# SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS [1g64] JAGDEV SINGH SID.'IANTI v. PRATAP SINGH DAULTA

- **Citation:** [1964] 6 S.C.R. 750
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963-05-31
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supre-fe-court-reports-1g64-jagdev-singh-sid-ianti-v-pratap-singh-daulta-3217
- **Pages:** 23

## Headnote

1961
:Pebruary 11
750
SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS
[1g64]
JAGDEV SINGH SID.'IANTI
v.
PRATAP SINGH DAULTA
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS
GUPTA J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JI.)
El1ctions-A.dvocating the cause of a certain lan~uage-lf amount. .. to
a corrupt prar:tict-l 1f:ing 'Om Dhwaf'-ll
amounts to a corrupt
practice-Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act .tf3 of 1951),
I. 123(3),
The appellant was declared elected to the liou::;e of the
l'eo::il~
from a parliamentary constituency. The respondent No. 1 i.:ha:Ienged
the election of the appellant on the ground
that the
appellant,
hi9
election and other agents cominitted many corrupt practice; falling
within s. 123 of the Represen.tation of the People Act, 1951. The
main grievance of respondent No. l was thlt the appel1ant and his
agents h:id made appeal! to t'.1e electorate to vote for hi1n or to refrain
from voting for Daul ta ( Re~pondent No. l ) ''on t11e ground of his
religion and language", and that the appeJlarit and his agents use l a
religious symbol-a fi.:.g called "Om Dhwaj" in all 1he election iT'Ceiiags.
The case cf the appeib.nt was th3t the flag was not a 1eligious symbol
and denied that it was used on any O'.::ca~ior by him or hi<> age:i.ts and
submitted that it
\Y:t~ usr;d
0;1iy ty o·;e
}.".erson
who was always
accustomed to carry it on h:-; mctor c:-ir.
The appellant
ai.~o pleaded
that an appeal to the eiector.:tle en the ground of languagf.': or rdigion
did not amount to a corrupt practi.:-0 '"ithin the meaning cf s. 123 of
the Act.
The Tribunril di.c.mi".""'d the ele.:tion petition of re5pondent No. l
but the High Court allo\ved the appeal and declared the election of
the appellant void unJ.:r s.
l~.J(l)(b) of the Act.
I-fence the appeal.
Held (i) Th~ use of or appe:il to
the
national or reiigions
symbols to be a corrupt practice mus~ be rnade by the candidate or
his electian agent, or by some other person with the consent of the candidate or his election 01gent, before it can be regarded as a £-round for
declaring the election void.
(ii) 'Om' is regarded by Hindus as having high spiritual or mystical
-efficacy: it is used at the commencement cf the recit:-.tions of religious
prayers.
But the attribute of spiritual sigflificance will not necessarily
impart to its use on a :flag the character of a n:ligious symbol within
the meaning of s. 123.
A symbol stands for or represents something·
material or abstract. To be a religious symbol, there must be a visible
representation of a thinJ?: of concept ~hich is religions. To •om• high
'lpiritual or mystical e:f!cacy is undoubtedly ascribed, but its use on
6 S.C.R.
. SUPREME COURT Rl<:i'ORTS
751
a flag does not symbolise religion or anything
religious.
The High
Court err~ in holding that the 'Om' flag \vas a relicious sytnbol and
its use in an election comes within the purview of cl. (3) of 1. 123
-Of. the Ac I.
(iii) Clause (3) of •· 123 of the Act must be read in the light of
the fund, mental right which is guaranteed by Art. 29(1) of tho
.Constitutio.n; the clause "annot be read as tresyassing upon the fuoda~
mental right under Art. 29(1).
Artic\e 29( I) of the Constitution has conferred the right, amona
-others, to conse1ve their language upon the citiLCm of India.
Right
to conserve the language of the citizens ~nclndcs the right to agitate
far protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of
'the language of a section of the ciuzens cannot therefore he regarde4
" a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(3) of the Act.
lamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Ors. v. Lachhi Ram •nd Ors., [195S]1
S.C.R. 608, distinguished.
(iv) The corrupt practice d•flrted bx cl. (3) of s. 123 ii com1111tted
when an appeal is made either' to vote or. refrain from· v0ting on tho
*round ot a candidate's language! lt is the. appeal to ·ithe ~lectorate
on a ground personal to the candi'date relating to his laneuage which
.attracts tte b!tn of s. 100 read with s. 123("l). Therefore it is only

## Text

_Characters 0–39,072 of 53,564. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39072 for what follows._

1961
:Pebruary 11
750
SUPRE~fE COURT REPORTS
[1g64]
JAGDEV SINGH SID.'IANTI
v.
PRATAP SINGH DAULTA
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS
GUPTA J.C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JI.)
