# 439 BACHAN SINGH v. PRITHVI SINGH & ORS

- **Citation:** [1975] 3 S.C.R. 439
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-02-05
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 186 of 1973
- **Bench:** A. ALAGffiISWAMI, R. s. SARKARIA
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/439-bachan-singh-v-prithvi-singh-ors-6412
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Repres~ntatlon of tlie Pf!op/e 1ct !951-S.123(2) and (7)-Publicativn of
po.iters with pictures of Prime Minister and Chiefs of Staff-Whether amounts
ta undue influence.
The appellant in his ·petition challenging the electioa of
the. responJcnt
~leged (1) <hat the respondent had ?een guilty of committing a corrupt prachce ~oder s.123\7) of the Representat10n of the People Act, 1951 in that he had
obtmned the ~1~1~tance of a member of the. armed forces in his election and ( 2)
that he had d1stnbuted posters with the pictures of th~ Prime Minister and other
important ministers together with the three chiefs and four Generals of the
Armed. Forces
be~rii:g the capti_on 'Pillars of Victory' and thereby exercised
undue influence within the meaning of s.123(2) of the Act. The High Court
dismissed the petition.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : ( 1) Since the deletion of the words 'or a polling agent or a counting
agent' from Explanation (2) of s.123(7) by the Amending Act 47 of 19Ci6, a
member of the armed forces, merely by acting as a polling agent, is not deemed
to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election within the
contemplation of s.123(7) of the Act.
Secondly, the Lanc_e Naik had cate- ·
· gorically asserted that he did the canvassing on his own and not in the company
or the respondent. [ 441 G]
. I
(2) (a) The publication of the poster was an act of imP,ropriety but not
one of corrupt practice falling within the mischief of s.123.
Members of the
armed forces spoken of in this clause mean persons in flesh and blood and not
their inanimate photographs. (443 BJ
(b) In one sense even election propaganda carried on vigorously, blaringly
and systematically through charisma! leaders or through various media in favour
of a candidate by recounting the glories and achievements of that candidate or
his political party in administrative or political field,
do~s meddle with aml
mould the indepen_dent volition of electors, having poor reason and little educa·
tion in the exercise of their franchise. That such a wide construction would.
not be in consonance with the interidment of th.e legislature is discrenible from
the proviso to this clause.
The proviso illustrates that ordinarily interference
with the free exercise of electoral right involves violence or threat of injury of
any kind to any candidate or an elector or inducement or attempt to mduce a
candidate or elector to believe that he will become an object of divine displeasure
or spiritual censure. The orefix 'undue' indicates that there must be some abuse
or inlluence.
'Undue influence' is used in contra-distinction to 'proper inllu•
ence'.
Construed in the light of the proviso cl. 2 of s.123 does not bar or penalise legitimate canvassing or appeals to Teason .qnd judgment of the voters or
other lawful means of persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a candidate.
Such proper and peaceful persuasion is the motive force of our democratic
prOC%ss (442 E-G]

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
-439
BACHAN SINGH
v.
PRITHVI SINGH & ORS.
February 5, 1975
[A. ALAGffiISWAMI AND R. s. SARKARIA JJ.]
Repres~ntatlon of tlie Pf!op/e 1ct !951-S.123(2) and (7)-Publicativn of
po.iters with pictures of Prime Minister and Chiefs of Staff-Whether amounts
ta undue influence.
The appellant in his ·petition challenging the electioa of
the. responJcnt
~leged (1) <hat the respondent had ?een guilty of committing a corrupt prachce ~oder s.123\7) of the Representat10n of the People Act, 1951 in that he had
obtmned the ~1~1~tance of a member of the. armed forces in his election and ( 2)
that he had d1stnbuted posters with the pictures of th~ Prime Minister and other
important ministers together with the three chiefs and four Generals of the
Armed. Forces
be~rii:g the capti_on 'Pillars of Victory' and thereby exercised
undue influence within the meaning of s.123(2) of the Act. The High Court
dismissed the petition.
