# N. S. VARDACHARI v. G. VASANTHA PAI AND ANR

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 886
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-08-21
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 586 of 1971
- **Bench:** K. S. Hegde, A. N. Grover, D. G. Palekar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/n-s-vardachari-v-g-vasantha-pai-and-anr-5735
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Representation of the People. Act (43 di 1951), s.
123 (2) and
( 4 )~Expression of opinion that candidate not qua/;fied~It amounts
to undue influence under s. 123 ( 2) or corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4).
Election
to Legislative Council from Graduates' constituency-If
non-oolitic a/.
A
B
Constitulion of India, 1950, Art, 171(3) (a) (b) and (c)-lf Candi· . C
date should be member of electoral College.
Practice-Imposition of penal Costs.
In 1967, the first respondent and S contested· for election for a seat
in the Madras Legislative Council from the City Graduates' constituency,
which fell vacant. 5 was declared elected and his election was challenged by the :first respondent on the grounds, inter a/ia, that, (aj in an elecD
lion from graduates' constituencies political parties were not competent
to sponsor candidates, and S, having been sponsored by the Swatantra
Party, was not qualified to be a candidate; arid (b) that S was guilty of
corrupt practices under s. 123 (5) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951.
The High Court set aside the election of S on the second
ground.
On the first ground, while holding that there was no evidence
that S was spousored by a political party, the High Court observed that
E
election to the Legislative Council· from the Graduates' constituency was
a non-party election and that political parties should not nominate any
candidate for that election.
7
: 's Court, in appeal, confirmed the finding
of the High Court that S was guilty of corrupt practices, but did not at
all touch on the observations of the High Court.
In 1970, the first and second respondents contested for election to
the Legislative Council from the same constituency, which was a two
member constituency, and they were both declared
elected.
The
first
respondent objected to the candidature of the second respondent before
the Returning Officer. on the grounds, (I) that the High Court had decided in the earlier election petition against S, that the constituency ·was
a non·political one and that the second respondent, having been sponsored by the Swatantra Party, any votes giv.en to hin1 would
amount
to
throwing away the votes: and (2) that the second respondent was not a
grad'u:ite and hence, 'vas not
qualified to be a candidate at the e'ection.
The Returning Officer rejected the objections, cut the first respondent continued tbe propaganda against the second respondent by publishing leaflets as well as appeals in ne\vspapcrs.
After the t\vo respondents had
been declared elected, the appellant, an elector in the constituency, filed
an election petition challenging the election of the first respondent on the
ground that by his propaganda he was guilty of cormpt practices under
s. 123 (2) and (4).
The High Court, disn1issed the petition with penal costs.
Jn appeal to thh Court.
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
N. s. VARDACHARI V. G. VASANTHA PAI (Hegde, J.)
887
HELD : ( 1) A debate whether a candidate was qualified to stand or
whether a political party was competent to nominate candidates for a
particular constituency cannot: be undue influence within the meaning of
s. 123(2). [891G-H]
(a) The first respondent placed his point of view before the e:ectoratc and sought support for it from the judgment of the High Court and
the second· respondent relied upon a press note issued by the Election
Commission.
Candidates in electi~ns are not only entitled to raise l)Otitical issues but can also raise social, economic and legal issue:-. [892 A-Bl
(b) The first respondent did not make anv attack on tbc character
of the. secortd respondent.
The mere fact that his contention was Ufr
tenable did not convert it into undue influence. [892B, HJ
S. K. Singh v. V. V. Giri. [1971] 2 S.C.R. 197, referred to.
(2) The first respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practice under
s. 123{4). [891G]
(a) His propaganda that the second respondent was not qualified to
be a cc.1didate was only an opinion expressed by him.
He did not make
any statement of fact and an op

## Text

886
N. S. VARDACHARI
v.
G. VASANTHA PAI AND ANR.
August 21, 1972
(K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND D. G. PALEKAR, JJ,J
Representation of the People. Act (43 di 1951), s.
123 (2) and
( 4 )~Expression of opinion that candidate not qua/;fied~It amounts
to undue influence under s. 123 ( 2) or corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 4).
Election
to Legislative Council from Graduates' constituency-If
non-oolitic a/.
A
B
Constitulion of India, 1950, Art, 171(3) (a) (b) and (c)-lf Candi· . C
date should be member of electoral College.