El1ctions-A.dvocating the cause of a certain lan~uage-lf amount. .. to
a corrupt prar:tict-l 1f:ing 'Om Dhwaf'-ll
amounts to a corrupt
practice-Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act .tf3 of 1951),
I. 123(3),
The appellant was declared elected to the liou::;e of the
l'eo::il~
from a parliamentary constituency. The respondent No. 1 i.:ha:Ienged
the election of the appellant on the ground
that the
appellant,
hi9
election and other agents cominitted many corrupt practice; falling
within s. 123 of the Represen.tation of the People Act, 1951. The
main grievance of respondent No. l was thlt the appel1ant and his
agents h:id made appeal! to t'.1e electorate to vote for hi1n or to refrain
from voting for Daul ta ( Re~pondent No. l ) ''on t11e ground of his
religion and language", and that the appeJlarit and his agents use l a
religious symbol-a fi.:.g called "Om Dhwaj" in all 1he election iT'Ceiiags.
The case cf the appeib.nt was th3t the flag was not a 1eligious symbol
and denied that it was used on any O'.::ca~ior by him or hi<> age:i.ts and
submitted that it
\Y:t~ usr;d
0;1iy ty o·;e
}.".erson
who was always
accustomed to carry it on h:-; mctor c:-ir.
The appellant
ai.~o pleaded
that an appeal to the eiector.:tle en the ground of languagf.': or rdigion
did not amount to a corrupt practi.:-0 '"ithin the meaning cf s. 123 of
the Act.
The Tribunril di.c.mi".""'d the ele.:tion petition of re5pondent No. l
but the High Court allo\ved the appeal and declared the election of
the appellant void unJ.:r s.
l~.J(l)(b) of the Act.
I-fence the appeal.
Held (i) Th~ use of or appe:il to
the
national or reiigions
symbols to be a corrupt practice mus~ be rnade by the candidate or
his electian agent, or by some other person with the consent of the candidate or his election 01gent, before it can be regarded as a £-round for
declaring the election void.
(ii) 'Om' is regarded by Hindus as having high spiritual or mystical
-efficacy: it is used at the commencement cf the recit:-.tions of religious
prayers.
But the attribute of spiritual sigflificance will not necessarily
impart to its use on a :flag the character of a n:ligious symbol within
the meaning of s. 123.
A symbol stands for or represents something·
material or abstract. To be a religious symbol, there must be a visible
representation of a thinJ?: of concept ~hich is religions. To •om• high
'lpiritual or mystical e:f!cacy is undoubtedly ascribed, but its use on
6 S.C.R.
. SUPREME COURT Rl<:i'ORTS
751
a flag does not symbolise religion or anything
religious.
The High
Court err~ in holding that the 'Om' flag \vas a relicious sytnbol and
its use in an election comes within the purview of cl. (3) of 1. 123
-Of. the Ac I.
(iii) Clause (3) of •· 123 of the Act must be read in the light of
the fund, mental right which is guaranteed by Art. 29(1) of tho
.Constitutio.n; the clause "annot be read as tresyassing upon the fuoda~
mental right under Art. 29(1).
Artic\e 29( I) of the Constitution has conferred the right, amona
-others, to conse1ve their language upon the citiLCm of India.
Right
to conserve the language of the citizens ~nclndcs the right to agitate
far protection of the language. Political agitation for conservation of
'the language of a section of the ciuzens cannot therefore he regarde4
" a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(3) of the Act.
lamuna Prasad Mukhariya and Ors. v. Lachhi Ram •nd Ors., [195S]1
S.C.R. 608, distinguished.
(iv) The corrupt practice d•flrted bx cl. (3) of s. 123 ii com1111tted
when an appeal is made either' to vote or. refrain from· v0ting on tho
*round ot a candidate's language! lt is the. appeal to ·ithe ~lectorate
on a ground personal to the candi'date relating to his laneuage which
.attracts tte b!tn of s. 100 read with s. 123("l). Therefore it is only
when the electcrs are asked to vote or not to vote beca 11se of the
particular language of the candidate that a corrupt practice may he
deemed to be committed. Where, however, for con3ervation of language
of the electorate appeals are made to the electorate and promises are
:given thal steps \Vculd be taken to conserve that language, nlaking af
such appeals or promises will not amount to a corrupt practice.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 936
<>f 1963.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 31,
1963, ol the Punjab High Court in First Appeal from Order
No. 2/3 o.f 1963.
Purshotham Trikamdas, Rajinder Nath Mitta/, R. B.
Datar, V. Kumar, B. P. Singh and Naunit Lal, for the
appellant,
G. S. Pathak, Bawa Shiv Charan Singh, Hardev Singh,
f{ajendra Dhawan, Anand Prakash and Y. Kumar, for
respondent No. 1.
196#
l41dtv
Sii:ll
v.
Pratop
Singh
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[rg64J
161
kgdeY
February 12, 1964. -The J udgrnent of the Court was
Singh delivered by:-
...
i.'lrltap
Singh
Shah J.