Dismissing the appeal to this Court.
HELD : ( 1) Since the deletion of the words 'or a polling agent or a counting
agent' from Explanation (2) of s.123(7) by the Amending Act 47 of 19Ci6, a
member of the armed forces, merely by acting as a polling agent, is not deemed
to assist in the furtherance of the prospects of a candidate's election within the
contemplation of s.123(7) of the Act.
Secondly, the Lanc_e Naik had cate- ·
· gorically asserted that he did the canvassing on his own and not in the company
or the respondent. [ 441 G]
. I
(2) (a) The publication of the poster was an act of imP,ropriety but not
one of corrupt practice falling within the mischief of s.123.
Members of the
armed forces spoken of in this clause mean persons in flesh and blood and not
their inanimate photographs. (443 BJ
(b) In one sense even election propaganda carried on vigorously, blaringly
and systematically through charisma! leaders or through various media in favour
of a candidate by recounting the glories and achievements of that candidate or
his political party in administrative or political field,
do~s meddle with aml
mould the indepen_dent volition of electors, having poor reason and little educa·
tion in the exercise of their franchise. That such a wide construction would.
not be in consonance with the interidment of th.e legislature is discrenible from
the proviso to this clause.
The proviso illustrates that ordinarily interference
with the free exercise of electoral right involves violence or threat of injury of
any kind to any candidate or an elector or inducement or attempt to mduce a
candidate or elector to believe that he will become an object of divine displeasure
or spiritual censure. The orefix 'undue' indicates that there must be some abuse
or inlluence.
'Undue influence' is used in contra-distinction to 'proper inllu•
ence'.
Construed in the light of the proviso cl. 2 of s.123 does not bar or penalise legitimate canvassing or appeals to Teason .qnd judgment of the voters or
other lawful means of persuading voters to vote or not to vote for a candidate.
Such proper and peaceful persuasion is the motive force of our democratic
prOC%ss (442 E-G]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 186 of 1973
'
From the Judgment & Orrler dated the 27th November, 1972 of
the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Election Petition No. 15
of
1972.
Kapil-Sibal, N. D. Bhargava and S. K. Gambhir, for tl.e appellants.
s. N. Marwah, Lalita Kohli, K. C. Dua and Naunit Lal, for the
Respondent No. 1
14 0
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
\
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
[1975) 3 S.C.R.
SARIWUA, J.
Prithvi Singh Azad (hereinafter referred to as the
returned candidate), Bachan Singh, Naurang Singh and Lachchman
Singh contested the ck:ction to Pu~1jab Vidhan Sabha from the Kh•anna
(Reserved) A%cmbly constituency.
Azad wa.s the nominee of the
Congress Puty and Bachan Singh of the Akali Dal.
· The poll was held on March 11, 1972. On March 12, 1972°,
Azad was declared elected. He secured 25,984 votes, whereas :Bachan
Singh appellant No. l polled 24,865 votes.
The other two forfeited
their securities.
O..i April 26, 1972, Bachan Singh; the unsuccessful candidate and
·one elector, Harcharan Singh, jointly filed an election petition under
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 challenging the eJ.ection
·of the returned candidate on,scrveral grounds.
In the event of Azad's
·clectim being set aside, Bachan Singh claimed a further declaration
under s.101 of the Act of his own election.
The petition was dismissed by the High Court.
Hence this appeal
by the petitioners.
Before us, only two grounds have been pressed into argument by
'Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Counsel for the appellants.
Firstly, it is eont•ended that the returned candid•.:ite had obtained
· I e a.>sistm1cc of one Lance Naik Gurdcv Singh, a member of the
rmed Forces of tht: Union, in his election and was thus guiity of
. ''mmitting the corrupt practice defined in s.123 (7).