Practice-Imposition of penal Costs.
In 1967, the first respondent and S contested· for election for a seat
in the Madras Legislative Council from the City Graduates' constituency,
which fell vacant. 5 was declared elected and his election was challenged by the :first respondent on the grounds, inter a/ia, that, (aj in an elecD
lion from graduates' constituencies political parties were not competent
to sponsor candidates, and S, having been sponsored by the Swatantra
Party, was not qualified to be a candidate; arid (b) that S was guilty of
corrupt practices under s. 123 (5) of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951.
The High Court set aside the election of S on the second
ground.
On the first ground, while holding that there was no evidence
that S was spousored by a political party, the High Court observed that
E
election to the Legislative Council· from the Graduates' constituency was
a non-party election and that political parties should not nominate any
candidate for that election.
7
: 's Court, in appeal, confirmed the finding
of the High Court that S was guilty of corrupt practices, but did not at
all touch on the observations of the High Court.
In 1970, the first and second respondents contested for election to
the Legislative Council from the same constituency, which was a two
member constituency, and they were both declared
elected.
The
first
respondent objected to the candidature of the second respondent before
the Returning Officer. on the grounds, (I) that the High Court had decided in the earlier election petition against S, that the constituency ·was
a non·political one and that the second respondent, having been sponsored by the Swatantra Party, any votes giv.en to hin1 would
amount
to
throwing away the votes: and (2) that the second respondent was not a
grad'u:ite and hence, 'vas not
qualified to be a candidate at the e'ection.
The Returning Officer rejected the objections, cut the first respondent continued tbe propaganda against the second respondent by publishing leaflets as well as appeals in ne\vspapcrs.
After the t\vo respondents had
been declared elected, the appellant, an elector in the constituency, filed
an election petition challenging the election of the first respondent on the
ground that by his propaganda he was guilty of cormpt practices under
s. 123 (2) and (4).
The High Court, disn1issed the petition with penal costs.
Jn appeal to thh Court.
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
N. s. VARDACHARI V. G. VASANTHA PAI (Hegde, J.)
887
HELD : ( 1) A debate whether a candidate was qualified to stand or
whether a political party was competent to nominate candidates for a
particular constituency cannot: be undue influence within the meaning of
s. 123(2). [891G-H]
(a) The first respondent placed his point of view before the e:ectoratc and sought support for it from the judgment of the High Court and
the second· respondent relied upon a press note issued by the Election
Commission.
Candidates in electi~ns are not only entitled to raise l)Otitical issues but can also raise social, economic and legal issue:-. [892 A-Bl
(b) The first respondent did not make anv attack on tbc character
of the. secortd respondent.
The mere fact that his contention was Ufr
tenable did not convert it into undue influence. [892B, HJ
S. K. Singh v. V. V. Giri. [1971] 2 S.C.R. 197, referred to.
(2) The first respondent was not guilty of any corrupt practice under
s. 123{4). [891G]
(a) His propaganda that the second respondent was not qualified to
be a cc.1didate was only an opinion expressed by him.
He did not make
any statement of fact and an opinion on a question of law could not
be considered to be a ste.tement of fact.,
The fact that the Returning
Officer held that the second respondent was qualified to be a candidato
did not preclude the first respondent from debating the issue before the
electorate. [891D-G]
(b) It could not be said that the opinion was neither bon" fide no.
groundless as the contention was accepted as correci by the High Court
in an elec~ion petition filed against second respondent, though that lecision was reYersed by this Court. [891E]
(c) Also, the first respondent's propaganda that the High Court had
held ih the election petition against S, that the graduates' constituency
v,.as a non-politic
1al constituency could not be said to be a false state1nent,
because, the High Court. in fact, said so. [891F·G]
Gumii Shrihar Balircm Jivatode v. Vithalrao and Ors, [1969] 2 S.C.R.
766, referred l<J.
(3) This conclusion of the High Court, that the graduates' constituencv was a n(,11-political one, hoWever, was wrong. [894H]
Jn the forn1 prescribed for nnminating cai:1didatcs for Legislative
Assen1blies there is- a c:olumn requiring the candidate ro mention whether
J;e belonged to a political party, and if so. to which party.