SHAH, J.-At the general elections held in February1962 five candidates contested the election to the House of
the People from the Jhajjar parliamentary constituency. 011
February 27, I 962 the appellant Jagdev Singh Sidhanti was
declared elected.
Pratap Singh Dauila who was one of thccandidates at the election then filed a petition with the El~c
tion Commission praying, inter a/ia, that the election of th•
appel!ant be declared void on the ground that the appellantSLcJhanti-his agents, and other persons with his consent,
had committed certain corrupt practices in connection witb.
the election. Daulta stated that the appellant Sidhanti w:u
set up as a candidate to contest the election by the Hariana
_ Lok Samiti, that the appellant and six other personsPiare Lal Bhajnik, Ch. Badlu Ram, Pt. . Rudh Dev, Prof.
Sher Singh, Mahashe Bharat Singh and Acharya Bhagwan
Dev who were leaders and active workers of the GurukuJ
-Section of the Arya Samaj had organised a political movement called "the Hindi agitation" in 1957 the real object of
which was to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between
the Sikh and the Hindu communities in the State of Punjab
"on the ground of religion and language" to promote their
prospects in the general elections to be held in 1962. and for
that purpose they held meetings in the Hariana region of tho
Punjab and appealed to the electorate to vote for Sidhantt
"on the ground of his religion and language", and used a
religious symbol-a flag called "Om Dhwaj" in all the~
meetings, that the _appellant himself made similar appeals le>
the electorate and appealed to them to refrain from votins
for Daulta who was a sitting ipember of the House of th•
People from the constituency stating that he-Daulta--wat
an enemy of the Arya Samaj and of the Hindi language.
that during the election campaign fifteen meetings were held
between December JO, 1961 and February 18. 1962 anc! at
all these meetings appeals were made to the electorate on th•
ground of religion and language of Sidhanti, and attempts
were made to promote feelings of enmity and hatred betwee11
Sikhs and Hindus of the Punjab. Allegations about unducinfluence on the voters in the exercise of their free electoral
right were also made in the petition, a12d details of th~
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
753
alleged corrupt practices were furnished in the schedule
annexed to the petition.
Sidhanti denied that the six persons who were named as
his agents and supporters ever acted as his agents in his election campaign and submitted that they were merely interested
in the success of the candidates set up by the Hariana Lok
Samiti and acted throughout "on their own and not as his
agents".
He also submitted that the Hariana Lok $qmiti
had no connection with the Arya Samaj, it being a political
organization started by Prof. Sher Singh who was an important political leader in the Hariana region.
Sidhanti admitted that he had participated in the meetings to canvass vntes,
but claimed that he was not responsible for convening the
meetings or for the speeches made by others in those meet·
ings, that the Om flag was not a religious symbol and denied
that it was used on any occasion by him or his agents or the
six persons named by Daulta in his petition, except Bh~gwan
Dev who was accustomed "throughout his career" to carry
a pennant with "Om" and his own name inscribed thereon
on his motor vehicle, but carrying of such a flag or pennant
on Bhagwan Dev's vehicle during the election was not with
his (Sidhanti's) consent and that it did not amount co commission of a corrupt practice as defined in the Act, that the
residents of Hariana area were mainly Hindi-speaking, but
the Government of Punjab had made Punjabi langu~ge in
Gurmukhi script a compulsory subject at various level~ of
school education and this gave rise to a wide-spread agitation
against the policy of the Government, that to resist the implementation of the policy and the programme of the Government in the administrative, economic and developmental
spheres and to mitigate the hardships of the residents t'f the
Hariana region and to secure redress of their grievances the
Hariana Lok Samiti was formed, and an appeal to the
electorate to secure a reversal of the policies and programme
of the Government was not. it was submitted, an appeal
on the ground of language or religion and did not amount
to a corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123 of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The Tribunal held, inter alia, that the "Om flag" was
not a "religious symbol" of the Arya Samaj, that no satisfactory proof was adduced that Om flag had been used as a
134-159 S.C.-48
196f
laf(l1v
Sln1h
••
Pratap
Singh
Shah /.
19M
Jagdev
Slnglt
v.
Pratap
Singh
Shah J.
754
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
symbol of Arya Sarnaj or that an appeal to secure votes with
the aid of the flag was made to the electorate by Sidhanti or
by any one else with his consent, that there was no satisfactory evidence to establish that appeals were made to the
electorate to vote for Sidhanti or to refrain from voting for
the other candidates on the ground of religion or language,
and that the applicant Daulta failed to prove that an appeal
on the ground of caste, community or religion or language
had been made to the electorate to further the prospects of
Sidhanti or to prejudicially affect the election of the other
candidates. On these ,and findings recorded on other issues
not material in this appeal, the petition filed by Daulta was
dismissed by the Election Tribunal.
Daulta prefered an appeal against that order to the High
Court of Judicature for Punjab. The High Court held that
the word "Orn" is a religious symbol of the Hindus in general and of the Hindus belonging to the section known as Arya
SamaJ in particular and that the flag bearing the inscription
"Om" is a religious symbol, that "Om Dhwaj" was flown
during the election campaign on the election offices of the
Hariana Lok Samiti especially at Sampla and Rohtak, that
the. Samiti office was used by Sidhanti for his election campaign, that Hariana Lok Samiti was generally using the "Om
Dhwaj" to further the prospects of its candidates, that out of
the agents and supporters of Sidhanti "Bharat Singh at least
once and Bhagwan Dev invariably used" the Om flag on
their vehicles while attending the meetings convened by the
Hariana Lok Samiti in furtherance of the election campaign
of Sidhanti, that the Om flag was flying "on the panda! of
the meeting" held at Majra Dubaldhan on January 19, 1962
when Sidhanti
and his agents and supporters
delivered
speeches in support of the election campaign and that at the
meeting held at Rohtak town, Piare Lal Bhajnik sang a song
in the presence of Sidhanti, the purport of which was that
the honour of the Om flag should be upheld, that Bhagwan
Dev was using the Om flag with the consent of Sidhanti and
that Piare Lal Bhajnik at the Rohtak town meeting also sang
the song in honour of the Om flag with the consent of Sidhanti.
The High Court further held that the appellant had delivered
speeches at Majra Dubaldhan in the panda/ on which the
Om flag was flying, that as even an isolated act of the use
6 ~.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
755
of or appeal to the Om flag may constitute a corrupt
practice under s. 123(3) that corrupt practice by Sidhanti
and his agents and by his supporters with his consent was
established.
The High Court also held that Sidhanti had
appealed for votes on the ground of his language and hi\d
asked the electorate to refrain from voting for Daulta on
the ground of the language of the latter, and such appeals
constituted a corrupt practice. The High Court accordingly
allowed the appeal and declared the election of Sidhanti
void under s. lOO(l)(b) of the Act. Against the order this
appeal is preferred with certificate granted by the High
Court.
Two principal questions which survive for determination
in this appeal are:
( 1) Whether a religious symbol was used in the
course of election by the appellant, his agents
or other persons with his consent in furtherance
of the prospects of his election; and
(2) Whether appeals were made to the electorate by
Sidhanti, his agents or other persons with bi<
consent to vote in his favour on account of his
language and to refrain from voting in favour
of Daulta on the ground of his language.
1n order to appreciate the plea raised by counsel for the
parties and their bearing on the evidence it may be useful to
refer to the political background in the Hariana region and
the constituency in particular, in which corrupt practices are
alleged to have been committed. The territory of the State
of Punjab is divided into two regions-the 'Hindi-speaking
region' and the 'Punjabi-speaking region'. The Hindispeaking region is very largely populated by Hindus, while in
the Punjabi-speaking region the population is approximately
equally divided between the Hindus and Sikhs. In the
Punjab before the partition, Urdu and English were the
two official languages.
After the partition a controversy
about the official language arose. The Government of Punjab
decided to replace Urdu and English by Hindi in the Hindispeaking region and Punjabi in the Punjabi-speaking region,
and for that purpose a scheme called the 'Sachar formula'
was devised. the salient feature of which was that every
student reading in the Punjab schools, by the time he passed
19M
Jagtkv
Singh
••
Pratap
Singh
Shah J.
1964
Jagdev
Singh
••
Pratap
Singh
Shah /.
756
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
his matriculation examination should be proficient both in
Hindi and Punjabi. Under the scheme two Regional Committees were formed-one known as the
Hindi Regiona I
Committee and the other the Punjabi Regional Committee.
The function of the
Committees was to advise the' local
Government in matters of finance and other related matters.
There was great resentment against the formation of the
Regional Committees and the implementation of the Sachar
formula which resulted in the launching of a movement called "the Hindi agitation". The agitation against the language policy of the Government gained strength and there was
a great mass movement in 1957 in the entire State of Punjab.
In the last week of December 1957 there was a settlement
between the
organisers of the
movement
and the State
Government and the movement was called off. It appears
that some of the leading figures in this agitation attempted
to make political capital out of this movement and set themselves up as probable candidates for the next election.
In the Arya Samaj in the Punjab there are two major
sections, one called the 'Gurukul Section' and the
other
called the 'College Section'. The Gurukul Section is again
divided into the Hariana Section and the Mahashe Krishna
Section. It is the case of Daulta that it is the Gurukul
Section of the Araya Samaj relying upon the religious
and linguistic differences which sought to make at the
time of the election, appeals to religions and use of
religious symbols.
As we have already observed, Daulta
challenged the election on the ground that Sidhanti,
his election and other agents committed many corrupt
practices. Before the Tribunal he restricted his case
to the corrupt practices falling within els.
( 2). ( 3)
and (3A) of s. 123 of the Representation of the People Act
1951.
His plea of undue influence falling within cl. (2) failed before the Tribunal and also before the High Court, and
it has not been relied upon before us.
Similarly his plea
that Sidhanti, his election and other agents had promoted or
attempted to promote, feelings of enmity or hatred between
different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion,
race, caste, community, or language was negatived by the
Tribunal and also by the High Court and that plea also does
not fall to be deiermined by us.
Dauila had also alleged
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
757
that appeals were made by Sidhanti and his election and
other agents, to the electorate to vote for him or refrain from
voting for Daulta on the ground of his--Sidhanti's-religion
and language and
that Sidhanti and his agents used and
appealed to religious symbols such as the Om flag for the
furtherance of the prospects of the election of Sidhanti and
for prejudicially affecting the election of Dauila. It is on
this last question about the use of and appeal to religious
symbols and appeal to the language of the two candidates
for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of Sidhanti
that the Tribunal and the High Court have differed.
It may be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the
Act. before dealing with
the matters in dispute.
Section
100(1) sets out the grounds on which an election may be
declartd void.
In so far as that section is material in the
present appeal, it provides:
"Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) if the
Tribunal is of opinion.-
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
*
•
•
*
•
that any corrupt practice has been committed by
returned candidate or his election agent or by
any other person with the consent of a returned
candidate or his election agent:
• •
• •
• •
• •
•
*
the Tribunal shall declare the election of the
returned candidate to be void."
By sub-s. (2) if in the opinion of the Tribunal. a returned
candidate has been guilty by an agent, other than his election
agent, of any corrupt practice but the Tribunal is satisfied
(a) that no such corrupt practice was committed at
the election by the candidate or his election
agent, and every such corrupt practice was committed contrary to the orders and without the
consent of the candidate or his election agent;
(b)
•
•
•
*
•
(c) that the candidate and his election agent took all
reasonable means for preventing the commission
of corrupt practice at the election; and
1964
Jagdev · Singh
••
Pratap
Singh
Shah J.
1961
JQld"
Singh
••
Pratap
Singh
.~hah J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(d) that in all other respects the . election was free
from any corrupt practice on the part of the
candidate or any of his agent,
the Tribunal may decide that the election of the returned
candidate is not void.
Section 123 sets out what shall be
deemed to be corrupt practices for the purpose of the Act.
Clause (3) as amended by Act 40 of 1961, which alone is
material in this appeal, provides:
"The appeal by a candidate or his agent or by any
other person with the consent of a candidate or
his election agent to vote or refrain from voting
for any person on the ground of his religion.
race, caste, community or language or the use
of, or appeal to, religious symbols, such as the
national flag or the national emblem, for the
furtherance of the prospects of the election of
that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the
election of any candidate."
The clause falls into two parts (i) an appeal by a candidate,
his' agents or by other persons with the consent of the candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for
any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language; and (ii) use of or appeal to religious
symbols, national symbols or national emblem.~ for the furtherance of the prospects of the election of the candidate or
for prejudicially affecting
the election of any candidate.
The first part in terms makes it a condition that the appeal
is made by a candidate or his agent or any other person with
the consent of the candidate or his agent.
There is no reference in the second part to the person by whom the use of,
or appeal to, the religious or the national symbols, such as
the national flag or the national emblem may be made, if
such use of or appeal to them has been made to further the
prospects of the election of the candidate or to prejudicially
affect the election of any candidate.
But it is implicit in
s. 123(3), having regard to the terms of s. 100, that the use
of or appeal to the national or religious symbols must be
made by the candidate or his election agent or by some other
person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent,
before it can be regarded as a ground for declaring the election void. If the evidence on the record fails to establish
\
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
759
the responsibility for the use of or appeal to the religious or
national symbols by the returned candidate or by his election
agent or by any other person with his consent or his election
agent, no ·ground for setting aside the election may be deemed to be made out.
The first question to which we must then turn is, whether
the "Om flag" can be regarded as a "religious symbol" within the meaning of s. 123(3).
This question has to be examined in two branches-(i) whether the word "Om" has any
special religious significance, and, (ii) whether
the use of
"Om" on a flag or pennant makes it a religious symbol. If
the respondent Daulta establishes that the "Om flag" is a
religious symbol, the que&tion will arise whether the use of
or appeal to the Om flag was made in the election campaign
for furtherance of his prospects by Sidhanti or by his agents
or other persons with his consent or the consent of his
election agent.
The expression "Om" is respected by the Hindus generally and has a special significance in the Hindu scriptures.
It is recited at the commencement of the 1ecitations of Hindu
religious works. Macdonell in his A Practical Sanskrit
Dictionary states that "Om" is the sacred syllable used in
invocations, at the commencement of prayers, at the beginning and the end of Vedic recitation, and as a respectful salutation: it is a subject of many mystical speculations.
In the
Sanskrit-English Dictionary by Monier-William it is said that
'"Om" is a sacred exclamation which may be uttered at the
beginning and end of a reading of the Vedas or previol.'s!y
to any prayer; it is also regarded as a particle of auspicious
salutation.
But it is difficult to regard "Om" which is a
preliminary to an incantation or to religious books as haVing
religious significance. "Om" it may be admitted is regarded
as having high spiritual or mystical efficacy: it is used at the
commencement of the recitations of religious prayers. But
the attribute of spiritual significance will not necessarily
impart to its use on a flag the character of a religious symbol
in the context in which the .expression religious symbol occur~
in the section with which we are concerned.
A symbol
stands for or represents something material or abstract. In
order to be a religious symbol, there must be a visible
1961
lagdev
Singh
v.
Pratap
Sia1h
Shah /.
J96f
laff/IV
Singh
v.
PNIQp
Singh
Shilli J.
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
representation of a thing or concept which is religious. To
'Om' high spiritual or mystical efficacy is undoubtedly
ascribed; but its use on a flag does not symbolise religion, or
anything religious.
It is not easy therefore to see how the Om flag which
merely is a pennant on which is printed the word 'Om' can
be called a religious symbol.
But assuming that the· Om
flag may be regarded as a religious symbol, the evidence on
the record is not sufficient to establish that by Sidhanti, his
election agents or any other person with his consent or the
consen\ of his election agent, Om flag was used or exhibited,
or an appeal was made by the use of the Om flag to further
the prospects of Sidhanti at the election.
It may be remembered that in the trial of an election
petition, the burden of proving that the election of a successful' candidate is liable to be set aside on the plea that he was
responsible directly or through his agents for corrupt practice~ 'at the election, lies heavily. upon the applicant to establish his case, and unless it is established in both its branches
i.e. the commission of acts which the law regards as corrupt,
and the responsibility of the successful candidate directly or
through his agents or with his consent for its practice not by
mere preponderance of probability, but by cogent and reliable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, the petition
must fail.
The evidence may
be examined bearing this
approach to the evidence in mind.
Between the months of December 10, 1961 and February
18, 1962, fourteen meetings were held in the constituency
as a part of the election campaign of Sidhnti.
These meetings were held at Beri, Barhana, Dighal, Akheri Madanpur,
Sarnpla, Ladpur, Majra Dubaldhan,
Pakasma. Assaudha.
Jhajjar, Badlt,. Dulehra, Sisana and Bahadurgarh.
There
was, it is claimed by the applicant. one more meeting on
February 4,
1962, at Rohtak
town which is outside the
Jhajjar constituency.
The Tribunal held that the evidence
was not sufficient to prove that in the meetings at Beri, Barhana, Dighal, Sampla, Ladpur, Pakasma. Assaudha, Jhajjar,
Badli, Dulehra, Sisana and Bahadurgarh 'Om' flag was exhibited in furtherance of the election prospects of Sidhanti and
with that view the High Court bas agreed.
The Tribunal
6 S.C.B:.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
also held that there was no reliable evidence that at Majra
Dubaldhan on January 19, 1962, and at Rohtak town on
February 4, 1962, 'Om' flag was used as a religious symbol.
On this part of the case, however, the High Court disagreed
with the Tribunal.
Rohtak town was not, but Rohtak suburban area was, within the constituency in which Daulta
and Sidhanti were contesting the election.
Therefore the
only meeting which took place within the constituency where
Sidhanti and Daulta contested the election in which according to the High Court the Om flag was used was at Majra
Dubaldhan held on January 19, 1962. Six witnesses directly
spoke about the details of that meeting, beside Sidhanti.
Sidhanti said generally that the evidence given by the witnesses for Daulta regarding what transpired at Majra Dubaldhan and three other meetings was not true.
The witnesses
for Daulta were Roop Ram, Sukhi Ram and Ramdhari Balmiki.
The witnesses who supported the case of the appellant were Piare Lal, Prof. Sher Singh and Jug Lal. It may
be observed that the High Court placed no reliance upon the
testimony of Ramdhari Balmiki and no arguments have been
advanced before us suggesting that his testimony was reliable.
Roop Ram-a police constable-has
deposed that
about mid-day on January 19, 1962, a meeting was held at
Majra Dubaldhan and that at that meeting Piare Lal sang a
bhajan about the Om flag and he saw the Om flag flying on
the panda/ of the meeting which was attended by four to
five thousand persons.
According to the witness
Nanhu
Ram, Badlu Ram, Jagdev Singh Sidhanti, Bhagwan Dev,
Ramdhani Balmiki, Attar Singh, Prof. Sher Singh and
Acharya Bhagwan Dev made speeches, that Acharya Bhagwan Dev in the course of his speech asked people not to vote
for Daulta but to vote for the candidate who was seeking
election on the Hariana Lok Samiti ticket. In cross-examination he admitted that he had been supplied with a copy
of the report which he had made to the D.l.G., C.I.D ..
