# KANTI PRASAD JAYSHANKER YAGNIK v. PURSHOTTAMDAS RANCHHODDAS PATEL AND OTHERS - **Citation:** [1969] 3 S.C.R. 400 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1969-01-24 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 979 of 1968 - **Bench:** S. M. S!Kri, R. S. Bachawat, K. S. Hegde - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kanti-prasad-jayshanker-yagnik-v-purshottamdas-ranchhoddas-patel-and-others-4877 - **Pages:** 17 ## Headnote B Represtltllltion of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 123 (2) and (3 )-Appeal to voters to vote in the name of religion-If corrupt practice -Appetil to vote on the basis of candidate's caste-If corrupt practiceStatement that voting for a part.v would amount to the continuance of cow slaughter and consequent incurring of divine displeasure-If corrupt practice. Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 160-Reports made from notes t<•ken down at meetin!lf-lf udmissible-Method of proof-Weight to be attach- ~d to reports. The poll for election to the Gujarat State Assembly from Mehsana State Assembly constituency was taken on February 21, 1967. 011 February 18, 1967 one S.M. addressed public meetings at various villages which were part of the constituency. The appellant, who was the successful candidate was present at those meetings and did not dissociate himself from any of the remarks in the speeches. Police constables, under instructions of the Government, took down notes of the speeches and reported to their superior officers. These police constables did not take down every word spoken by S.M. but whatever was taken down was spoken by S.M.; and in the reports, though the exact words were not reproduced the substance of the speeches was corre~tly reproduced. These reports showed that S.M. made the following statements in his speeches :- (i) He appealed to the Hindu voters as such not to vote for the Congress Party lest they might be betraying their religious leader (Jagadguru Sankaracharya of Puri), particularly when be had fasted for 73 days in the cause of preventing cow slaughter; (ii) He put forward an appeal to the electors not to vote for the Congress· Party but to vote for the Swatantra Party in the name of religion; (iii) He said that a relationship of cause and effect existed between the slaughter of 33,000 bullocks every day and natural calamities like famine and flood; (iv) Re asked his voters to vote for the appellant because he was a Brahmin; and (v) He said that if the voters voted for the Congress who are responsible for 24 crore of cows being slaughtered then God will be displeased. On the questions : (I) Whether the reports made by the police constables V.'ere admissible in evidence; (2) Whether any weight should be attached to them; and (3) Whether they showed that the appellant was gui!ty of corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 HELD (Per Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.) : (!) The reports were properly used under s. 160 of the Evid,nce Act, 1872, and were admissible in evidence. [406 C-D) c D E F G H A B c D JAYSHANKER V, RANCHHODDAS 401 Before a witness testifies to facts stated in a document, unde'r s. 160 of the Evidence Act, two conditions must be satisfied namely : (a) thut the witness had no specific recollection of the facts themselves; and (b) the witness says that he is sure that the facJs were correctly recorded in the document. For satisfying the conditions it is however not necessary that the witness should specifically state that he has no specific recollection of the facts and that he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in tht.: document. It is enough if it appears from the evidence of the witness that those conditions are established. [ 405 C-E) In the present case, it could be implied from the circumstances that the conditions of s. 160 were satisfied. The witnesses were giving their testimony in Court after a lapse of 9 months after the speeches wen:: made and it is implicit that they could have no specific recollection cf the speeches, especially when they attended and reported many .similar meetings as part of their duty during the election campaign. The second condition is also satisfied because. the witnesses made notes on the spot and made out reports fron1 those notes when the speeches were fresh .in their memory. The reports are, strictly not substantive evidence as such and could only be used as part of the oral evidence on oath. ## Text _Characters 0–39,911 of 42,991. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39911 for what follows._ KANTI PRASAD JAYSHANKER YAGNIK A v. PURSHOTTAMDAS RANCHHODDAS PATEL AND OTHERS January 24, 1969 [S. M. S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] B Represtltllltion of the People Act (43 of 1951), s. 123 (2) and (3 )-Appeal to voters to vote in the name of religion-If corrupt practice -Appetil to vote on the basis of candidate's caste-If corrupt practiceStatement that voting for a part.v would amount to the continuance of cow slaughter and consequent incurring of divine displeasure-If corrupt practice. Evidence Act (I of 1872), s. 160-Reports made from notes t<•ken down at meetin!lf-lf udmissible-Method of proof-Weight to be attach- ~d to reports. The poll for election to the Gujarat State Assembly from Mehsana State Assembly constituency was taken on February 21, 1967. 011 February 18, 1967 one S.M. addressed public meetings at various villages which were part of the constituency. The appellant, who was the successful candidate was present at those meetings and did not dissociate himself from any of the remarks in the speeches. Police constables, under instructions of the Government, took down notes of the speeches and reported to their superior officers. These police constables did not take down every word spoken by S.M. but whatever was taken down was spoken by S.M.; and in the reports, though the exact words were not reproduced the substance of the speeches was corre~tly reproduced. These reports showed that S.M. made the following statements in his speeches :- (i) He appealed to the Hindu voters as such not to vote for the Congress Party lest they might be betraying their religious leader (Jagadguru Sankaracharya of Puri), particularly when be had fasted for 73 days in the cause of preventing cow slaughter; (ii) He put forward an appeal to the electors not to vote for the Congress· Party but to vote for the Swatantra Party in the name of religion; (iii) He said that a relationship of cause and effect existed between the slaughter of 33,000 bullocks every day and natural calamities like famine and flood; (iv) Re asked his voters to vote for the appellant because he was a Brahmin; and (v) He said that if the voters voted for the Congress who are responsible for 24 crore of cows being slaughtered then God will be displeased. On the questions : (I) Whether the reports made by the police constables V.'ere admissible in evidence; (2) Whether any weight should be attached to them; and (3) Whether they showed that the appellant was gui!ty of corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 HELD (Per Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.) : (!) The reports were properly used under s. 160 of the Evid,nce Act, 1872, and were admissible in evidence. [406 C-D) c D E F G H A B c D JAYSHANKER V, RANCHHODDAS 401 Before a witness testifies to facts stated in a document, unde'r s. 160 of the Evidence Act, two conditions must be satisfied namely : (a) thut the witness had no specific recollection of the facts themselves; and (b) the witness says that he is sure that the facJs were correctly recorded in the document. For satisfying the conditions it is however not necessary that the witness should specifically state that he has no specific recollection of the facts and that he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in tht.: document. It is enough if it appears from the evidence of the witness that those conditions are established. [ 405 C-E) In the present case, it could be implied from the circumstances that the conditions of s. 160 were satisfied. The witnesses were giving their testimony in Court after a lapse of 9 months after the speeches wen:: made and it is implicit that they could have no specific recollection cf the speeches, especially when they attended and reported many .similar meetings as part of their duty during the election campaign. The second condition is also satisfied because. the witnesses made notes on the spot and made out reports fron1 those notes when the speeches were fresh .in their memory. The reports are, strictly not substantive evidence as such and could only be used as part of the oral evidence on oath. The 'reports should therefore have been read out in Court and not marked as exhibits. But the practice of marking such a report as an exhibit is wellcstablished and avoids the useless formal cercmgny of reading it out a" part of the oral evidence. [405 E-G; 406 D-EJ Wigmore on Evidence (Third Edn. Vol. III pp. 97-98), Mylapore Krishnaswami v. Emperor, 3:! Mad. 384, 395 and Mohan Sin~h Laxmansingh v. BhG'nwarla/ Rajmal Nahata, A.I.R. 1964, M.P. 137, 146, referred to. E Public Prosecutor v. Venkatarama Naidu, I.L.R. [1944), Mad, 113, F H approved. Jagannath v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1932 Lah. 7 and Sodhi Pindi Das v. Emperor, A.LR. 1938 Lah. 629, disapproved. (2) Though the reports were not taken down in short-hand nor were the exact words spoken by S.M. taken down by the various police constables. the reports show a remarkable similarity of approach, appeal and attack on the Congress Party; and in those circumstances it must be held the police constables correctly reproduced the substance of the speeches. It 1s not necessary that the exact words must be reproduced before a speech can be held to amount to corrupt practice. [ 414 A--C] (3) (i) This statement does not amount to corn1pt practice. hc<·ause !