The elector<
to the Legislative Assembly are by and large illiterate and to facilitate
the freedom of voting the
symbol system had been introduced. The
symbols are of two types reserved and free. It was necessary for
the
Elecdon Commission to know \\'hether a candidate was a nominee of a
political party, because, reserved symbols are allotted to candidates sponsored by recognised politico.! parties.
The symbol system is unnecesrnry in the elections to the Legislative Council, because, the ele~tors are
generally educated. Therefore, the aboence of such a column in .the form
prescribed for nominating candidates to the Legislative Council does not
lead to the inference that election to the Legislative Council from the
Graduates' constituency is non-political. [894 F-H; 895 A-CJ
(~) Article 171(3)(d) -0f the Constitution says that members of the
Assembly should elec~, as nearly as may be, 1 /3 members of the Council
from among-;! persons who are not members of the Assembly; but no
888
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] I S.C.R ..
such stipulation is made in the other clauses of !he Article. But from
that it could not be concluded that when elections are held under clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of Art. 171(3), the person to be.elected must be one
who is a member of the electoral college in question. The candidate
may either be a member of the electoral college or even an outsider. If
a person possesses all the qualifications prescribed in the Constitution as
well as in the Representation of the People A~ts and has not incurred
any of the disqual'ifications mentioned therein he is qualified to be a
candidate. f,894D-FJ
G. Narayanaswami v. G. Pannerselvam and Ors. Civil Appeal No.
189 of 1971 decided on April 12; 1972, followed.
(5) In the circumstances of this case here was no justifioation for
imposing penal oosts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Civil Appeal No.
586
of 1971.
Appeal under section 116-A of the Representation of the
People Act, 1951 from the Judgment and order dated December 15, 1970 of the Madras High Court in Election Petition
A
B
c
No. 2 of 1970.
D
R. M. Sheshadri, K.· C.
Agarwala, E. C.
A.garwala and
A. T. M. Sampath, for the appellant.
S. V. Gupte, S. S. Javali, P. C. Bhartari, J. B. Dadacha.~ji and
Ravinder Narain, for respondent No. 1.
S. S. Khanduja and Vineet Kumar, for respondent No. 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Hegde, J.
This is an election petitioner's appeal under
s. 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (to be
hereinafter referred to as the Act) . It relates to the election to
the Tamil N adu Legislative Council from the Madras City Graduates' constituency.
The. election was held .on April 11, 1970.
Seven candidates contested in that election.
The election
w~s
according to the principles of proportional representation by
means of single transferable vote.
The Madras City Graduates'
constituency was a two member constituency.
The 1st respondent, Vasantha Pai was declared elected in the first count itself.
The second respondent Narayanaswamy was declared elected in
the second count.
The election of V asantha Pai was challenged
by the appellant V ardachari who is an elector in the constituency
in question on the ground that V asantha Pai was guilty of corrupt
practices mentioned in sub-ss. (2) and ( 4) of s. 123 of the Act.
The High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner has
failed to make out his case and consequently dismissed the election petition. Hence this appeal.
E
F
G
H
I
1
.
-•
A
B
N. s. VARDACHARI v. G. V4.SANTHA PAI (Hr.ade, J.)
889
The charges 11welled against Vasantha Pai are: (I) that he
(Vasantha Pai) falsely carried on propaganda to the effect that the
High Court of Madras had decided in an earlfor election petitic1n
between him and R. N. Seshadri that the constituency in question
is a non-political and Narayanaswamy having been sponsored by
the Swatantra Party any votes given to him will
amount
to
"throwing away" of the votes and (2) that Narayanaswamy being
a non-graduate was not qualified to be a candidate at the election.
It may be noted at this stage that Vasantha Pai did object to the
candidature of Narayanaswamy before the Returning 0fficcr on the
two grounds mentioned earlier. The Returning Officer rejected
c
tho~ objections holding that there was no material before him to
show that Narayanaswamy had been sponsored by the -Swatantra
party and further that in his view a non-graduate is not disqualified
from seeking election from a graduate constituency.
Even after
the Returning Officer rejected the contentions of Vasantha Pai,
he admittedly carried on. the propaganda referred to earlier by
0
publishing leaflets as well as appeals in the Newspapers.