Chandigarh, and that he had gone through the report two
or three times, before he gave evidence. The Tribunal ref1Jsed to place reliance upon the testimony of this witness
and of another police constable Ganesh Dass who claimed to
have remained present in the various political meetings. It
appears that the witness had memorised the so-called reports
and the same were not made available to counsel for Sidhanti
1961
lagdev
Singh
••
Pratap
Singh
~hah J.
1964
Jagdev
Singh
v.
Pratap
Singh
Shah I
762
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
to challenge the truth of. the statements made by the witnesses. The High Court has not given any adequate reasons
for accepting the testimony of the witness, when the Tribunal
which had opportunity of seeing the witness and noting his
demeanour had refused to accept the testimony.
Sukhi Ram deposed that he was a sarpanch of Dubaldhan Panchayat for about two years, and that he was present
at the meeting convened by the Hariana Lok Sarniti on
January 19, 1962, for canvassing votes for the candidates
of Hariana Lok Sarniti, that Prof. Sher Singh and Sidhanti
came in a jeep on which there was flying flag with 'Orn'
inscribed thereon, that he saw several other vehicles flying
the Orn flag and that the vehicle in which he went to the
meeting also was carrying the Om flag. The Tribunal was of
the view that the facts elicited in the cross-examination of
this witness disclosed that his recollection about other meetings which he had a !tended was poor, whereas his recollection about the meeting held at Ma jra Dubaldhan was very
clear, and that the reasons given by the witness for specially
remembering the details of the proceedings of the meeting
in Majra Dubaldhan and not of other meetings could not
be accepted. In the view of the Tribunal the witness was
interested in Daulta, and this inference was supported by the
fact that Dauila had sent him a copy of his election petition
before it was even presented to the Election Commission.
It also appears that the evidence given by this witness was
inconsistent with the summary of the meeting given in Sch.
'D' to the petition and for this reason according to the Tribunal the testimony of the witness "did not carry conviction"
and "it was not safe to rely upon it". The High Court after
summarising the effect of the evidence observed that it did
not appear from the deposition given by the witness that
be was in any manner interested in Dauila. In so observing
the High Court appears unfortunately to have lost sight of
the grounds given by the Tribunal.
Witness Piare Lal stated that he was present at the meetine held at Majra Dubaldhan and that none of the speakers
suggested that the electors should vote on the ground of
caste, creed, religion or language.
He also stated that at
-.
b S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
none of the meetings there was any Om flag either inside or
outside the panda! of the meetings. Prof. Sher Singh who
was another witness examined on behalf of Sidhanti deposed
that slogans shouted in the meetings were political slogans
and that he did not see Om flags in any panda/ of the meetings, and that he had instructed all the candidates and the
members of the Hariana Lok Samiti not to use any flag or
symbol other than the symbol allotted to them.
Jug Lal,
another witness examined on behalf of Sidhanti, stated that
at the meeting at Majra Dubaldhan on January 19, 1962,
there were no Om flags to be seen anywhere either inside or
outside the meeting and that there were no Om flags flying
on any of the vehicles. The testimony of the witnesses Piare
Lal, Prof. Sher Singh and Jug Lal was discarded by the
High Court, because in their view the witnesses were interested in Sidhanti. Even if this view about the evidence of these
three witnesses is accepted, the evidence led on behalf of
Daulta of witnesses Sukhi Ram, Ramdhari Balmiki is wholly
unreliable and the testimony of police constable Roop Ram
is also not such that implicit reliance can be placed upon it.
We are unable, therefore, to agree with the High Court
in the conclusion it has reached that it had been proved
satisfactorily that Om flag was flown at Majra Dubaldhan
where Sidhanti and other speakers delivered
~peeches in
furtherance of the election campaign.
The only other meeting at which it is found by the High
Court that the Om flag was used in the meeting at Rohtak
town on February 4, 1962, which town, it is common ground,
is not within the Jhajjar parliamentary constituency from
which Sidhanti and Daulta were contesting the election.
It
is, however, said that Rohtak suburban area is within the
Jhajjar parliamentary constituency and as there is a grain
market in Rohtak town and a large number of voters from
the Jhajjar constituency assemble in that town a meeting was
held by Sidhanti in which Om flag were exhibited.
The
witnesses in support of the case of Daulta are Ram Nath
Sapra, Dafedar Singh, K. K. Katya! and Satyavrat Bedi. The
principal witnesses who were examined by Sidhanti in respect
of this meeting were Piare Lal, Bharat Singh, Budh Dev.
Prof. Sher Singh and Bhagwan Dev.
1964
Jagdev
Singh
v.
Pratap
Singh
5~•h J.
1964
Jagdev
Singh
v.
Pratap
Singh
Shah J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[r964]
Ram Nath Sapra who is a correspondent of several
newspapers deposed that he had attended the meeting at
Rohtak town at Anaj Mandi 10 or 12 days before the
actual polling. According to the witness there was a big
procession taken out before the meeting which carried flags
either of the symbol of the 'Rising Sun' or of 'Orn', that
he had made reports about the proceedings of the Rohtak
meeting and had sent the report of the same to all the five
papers of which he was the correspondent. The Tribunal
was of the view that the testimony of the witness was unreliable, because he did not remember the details of any
other meeting convened by the other parties, and that he
could not speak about the names of the speakers who took
part in the meeting convened by the Hariana Lok Samiti.
The testimony of the witness therefore was "far from convincing" and the testimony of Sidhanti, Piare Lal, Bharat
Singh, Budh Dev, Prof. Sher Singh and Bhagwan Dev was
more reliable.
In corning to the conclusion that the evidence of the witness was unreliable the Tribunal referred
to the details given in Sch. 'D' annexed to the petition under
the heading 'Summary of the meetings' and observed that
the summary was at "complete variance" with the testimony
of the witness. The High Court was of the view that the
witness Ram Sapra was "wholly disinterested" and therefore his evidence must be accepted. The High Court did
not refer to the infirmities disclosed in the testimony of the
witness, particularly the discrepancies
between the statement of Dauila in his petition and the testimony given by
this witness.
Witness Dafedar Singh who is a police constable said
that he had been deputed to report about the proceedings
of the meeting.
His version is, also different from the version as given in Sch. 'D' annexed to the petition.
The High
Court has not referred to the testimony of this witness in
support of its conclusion and nothing more need be said
about him.
K. K. Katya! said that he had attended the meeting at
Rohtak town as a special correspondent of the Hindustan
Times, Delhi and that he recollected
that flags with a
symbol of 'Orn' inscribed thereon were seen flying on some
6 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT H.EPORTS
vehicles but it was not possible for him to say who owned
those vehicles, but from the flags and placards carried on
the vehicles it appeared that they were of the Hariana Lok
Samiti. He also deposed that he had gone to the office of
the Hariana Lok Samiti at Rohtak and saw a similar flag
flying on the building of the office.
He admitted in crossexamination that he did not visit any office of the Hariana
Lok Samiti either at Bahadurgarh or at Sampla as all his
attention was confined to the central office of the Hariana
Lok Samiti at Rohtak.
He also stated that he had seen
some shopkeepers in Samp1a and Bahadurgarh flying Om
flags on their stalls. In the view of the Tribunal the testimony of this witness was vague and no reliance could be
placed thereon.
While generally agreeing with this view,
the High Court observed that the testimony of the witness
Katya! that the Om flag was flying at the office of the
Hariana Lok Samiti at Rohtak which was the headquarters
ofhce and In the procession which was led by Bharat Singh
a number of Om flags were seen may be accepted.
Satyavrat Bedi who is staff correspondent of the Indian
Express stated that during his survey of the election
campaign he visited Sampla, Bahadurgarh and Rohtak in
one day, and made his report about his observations to the
newspaper Indian Express, in which he had recorded that
religious synibols and religion were being frequently used
for damaging the chances of success of Daulta, that he
had seen a large number of flags fluttering on many house
tops. that the flag on the office of the Hariana Lok Samiti
was that of Om and the other organisations had their own
flags, that he saw the Om flag fluttering on the office of
Sidhanti at Sampla but he did not remember whether there
was any flag of 'Om' at his election office at Bahadurgarh.
The Tribunal declined to accept this testimony. The High
Court took a different view and observed that apart from
any other infirmity regarding the use of the reports made
by the witness, the statement made by him about his observation that he had seen the Om flag flying on the office
of the Hariana Lok Samiti and on the motor-vehicle of
Bharat Singh could not be ruled out: It must be remembered however that we are concerned at this stage with the
190
Jagdev
Singh
••
Pratap
Singh
Shah J.
1961
Jar;dev
s;n~h
••
Pratap
Sinpb
Shah J.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
question whether in the meeting at Rohtak on February 4,
1962. Om flags were exhibited. On that part of the case
the evidence of Satyavrat Bedi is not of much use .
Sri Ram Sharma was a candidate for election on behalf
of a political party called "the Hariana Front". He deposed
that he had never attended any procession or meeting organised by the Hariana Lok Samiti but he had seen the motorvehicles employed by the Hariana Lok Samiti carrying Om
flags which were used by the candidates of the Hariana Lok
Samiti. He stated that he contributed a number of articles
to Hariana Tilak, Rohtak, founded by him in which he had
published on January 4, 1962, an article condemning the
use of the Om flag for the purpose of elections. The article
published on January 4, 1962, can have no bearing on the
use of the flag at Rohtak in the meeting dated February 4,
1 \162.
The High Court did not place any relian1,-e upon
the testimony of this witness.
This is all the evidence on behalf of Daulta to which our
attention was invited by counsel for the parties that at the
meeting at Rohtak on February 4, 1962, Om flags were
exhibited and appeals were made to the flag as a religious
symbol.
Apart from the general infirmity of the testimony,
the Tribunal refused to accept the evidence of the witnesses
on the ground that their statements considerably departed
from the summary given in Sch. 'D' by the petitioner Daulta
himself.