~ere was no proof .that ~he Jag~dguru WJS the religious head of the maior1ty of the elector~ in this constituency or that he exercised great influence. on th~m. and so, 1t could not be held that an ordinary Hindu voter of the constituency would feel that he would be committing a sin if he disregarded the alleged directive of the Jagadguru. [410 A-CJ Ram Dial v. Sant Lnl, [1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 748, distinguished. (Per Hegde, J. dissenting) : The statement amounted to corrupt practice. \V!Jat s. 123(2) requi~es is to induce or attempt to induce 'an elector' -wh.'~h means ~ve~ a smgle ~lector-that he will be rendered an object ?f sptntu~l censure 1f he exer~1Ses or refuses to exercise his electoral right in a particular manner. While undoubtedly the inducement or attempt 402 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. to induce complained of should be such as to amount to a direct or ~ndirect int~rf~rence with the free exercise of the electoral right it is not m the pubhc mterest to cut down the scope of the sub-section. Whether a partiCular statement comes within it or not depends on various factors such as the nature of the statement, the person who makes it and the persons to whom it is addressed. Therefore, when a respected religious preacher induces or attempts to induce the illiterate and superstitious voters who form the bulk of the voters that they will become objects of divine displeasure if they do not exercise their franchise in a particular manner, though his statements are not supported by religious books and he himself "'ay n~t be a religious head of the majority of electors, the statements y yet amount to a corrupt practice in. law. [415 C-G] (Per Sikri and Bachawat, JJ.) : (ii) There is no bar to a candidate or his supporters appealing to the electors not to vote for the Congress in the ~ name of religion, or appealing to vote for the Swatantra Party because the people in that party are fond of their religion. What s. 123(2) of the Representation of the People Act bars is-that a candidate or his agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his agent should appeal to the voters to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, that is the religion of the candidate. [410 C-D; 411F] (iii) This statement does not amount to corrupt practice within s. 123(2) proviso (a)(ii), because, die law does not place any bar on describing a party as irreligious or saying that because that politicjil party is irreligious natural calamities had resulted on account if its disregard of religion. J4n E-F] (iv) Asking the voters to vote for ·the appellant because he was a Brahmin, fell within the mischief of s. 123(3). [411 F-G] (Per Hegde, J. dissenting) : When he stated that there should be at le<1st one Brahmin Minister in the Cabinet, S.M. was merely giving expres· sion to the fact that communal and regional representations in our pohtical institutions have c;ome to stay and was not appealing to the voters to vote on the basis of the appellant's caste. [415H] (By Full Court) : (v) As this statemen.t constitutes an attempt to induce the electors to believe that they would become objects of divine displeasure if they voted for the Congress and thereby allowed cow slaughter to be continued, and as in the circumstance·s of the case, it must be deemed to have been made with the appellant's consent, the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(2) proviso (a)(ii). [413C; 415B-C] Narbada Pra.vad v. Chhagan Lal, [1969] 1 S.C.R., 499 followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 979 of 1968. Appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act 1951 from the judgment and order dated December 5, 1967 of the Gujarat High Court in Election Petition No. 3 of 1967. . S. T. Desai, A. K. Verma, A. L. Barot, and/. B. Dadachanji, A B c D [ F G for the appellant. H Purshottamdas Trikamdas and I. N. Shroff, for respondent No. 1. A JAYSHANKER v. RANCHHODDAS (Sikri, J.) 40J The Judgment