E
F
G
H
Section 123 enumerates what are corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act. Sub-s. (2) of that section to the extent material
for our present purpose reads :
"Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part
of the candidate or his agent, or of any oilier person with
the consent of the candidate or his election agent, with
the free exercise of any electoral right."
(The proviso is not relevant for our present purpose.)
Sub-s. ( 4) thereof says :
"The publication by a candidate or his agent or by
any other person, with the consent of a candidate or his
election agent of any statement of fact which is false, and
which he either be!ie·1es to be false or does not believe
to be true, in relation to the personal cliaracter or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature
or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement
reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that
candidate's election."
Before examining the points in issue, it is necessary to set out
a few more facts.
In 1967 a seat in the Madras City Graduates' constituency fell
vacant.
For that seat election: was held on August 21, 1967.
fa
890
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] l S.C.R.
that election V asantha Pai was one of the contestants.
One of the
other contestants was R. N. Seshadri.
R. N. Seshadri was declared elected having secured the highest number of votes.
Thereafter Vasantha Pai challenged the validity of the election of Seshadri on various grounds.
One of the grounds taken by Vasantha
Pai was that in an election from graduates' constituencies political
parties were not competent to sponsor candidates, Seshadri having
been sponsored by the Swatantra party, was not qualified to be a
candida1e. Yet another ground taken was that Seshadri was guilty
of corrupt practices coming within sub-s. (5) of s. 123 of the Act.
The High Court set aside the election of Seshadri- on the ground
that he was guilty of corrupt practices mentioned in sub-s. -(5) of
s. 123.
Dealing with the question whether Seshadri was qualified
to be a candidate at the election or not it observed faat there is
no satisfactory evidence before it to come to a conclusion that
Seshadri had been sponsored by a political party.
But proceeding further it observed :
"It is quite well known that the election to the Madras
Legislative C:ouncil from the Madras District Graduates'
Constituency is a non-party ~lection. No narty symbols
are assigned to the candidates.
The political parties
crnnot also nominate any candidate for this election."
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, Seshaori took up
the matter in appeal to this Court.
This
Court affirmed .the
finding of the High Court that Seshadri was guilty of the corrupt
practices mentioned in sub-s. (5) of s. 123 of the Act.
Evidently
this Court was not invited to consider the correctness of the obtservations of the learn~d trial judge that "election to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduate1' Constituency.
is a non-party elec1ion".
The judgment of this Court did not
touch that point.
After the decision in Seshadri's case, Vasantha Pai persisted
in carrying on propaganda that the Madras High Court had held
that the election to the Madras Legislative Council from the Madras District Graduates' Constituency is a non-party election and
no political party can sponsor a candidate in that election.
He
also carried on the propaganda that Narayanaswamy'~ candidature
had been spons!)red by the Swatantra party and therefore according
to him, he was not qualified to be a candidate.
Having set out these facts we will first consider whether Wasantha Pai was guilty of a corrupt practlce coming within sub-s. ( 4)
of s. 12 3.
The charge under this head is based on two g.;ounds
viz. that he had falsely carried on propaganda that the High Court
had ruled that the constituency in question was a
non-political
constituency and further that he had carried on a false propaganda
A
B
J
c
D
E
F
I
'
G
-.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
N. s. VARDACHARI V. G. VASAN.THA PAI (Hegde, J.) 8H
that Narayanaswamy was not qulified to be a
canilid11-te.
Theingredients of the corrupt practice mentioned in s. 123 ( 4) as set
out by this Court in Gumji Shrihar Baliram Jivatode v. VithalrlW'
and ors.(') are:
I. The publication by a candidate or his election
agent or any other person with the consent of the
candidate or his election agent of any statement
of fact.
2. Which statement is false and which was believed by
the candidate to be false or at any rate was not
believed by him to be true;
3. The ·said statement relates to the personal character or conduct of a candidate or in relation to his
candidature or withdrawal and
4. The same being a statement reasonably calculated
to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's
election.
Taking up first the propaganda of Vasantha Pai that Narayanaswamy was not qualified to be a candidate, it was only an opinion
expressed by Vasantha Pai.
He made no statement of fact.
An
epinion, much less an opinion on a question of law cannot be1onsidered as a statement of fact.
Further his opinion cannot be
said to be either not bona fide or grom;idless as the same was
accepted as correct by the High Court of Tamil Nadu in .the
election petition filed against Narayanaswamy though that decision was reversed by this Court in G.
