The allegation about the minor corrupt practice does
not stand by itself.
There
are also allegations about
major
corrupt practices which require
investigation
and the
minor corrupt
practices
alleged
are reasonably
connected
with them. Section 143 of the Act is
a complete answer
to the question of the Tribunal's
jurisdiction on this point when it is properly seised of
the trial of an election petition on other grounds. Whether it could be properly seised of such a trial if this
had been the only allegation, or if the minor corrupt
practice alleged was not reasonably connected with the
other allegations about major corrupt
practices, doe>
not therefore arise.
As the trial is
proceeding on
the other matters
the' Tribunal is bound under section
143,
now that the issue has been raised, also to enquire
into the question of the falsity of the return. Without such an enquiry it cannot reach the finding which
section 143
contemplates.
We need not look into the
other sections
which
were touched upon in the arguments and in the Courts below
because section 143 is
clear and confers the requisite jurisdiction
when
a
trial is properly in progress.
The appellant has failed on every question of substance that she raised.
There was some vagueness
in
the Election Tribunal's order about which of the two
returns formed
the basis of the enquiry on this point
but even
if
the Tribunal intended
to treat the
first
return as the basis
that did not really affect the substance because
exactly
the same allegations are
made
about the second return and the issue of fact would
therefore have to be tried in any event. The appel-
2S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
457
lant's whole enc!-eavour was to circumvent such an
enquiry and oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
In that
she has failed,
so she will pay the contesting rcspondent' s costs throughout.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs all
through.
TIRATH SINGH
ti.
BACHITT AR SINGH AND OTHERS
[S. R. DAs, ACTING C. J. and VENKATARAMA
AYYAR J.]
Election Dispute-Election petition-Contents alleged to be vague
and wanting in
particulars-Mainu1inability-Naming of
persons
for disqualification-Recommendation for exemption from disqualification-Notice-Jurisdiction of the Tribunal-The Representation of
the People Act (XLIII of 1951), ss. 83, 99(1)(a) proviso.
Where the respondent in an election petition contended that
the allegations in the election petition were vague and wanting in
particulars, but did not call for any particulars which it was open to
him to do and was not found to have been misled or in any way
prejudiced in his defence, it \Vas not open to him to contend that
the petition was liable to be dismissed for non-compliance with the
provisions of s. 83 of the Act.
Clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to s. 99 of the Representation
of the People Act read together leave no scope for doubt that clause
(a) contemplates notice only to such persons as were not parties to the
election petition and it is, therefore, not obligatory on the Tribunal
under cl. (a) to issue notices on such persons as were parties in order
that it may name them for disqualification under sub-clause (ii) of s.
99(l)(a) of the Act. Clause (b) to the proviso
obviously has the
effect of excluding such persons as have already had the opportunity
of cross-examining ·witnesses, calling evidence and of being heard,
which the clause seeks to afford.
The Indian and the English Law on the matter arc substantially
the same.
Ke.rho Ram v. Hazura Singh, [1953] 8 Election Law Reports
320, overruled.
The jurisdiction that sub-clause (ii) of s. 99(1)(a) of the Act
confers on the Tribunal for making recommendation for exemption
11-83 S. C, India/59.
1955
Sw:lrda Kripalani
v.
Shri S. S. Dulat,
I.C.S., Chairman
4 the Ekction
T ribunaJ, Delhi
and others
Bose].
1955
<;tpkmb1r 15