of StKR! and BACHA WAT, J J. was delivered by SIKRI, J. HEGDE, J. delivered a sejarate Opinion. Sikri, .J. This appeal under s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is directed against the judgment and order · of the High Court of Gujarat iio Election Petition No. 3 of 1967, B setting aside the election of Kanti Prasad Jayshankar Yagnik, appellant before us, to the Gujarat State Assembly from Mehsana State Assembly Constitu~cy under s. 123(2), s. 123(3) and s. I 00 (1 )(b) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951hereinafter referred to as the Act. c The High Court held that certain speeches made by Shambhu Maharaj, with the consent of the appellant, amounted to 'corrupt practices' within the meaning of ss. 123(2) and 123(3) of the Act. Since we are in agreement with some of the cooclusions arrived at by the High Court it is not necessary to deal with all the speeches made by Shambhu Maharaj, but only with the speeches which the High Court held to amount to 'corrupt D practices' within the meaning of ss. 123(2) and 123(3). Before we set out the impugned passages from the speeches we may give a few preliminary facts. e: F G H The poll for the election was taken Oill February 21, 1967. and the result of the election declared on February 22, 1967. Purshottamdass Ranchoddas Patel, the petitioner in the High Court and respondent before us, secured 16,159 votes whereas the appellant secured 23,055 votes. The other candidates, who were respondents to the petition secured 720 votes, l ,017 votes and 454 votes, respectively. The petition out of the which this appeal arises was filed on April 5, 1967, and the petitioner prayed for the relief that the election of the appellant be declared void and further prayed that he be declared duly elected to the Assembly. Various grounds were urged in the petition but we need only deal with the ground that the appellant and his agents arranged public meetings of Shri Shambhu Maharaj on February 18. 1967, at various villages which were part of the Mehsana Assembly constituency, and Shambhu Maharaj made a systematic appeal in his speeches to a large section of the electors to vote for the appellant on ground of religion, caste, and community, and the electors were told that it would be an irreligious act to vote for the petitioner who was a Congress candidate as Congress allowed slaughtering of cows and bullocks. It was also alleged that Shri Shambhu Maharaj had used undue influence ~ interfered with the free electoral rights of electors' by inducin~ or attempting to induce them to believe that they would become object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure by his speeches. 404 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [196'J] 3 S.C.R. The petitioner sought to prove the ~peeches by producing members of the Police Force, as witnesses, who had under illstructions of Government taken down notes of the speeches and reported them to their officers. The High Court relied on the reports of these members of the Police Force and held that their reports were correctly recorded and fairly represented the speeches made by Shambhu Maharaj. In this cOlllllection, the High Court discarded the testimony of the petitioner's witnesses (P.W.s 25 to 33) on the ground that it would be safe not to accept the evidence of partisan witnesses unless it was corroborated by independent witnesses. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S. T. Desai, contends, first, that the reports made by the members of the Police Force are not admissible in evidence, and secondly, that in the circumstances of the case no weight should be attached to these reports. We may first deal with the question of the admissibility of the evidence before we set out the speeches. · The learned counsel contends that under the Indian Evidence Act written reports of speeches can only be used in two ways; one, to refresh a witness's memory under s. 159, and secondly, under s. 160 after satisfying two conditions : (I) that the witness has no specific recollection o.f the facts themselves and (2) the witness says that he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. He urges that in this case the reports were not used to refresh any wi(!ness's memory, and that the conditions requisite under s. I 60 had not been satisfied. It is true that these reports have not been used for the purpose of refreshing the memory of any witness under s. 159, but these have been used undt..