Narayanaswami v. G.
Pannerselvam and ors.(2 ).
The fact that the Returning Officer had held that Narayanaswamy was qualified to be a candidate did 'not preclude Vasantha
Pai from debating that issue before the electorate. V asantha Pai's
propaganda that the High Court has held
that the graduates'
constituency is a non-political constituency cannot be mid to be
false statement. The High Court advertently
or inadvertently
said so though it was wrong if\ saying so as we shall presently see.
Hence the charge under s. 123 ( 4) fails.
Now turning our attention to the allegation of undue influence,
we fail to see how a debate whether a candidate was qualified to
stand or whether a political party is competent to nominate candidates for a particular constituen~y can be undue influence within the meaning of s. 123(2). Both candidates h1ve placed their
point 0f view before the electorate.
Vasantha Pai sought support
from the High Court's Judgment and Narayanaswamy relied on th'l'
Pr!)Ss Note ·issued by the Election Commission that political parties
(I) [1969] 2 S.C.R. 766.
(2) Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1971 decided on
April 12, 1972.
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1973] I S.C.R.
are not precluded from sponsoring candidates in the graduates'
constituencies.
Candidates in elections are not only entitled to
raise political issues, they can also raise social, economic and
legal issues.
The fact that a contention is untenable does not
convert it into an undue influence.
We do seek to limit the scope
c;f the expression "undue influence" in s. 123 (2). As observed
by this Court in S. K. Singh v. V. V. Giri(1) :
"The freedom of election is twofold; (i) freedom in
the exercise of judgment. Every voter should be free
to exercise his own judgment, in selecting the candidate
he believes to be best fitted to represent the constituency;
( 2) Freedom to go and have the means of going to the
poll to give his vote without fear or intimidation."
In that decision this Court observed after taking into consideration s. 171 (G) of I.P.C:.
"It is clear that in pursuit of purity of elections the
legislature frowned upon attempts to assail such purity
by means of false statements relating to the personal
character and conduct of a candidate and made such acts
punishable thereunder.
But the fact that making of
such a false statement is a distinct offence under Section
171-G does not and cannot mean that it cannot take the
graver form of undue influence punishable under section
171F. The false statement may be of such virulent,
vulgar or scurrilous character that it would either deter
or tend to deter voters from supporting that candidate
whom they would have supported in the free exercise
of their electoral right but for their being affected or
attempted to be affected by the make1' or th11 puolisher
of such a statement.
Therefore it is the deuee of gravity of the allegation which will be the determining
factor in deciding whether it falls under Section 171 C
or Section 171G. If the allegation though false and
relating to a candidate's personal character or conduct,
made with the intent to affect the result of an election,
does not amount to interference or attempc at such
interference, the offence would be the lesser one. If, on
the other· hand, it amounts to interference or an attempt
to interfere, it would be the graver oft'ence under . Sec.
171-F, read with Section 171C."
Herein it may be noted that Vasantha Pai did not· make any
attack on the character of Narayanaswamy. His contention was
that the election to the constituency in question was non-political
and that Narayanaswamy was not qualified to be. candidate, he
(l) [19''1] 2 S.C.R. 197.
A
B
c
D
E
p
G
H
I
(
A
B
c
D
E
N. s. VARDACHARI v. G, VASANTHA PAI (Hegde, /.) 893
being not a graduate.
Vasantha Pai was entitled to place these
points of view before the electorate and even tell them that if
Narayanaswamy is elected he may challenge his election. It was
for Narayanaswamy or his supporters to counter the arguments
advanced on behalf of V asantha Pai.
For the reasons mentioned above we agree with the High Court
that the appellant has fai,led to establish the charges levelled by
.him.
At the same time we think it necessary to observe that the
conclusion of the Madras High Court in R. N. Seshadri's case that
the Graduates' constituency is a non-party constituency is an
erroneous conclusion.
There is no reference to political parties
either in our Constitution or in the Act.
The political parties
come into the picture indirectly though they have an important
place in our political set up.
Our Constitution and the Act refer
to candidates as such and not to the parties to which they belong.
Art. 173 of the Constitution prescribes the qualifications of the
person to be chosen to fill a seat in the legislature of a State. They
are:
( 1) He must be a citizen of India.