In this connection, the petitioner tried to establish two facts .: (a)
that Lance Naik Gurdev Singh was appointed as his polling agent by
the returned candidate and the former acted as such at the polling
;,tation, Rabon Majra; (b) that the Lance Naik oactually canvassed
for votes in the company of the returned candidate.
In regard to
the first fact, the petitioners relied upon the statement of L/N Gurdev
Singh, who was examined as C.W.I., and the certified copy Ex.P.W.
30/4, of the Polling Agents' Form.
Regarding the seoo,1d fact, they
CX'amincd P.W.6 Subedar Bachan Singh, P.W.7 Dant Singh P.W.8
Bhagat Singh P.W.9 Rulda Singh, P.W.10 Sadhu Singh, P.W.11 Bachan
Singh P.W. 12 Arjan Singh, P.W. 13 }iaracharan Singh.
They also
>ought support from the statement of C.W. 1.
·
On both tl1ese poi:1ts, the learned Judge of the High Court found
against the petitioners. In his opinion,· the person who had 'been
appointed as his polling agent by the returned candidate was anothei
Gurdev Singh (RW2) and not L/N Gurdev Singh (C.W. 1).
He
further held that the oral evidence adduced by the petitia,1ers to-<mbstantiate the allegation of canvassing by the Lance Naik in associllltion
with the returned candidate, was of a partisan character, and in the
absence of coriroboration from any independent source, could not be
accepted.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
11
B
c
E
F
BACHAN SINGH v. PR!THVI SINGH (Sarkaria, J.)
441
Mr. Sibal contends that the High Court grievously erred in holding:
that it was R.W.2 and not C.W.1 who had been appointed as his
polling agent by the Respondent.
According to the Coll'ilsel, there
are clinching circumstances in this case which show that it was Lance
Naik Gurdev Singh who had been appointed and iicted as the polling
agent of the Respondent; that the certified copy, Ex.P.W. 30/1 obtained by the petitiaaer was a true copy of the original Form. R.W.2, it
is submitted, is an imposter and the Polling Agents' Form P.W. 30/4,
was \l false and fabricated document.
Once it is held, proceeds the
argument, that LfN Gurdev Singh (C.W.1) had acted as the Polling
Agent of the Respondent, that would lend assurance to- and probabiJise the account given by P.Ws. 9 to 14.
The contci,1tion cannot be accepted.
Firstly, we do not think that the finding of the High Court that
R.W.2-and not C.W.1-was the Polling Agent of the Respondent,
can be rnid to be palpably wrong necessitating a reappraisal of the
evidence by this Court.
Scrondly, even on the assumpti<Yn that L/N
Gurdev Singh C.W.1, was the person who had been appointed as the
po!Iing agent, the evidence on the record was not sufficiently clinchinl!
to bring home the charge to the Respondent.
L/N Gurdev Si'.1gh (C.W.1) himseli had knocked the bottom out
of the petitioner's case.
The Lance Naik while admitting that he had
canvassed for votes for the returned candidate, categorically asserted
that he did such canvassing on his own and not in the company of
'
the rcsoondent.
The Lance Naik was examined as a court witness.
The appellants had a right to cross-examine hin1.
But they did not
a>ail of this· right.
They did not put any question to the witness to
challenge his account. L/N Gurdcv Singh's statement therefore, that
he had never canvassed with or at the instance of the returned candidate, would be deemed to have been accepted by them. C.W. 1 was
the keystone of the arch which the petitioners tried to build to sustain
this charge.
Failure of C.W.1, therefore, to support the partisan·
P .Ws. on all the material facts constituting the charge, must Iead to·
the collapse of whole arch.
Moreover, since the deletion of the words "or a polling agent or
a counting agent" from Explanation(Z) of s. 123(7) by the Amending
Act 47 of 1966, a member of the Armed Forces merely by acting as
a polling agent. is not deemed to assist in the furtherance of the pros-·
pccts. of a candid>ate's clectioa. within the contemplation of s.123 (7) ,
We would therefore reject the first contention and affirm the finding·
of the court below on this Jssue.
·
The next charge which has been agitated before us relates to the
poster, &h.PW15/1 which. was published bv the Pradesh COU2fess
Committee. It bore the photographs of the Prime
Minister Smt. ·
H
l11dira Gandhi, Shri Jagjiwan Ram, Defence Minister and Shri Swaran
Singh, Foreign Minister in the first row. · Beneath the first row were
the photograp:1s. of three Chiefs a!ud · four Generals of ilie Armed
Forces. It bore the caption '.'Pillars of Victory": It is aUeged that
442
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1975] 3 S.C.R .
. below these photographs was printed the Congress symbol of Cow
A
and Calf.
On a complaint being made, the Election Commission of
India moved in the matter and directions were issueq to the Punjab
Pradesh Congress Committee to withdraw the poster, which, in consequence, was withdrawn.
b his written statement, the returned candidate pleaded that he
was unaware of any such poster. In cross-examination, however, be
B
(as R.W.6) admitted that the letter Ex.R.W.6/1 bad been issued by
S. P. Mittal to all the Presidents of the Di.strict Congress Committm
in Punjab directing them to withdraw this poster.
R.W.6 admitted
that this poster bore the photographs of Service Chiefs alon~~ with
those of the Prime Minister and two other Ministers-nil of whom
were described as Pillars of Victory. He, however, disclaim1::d th'at
he had anything to do with the distribution of this poster.
C
Mr. Sibal contc,1ds that the publication of this poster not only
amounted to the exercise of "undue influence" within the contemplation
of s.123 ( 2) but also constituted an attempt to obtain or procurn assistance from the members of the Armed Forces of the Union for fur-
.thcrance of the prospects of the retumed candidate's election within
the purview of :;J 23 (7).
D
The contc'.1tion is ingenious but unsusruinablc.
Doubtless the definition of 'undue influence' in sub-s. (2) of s. 123
is couched in very wide terms, and on first flush seems to cover every
conceivable act which directly or indirectly interferes or attempts to
interfere with the fn:e exercise of electoral right. In one sens1~ even
election propaga:ada carried on vigorously, blaringly and system21tically
through charisma! leaders of through various media in favour of
'.!
candidate by recounting the glories and achievements of that candidate or bis political party in adminisrrative or political field., does
meddle with and mould the independent volition of electors, !raving
poe:r reason and little education, i·.i the exercise of their franchise.
That such a wide construction would not be in consonance with the
intendment of the legislature is discernible from the proviso to this
.clause.
The proviso jllustrates that ordinarily interference wit:h the
free exercise of electoral right involves either violence or threat or
r.:ijury of any kind to any candidate or un elector or inducement or
attempt to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he will become
an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure. The prefix 'undue'
indicates that there must be some abuse of influence.
·undu.: influence' is used in contra-distinction to 'proper influences'. Construed in
the light of the proviso, clause (2') of s. 123 does not bar or penalise
legitimate canvassing or appeals to reason and judgment of th:.: voters
or o$er lawful means of persuading voters to vote or not to vote for
a candidate. I~eed such proper and peaceful persuasion is the motivt:
force of our democratic process.
,
~
We are unable to 1apprecia~ how the. publicatio'.1 of this poster
mtcrfered or was cakulatcd to 10terlere with the free exercise of the
.electoral right of any person. There was nothing in it which amounted
E
F
G
H
A
B
BACHAN SINGH v. PRllllVI SINGH (Sarkaria, J.)
to a threat of injury or undue inducement of the kind inhibited by
s.123(2).
Nor could the publication of this poster fall within the ambit of
s.123(7). The 'members' of the Armed Forces spoken of in this
Clause mean persons in flesh and blood and not their inanimate photographs.
In short, the publication of the poster was an act of impropriety
hut not one of corrupt practice falling within the mischief of s.123.
No other point has been argued before us.
The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
P.B.R.
Appeal dismis~cd.