-r s. 160. We may here set out ss. 159, 160 and 161 of the Indian Evidence Act. "S. 159. A witness may, while under examination, refresh his memory by referring to any writinl! made by himself at the time of the transaction concerning which he is questioned, or so soon afterwards that the Court cansiders it likely that the transaction wa~ at that time fresh in his memory. The witness may also refer to any such writing made by any other person, and read by the witness within · the time aforesaid, if when he read it he knew it to be correct. · Whenever a witness may refresh his memory by reference to any document. he may, with the permission of the Court, refer to a copy of such decument : A B c D E F G H A 8 c D E F G H JAYSHANKER v. RANCHHODDAS (Sikri, J.) 405 Provided the Court be satisfied that there is sufficient reasqn for the non-production of the original. An expert may refresh his memory by reference to professional treatises. S. 160. A witness may also testify to facts mentioned in any such document as is mentioned in section 159, although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. S. 161. Any writing referred to under the provisions of the two last preceding sections must be produced and shown to the adverse party if he requires it; such party may, if he pleases, cross-examine the witness thereupon." In this case it is clear that the reports were written by the witnesses themselves at the time of the speeches or soon afterwards when the speeches were fresh in their memory. It seems to us that it is not necessary that a witness should specifically state that he bas no specific recollection of the facts and that he is sure that the facts were cor~ectly recorded in the document, before the document can be used under s. 160. It is enough if it appears from his evidence that these conditions are established. In this particular case the witnesses were giving their testimony in Court after a lapse of nearly nine months and one would have to have super-human memory to specifically re~ollect the details of the speeches, especially when the witness may have attended and reported many similar meetings as a part of his duty during the election campaign. It may be implied in this case that the witnesses had no specific recollection of the facts. The second requirement wouJr! b~ satisfied if the Court comes to the conclusion that the witness wds in a position to correctly record the facts in the document. Are then the requirements of s. 160 satisfied in this case ? As an example we may consider the evidence of P.W. 7. who testified regarding the speech, Ex. J., delivered at village Motidav. He stated that Shambhu Maharaj addressed the meeting at Motidav at about 5.30 p.m. on February 18, 1967, and the appellant was present at that meeting; Maganlal A. Patel was also present at the time when Shambhu Maharai was speaking; while the speeches were being delive·ed he was making notes of what was being spoken; in this manne~ he had written out a report regacding all that had happened at the meeting; zfter returning to Meh~ana he submitted his report of the meeting to P .S.I. Choudhary. He was shown two reports about the meetings at Motidav, and he stated : ~06 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 s.c.R. .. "Both these reports, part of 'X', are in my handwr1tmg. I wrote out the contents of these two reports at Motidav when the meetings were going on." (The two reports put in. a;nd marked Ex. "J" collectively). In cross-examination questions were directed to establishing that the reports were not exact reports. He stated that he was taking down all the speeches of Shambhu Maharaj who was speaking at medium pace and he wrote whatever Shambhu Maharaj spoke. He further stated that he was writing down from memory immediately after the words were spoken by Shambhu Maharaj. He admitted that "it is true that every word spoken by Shambhu Maharaj was not takqn down by me in my report but what I have taken down was in fact spoken by him." He, however, added that "it it not true that what I have written out in Ex. 'J' was not written down at Motidav village." On this evidence it seems to us that it is quite clear that both the conditions required by s. 160 have been compiled with. While the speech was delivered QD February 18, 1967, he was giving his evidence on November 7, 1967. It is implicit that he had no specific recollection of the speeches, and the second condition is also satisfied because he made notes and then made out the report from his notes. It may be that the counsel would have been well-advised to have read out Ex. 'J' rather than produce it as an exhibit, but this is apparently done in some Indian Court> to save time and it is now too late in the day to condemn such practice, specially as it is a difference without any substance. It is true that the report is, strictly speaking, not substantive evidence as such, and the document can only be used as a part of the oral evidence sanctified by the oath. The position seems to be the same in some States ·in U.S.A., vide Wigmore on Evidence (Third Edition; Vol. III; pp. 97-98, extracted below : "1871, Per Curiam in Moots v. State, 21 Oh. St. 653: The entry in the book and the oath of the .witness supplement each other. The book was really a part of the oath, and therefore admissible with it in evidence." "1879, Earl, J., in .Howard v. McDonough 77 N.Y. 592 : After the witness has testified, the memorandum which he has used may be put in evidence,-not as pro\'ijng anything of itself, but as a detailed statement of the items testified to by the witness. The manner in which the memorandum in such a case may be used is very much in the discretion of the trial Judge." A B c D E F G A B c D E F G H JAYSHANKER v. RANCHHODDAS (Sikri, J.) 407: "1882, Cooley, J., in Mason v. Phelps, 48 Mir,L 126, 11 N.W. 413, 837 : After she had testified that she knew it to be correct, she might have read the entries or repeated them as her evidence. Showing the book was no more than this". "1886, Smith, C.J., in Bryan v. Moring, 94 N.C. 687 : The memorandum thus supported and identified becomes part of the testimony of the witness, just as if without it the witness had orally repeated the words from memory." There is much to be said for the modeIJil doctrine in some of the· States in the United States, which "seems to be that such docu-· ments are admissible evidence and that the Court will not go· through the useless ceremony of having the witness read a document relating to a fact of which he had no present recollecti?n, except that he knew it was correct when made." (see McCorrmck oo Evidence; p. 593; footnote 3). The learned counsel relied on the dissenting judgment of Sankaran-Nair, J., in Mylapore Krishnasami v. Emperor(') where he observed : "If therefore the constable has \llOt recorded correctly the words used by the speaker but only his impression, then the notes would be inadmissible under section 160 of the Indian Evidence Act to prove the words used. They may be admissible to prove the impression created in the mind of the cqnstable, which is very different." We are unable to appreciate how this passage assists the appellant. If it is proved that the constable did not correctly record the words, a fortiori one of the conditions of s. 160 has not been satisfied and the writing cannot be used to prove the words. The learned cou1nsel also referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Mohansingh Laxmansingh v. Bhanwarlal Rajmal Nahata('). The High Court seems to have held that on the facts, the statements prepared by the witness in that case did not become primary evidence of the speech said to have been delivered by the speaker and cannot be used as such. Later on the High Court seems to have held that the notes were taken down for a particular purpose, to wit, for an election petitioin, and raise a reasonable suspicion that what the witness recorded was not a correct record of the speech. If the High Court meant to say that Ex-P-12 (the notes in that case) could not be used (I) 32 Mad. 384; 395. (2) A.l.R.1964 M.P.137, 146. 408 SUPREME COURT REPORT.S (1969) 3 S.C,R. under s. 160 we must hold that the case was wrongly decided, but if the High Court meant to say that there was suspicion that the speech was not a correct record the:n nothing can be said against the decision on this poinl Blacker, J. in Sodhi Pindi Das v. Emperqr(') held, relying on Jagan Nath v. Emperor(') that it is essential that the witness must state orally before the Court that although he had no specific recollection of the facts themselves, he was sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document. We are unable to agree with this interpretation. As we have already stated, if the requisite conditions can be satisfied from the record, the lack of an express declaration by witness does not make the evidence inadmissible. In Public Prosecutor v. Venkatarama Naidu(') Mockett, J., rightly dissented from the judgment of the Lahore High Court in Sodhi Pindi Das v. Emperor('). In England the Law of Evidence has been changed and many of such documents made directly admissible: (see Phipson on Evidence, Tenth Edition, Ch. 22). It seems to us that on the facts the report, Ex. J., was properly used under s. 160 of the India~ Evidence Act. The question of the weight to be attached to the various reports of the speeches is another matter and we will deal with the question presently. The High Court has found three speeches to constitute "corrupt practices". The following three passages in Ex. 'J'- speech delivered by Shambhu Maharaj at village Motidav on February 18, 1967-\\·ere complained of by the learned Counsel in the High Court : " ( 1) I will say on~ fact and that is that at present t11e Congress is stating everywhere that nobody else will make the people happy except themselves. But I say that apart from God no other Government either Congress or Swatantra Party c11n make people happy. An agriculturist may have one bigha of land (about half an acre) and he might have sown wheat but if there is heavy frost or locusts or if one bullock worth Rs. 1000/- dies, Government may give him money, may give him bullock, but I do not think that that man can be happy; but nature can make him happy. Today in our India, everyday 33,000 cows are being slaughtered throu.~hout the country. Ten to eleven lacs of bullocks are being -slaughtered during the year and in Ahmedabad Town alone 10,000 bullocks are slaughtered. (i) A.l.R. 1938 Lah. 629, (2) A.l.R. 1912 Lah. 7. (J) I.LR. [19441 Mad. 111. A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H JAYSllANKER V. RANCHHODDAS (Sikri, J.) 40~ ( 2) This unworthy Congress Government has cut the nose of Hindu Society. Sant Fateh Singh ·the reli- . ' g10us preceptor of the Sikhs, fasted for I 0 days; where as Jagadguru fasted for 73 days, still this Government is not even thinking of opening negotiations. This unworthy Government accepted the contention of the Sikhs after the fast of I 0 days; whereas in spite of the penance undertaken by J agadguru by his fast of 73 days, the Government has not considered any topic in this connection. Your J agadguru had full confidence that, except for ten crores who are the followers of the Congress, twenty to thirty crores from the Hindu Society would help him. ( 3) For exa..'11ple, if any Maulvi from Mucca had fasted for 73 days a~d had given such a mandate to our Muslim brothers, then would they have voted for the Congress. That you have to consider, In the same manner, if Fateh Singh, the religious leader of Sikhs, had fasted for 73 days, would they (Sikhs) have voted .for the Congress ? In the same maniner if there were Parsis or Christians, then they also would vote for their religious preceptor. This is what you have to consider. The mandate of your religious preceptor is that do not cast your vote for anyone, the mandate of the Jagadguru is that let cows be slaughtered, let bullocks be slaughtered. In Gujarat State though there is ban, still bullocks are allowed to be slaughtered, the bullocks which give every individual happiness throughout the life. This Government asks for votes in the name of. the bullocks (the Congress Party election symbol being a pair of bullocks with yoke on) and I am. therefore, having an experience. Do not vote for the Congress and by putting the mark of vote on the symbol of bullocks amounts to cutting the throat of a bullock by a knife symbolized by your vote. It is my mandate that you should not do this dastardly act." The High Court did not find the first two passages to con~ti tute "corrupt practices". The third passage was held by the High Court to constitute "corrupt practice" on the groul?-~ that "tho~gh there is no proof that Shankaracharya had any relrg1ous following as such in this particular constituency'. there. is no mandate Hl writing from the Jagadguru and there 1s no ~Irect address to his followers by the Jagadguru, Shambhu Mahara1 has clearly appealed to the Hindu voters as such not to vote for the Congres~ Party Jest they might be betraying th~ir religious l~ader. part1cular\Y when he had fasted for 73 days m a cause which had some basis in the religious beliefs of the Hindus." " 410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. We are unable to agree with the High Court in this respect. The decision of this Court in Ram Dial v. Sant Lal(') is clearly .distinguishable because there it was held by this Court that Sbri Sat Guru wielded great local influence among the large number of Namdbaris who were voters in the Sirsa constitutmey . .In the present case there is no proof that Jagadguru Shankaracharya of Puri was the religious bead of the majority of the electors in this constituency or exercised great influence on them. It cannot be held on the facts of this case that an ordinary Hindu voter in this constituency would feel that be would be committing a sin if he disregarded the alleged directive o.f the J agadguru. One other ground given by the High Court is that "there can be no doubt that in this passage (passage No. 3) Shambhu Maharaj had put forward an appeal to the electors not to vote for the Congress Party \n the name of the religion." In our ·Opinion, there is no bar to a candidate or his supporters appealing to the electors not to vote for the Congress in the name .of religion. What s. 123 ( 3) bars is that an appeal by a candidate or his agent or any other person with the CQ!J,sent of the candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, •i.e., the religion of the candidate. The following four passages in Ex. K, a speech delivered by .Shambhu Maharaj at Kherwa after mid.night of February 18, 1967, were objected to : " ( 1) The Congress says that it has brought happiness and will give happiness in future; but even a father cannot give happiness to his son, nor can a son give happiness to his father. Giving happiness rests in the hands of God. But God gives happiness where there is religion. He does not give happmess to the irreligious. (2) Formerly there were no famines. Possibly once in 100 years there might be one famine. As against that nowadays every year there is some natural ·calamity like a famine. Either there is no rain or there .is frost or there is visitatiQlli of locust or there is some disease in the crops and some calamity or the other is constantly visting us. The reason for this is that Congress permits slaughter of 33,000 bullocks everyday. When slaughter of cows is banned, bullocks are allowed to be slaughtered. In Gujarat 12,000 bullocks are being slaughtered. (3) Nobody would sit till 12-30 at night to listen to any talks by the Congress-walas. But I have come (I) [1959] Supp. 2 S. C.R. 74q, A B c D E f G H A B c D E F G H JAYSHANKER V. RANCHHODDAS (Sikri, J.) 41 I to tell the public, which is fond of its religion, to elect the Swatantra Party, so that the slaughter of bullocks might be stopped and all people who are fond of their religion are also keeping away till 12-30 at night. ( 4) Vijaykumarbhai has gone. A Brahmin minister must be there and hence Kantilalbhai is going to be a minister, hence vote for him. We must have at least one minister who is a Brahmin. Hence vote for Kantilalbhai. At the same time vote for Bhaikaka and H.M. Patel by putting your voting mark on the star." The High Court held the first two passages read together to constitute "corrupt practice" on the ground that "they amounted to interference with the free exercise of the electoral right of voters by holding out threats of divine displeasure and spiritual censure." The High Court held that in these passages there was a direct causal relationship between the cow slaughter and the ·natural calamities and this clearly showed that the voters were told that if they did not want such natural calamities to visit them they should not vote for the CCl\!1gress Party and thus avoid the divine displeasure which was responsible for these natural calamities. It seems to us that this is not a fair reading of these two pas.sages. Cow slaughter is not mentioned in these passages except to say that sow slaughter is banned in Gujarat. The causal relationship, if any, exists between slaughter of 33,000 bullocks every day aind natural calamities. This, in our view, cannot amount to constitute "corrupt practice" within s. 123 (2) proviso (a) (ii). The law does not ptace any bar on describing a party as irreligious or saying that because that political party is irreligious natural calamities have resulted because of its disregard of religion. We do not find anything objectionable in the third passage because here again it is Olllly an appeal to elect the Swatantra Party because the people in that party are fond of their religion. The last passage in Ex. 'K' clearly fell within the mischief of s. 123 ( 3). The High Court in this connection observed : "The refesence to Vijaykumarbhai is to Vijaykumar Trivedi, who was a Brahmin and was a minister in the Gujarat Govemmf1nt till March 1967. and when this speech was delivered. The reference to Kantilalbhai is to the first respondent, who is also a Brnhmin and the reoference to Bhaikaka is to Bhailalbhai Patel, leader of the Swatantra Party and H.M. Patel is another leader of the Swatantra Party and what Shambhu Maharaj was askin11 in this connection was that it was necessary that there should be one Brahmin in the Gujarat State Ministry and if one Brahmin, • , 412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 3 S.C.R. Viitated as a categorical statement that there must be at least one Minister, who was a Brahmin. Under S. 123(3) of the Act, an appeal by any person to vote for any person on the ground of his caste or community is a corrupt practice, provided, of course, that such person has made such appeal with the c