( 2) He must make and subscribe before some person
authorised in that behalf by the Election Commission an oath or affirmation acccrding to · the
form set out for the purpose in the Third Schedule to the Constitution.
( 3) In the case of a seat in the Legislative Assembly
he must not be less than 25 years of age and in
the case of a Legislative Council he must not be
F
less than 30 years of age and
G
H
( 4) He must possess such other qualifications as may
be prescribed in that behalf by or under any law
made by parliament.
Then we come to . the provisions of the Act.
Section 5 of the
Act prescribes the qualifications for member~hip of a Legislative
Asse.mbly. In .the c;ase of a general constituency, the only qualificatton prescnbed 1s that he must be an elector for any assembly
constituency ~ that Stat~.
~ection 6 l?rescribes the qualifications
!or membership of a Legislative Counc!l.
That Section reads :
" ( 1 ) A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to
fill a seat in the Legislative Council of a State
to be filled by election unless he is an elector for
any Assembly constilt!ency in that State.
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19731 l S.C.R.
(2) A person shall not be qualified to be chosen to
fill a seat in the Legislative Ccuncil of a State to
be filled by nomination by the Governor unless
he is ordinarily resident in the State."
The Representation of the People Act, 1950 prescribes qualifications for being enrolled as an elector.
Sections 8 to lOA of
the Act set out the grounds which disqualify a person from being
a candidate. If a person possesses all the qualifications prescribeti
in the Constitution as well as in the Act and has not incurred anv
of the disqualifications mentioned therein then he is qualified to be
a candidate.
It may look anomalous that a non-graduate should
be a candidate in a Graduates' constituency.
But if a candidate
possesses the qualifications prescribed and has not incurred any of
the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution or in the Act
other consideration becom.es irrelevant.
That is the ratio of the
decision of this Court in Narayanaswami's case (supra).
It was urged on behalf of Vasantha Pai that Art. 171(3)(d)
of the Constitution specifically says that the members of the Assembly should elect as nearly as may be I/3rd members of the Legislative Council from amongst persons who are not members of the
Assembly.
But no such stipulation is made in the other clauses
of that Art.
Therefore we should conclude that when elections
are held under els. (a), (b)and (c) of sub-art. (3) ofArt.171,
the person to be elected must be one who is a member of the
electoral college in question.
WP see no logic in this reasoning.
The relevant provisioas do not say so.
From the fanguage of
those provisions, it is clear that the candidate may either be a
member of the electoral college in question or even an outsider.
This question is no more res integra. It is concluded by the
decision of this Court in Narayanaswami's case (supra).
Dealing with the question that the eleqtion to the Graduates'
constituency is non-political, our attention was invited on behalf
of Vasantha Pai to certain rules framed under the Act as well as
forms prescribed. In the form prescribed for nominating candidates for legislative assemblies, there is a column requiring the
candidate to mention whether he belongs to a political party, if
so, which party, whereas there is no such column in the form prescribed for nominating candidates to the legislative council.
From
this we are asked to infer that the election to the legislative council
is non-political.
In our opinion this is an erroneous contention.
The electors to the legislative assembly are by and large illiterJ.te.
Hence to facilitate the freedom of voting, the symbol system had
been introduceμ.
There are two types of symbols viz. reserved
symbols and free symbols.
Reserved symbols are allotted oniy to
A
B
c
D I
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
N, s. VARDACHARI v. G. VASANTHA PAI (Hegde, J.) 895
candidates sponsored by recognised political parties.
Free symbols are given to others.
In order to. allot the reserved symbols,
it is necessary for the Election Commission to know whether a
particular candidate is the nominee of any political party. Symbol
system is unnecessary in the elections to the Legislative Council
because the electors therein are by and large educated.
They can
exercise their franchise.without the assistance of the symbols. We
can see no legal objection for any political party sponsoring candidates to the seats in the Legislative Councils.
One other question remains to be decided.
The learned trial
judge has imposed penal costs of Rs. 500/- on the appellant; that
in addition to the ordinary costs.
It was contended before us
that the learned judge had no competence to impose penal costs.
We do not think it necessary to decide that question.
From the
facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think that there
was any justification to impose penal costs.
We accordingly set
aside the order imposing penal costs.
In other respects this appeal
fails and the same is dismissed with costs.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismined.