VATAL NAGARAJ Vs. R DAYANAND SAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The locale of this election litigation, now at the appellate stage, lies in Bangalore, an industrial city inhabited by a blend of multi-religious poly-lingual communities. But, when a pathological power-scramble is on, the politics of stoop-to-conquer shows up in forms of unscrupulous opportunism and investment in group hatred and the Chamarajpet constituency in Bangalore City is alleged to have been injected by this virus by the appellant at about the time the State Assembly elections in March 1972 were held. If multi-form corruption corrodes the electoral process - and that is the imputation here - the 'gutter can come to power', to adapt a phrase used in a different context by a great writer. Judging by the general trend of vice and violation organised as election strategy, only glimpses of which Judges get in election cases, we wonder whether parties and individuals who practice these oblique techniques, fully realise the moral of the Frankenstein's monster episode. These dark forebodings, however, do not deter us from applying the sound tests laid down by a long line of cases in interpreting the provisions and evaluating the evidence in election cases. Our task has, however, become more uneasy because both sides have liberally contributed dubious testimony in a bid to win their respective cases.

(2.) A brief diary of events will bring into focus the issues over which the forensic controversy has raged. Sixteen persons filed nomination papers from the Chamarajpet constituency, six discreetly withdrew and the surviving ten went into battle on March 5, 1972 the date set for the poll. The voting strength of this constituency was 97,379 but the actual votes polled were only 52,720. While the D. M. K. and the Muslim League made a relatively good showing securing over 7,000 votes each, the real bout was between the appellant, an Independent glamourised as a heroic agitator for Kannada, the language of the vast majority of the people of the then Mysore State and the 1st respondent, a Congress Party candidate enjoying consequential advantages. The appellant won, pooling 15, 486 but the 1st respondent was close behind with 14,412. It is an uneasy feature that in our electoral system, even with hot contest as here, sometimes only half the voters turn up to exercise their franchise and he who gets 15 per cent of the total votes of a constituency acquires the right to speak and act as its plenary proxy in the Legislature. We do not regard this aspect as falling within our province since this vexed question is Parliament's concern. Anyway, the infirmity of the poll victory agitated before us is that even this 15 per cent was the product of illegal tactics sufficient to invalidate the election of the appellant and, what is more pathetic, the further relief sought is that the one who got only 14 per cent. i. e., the 1st respondent, should be declared the authentic elected member of Chamarajpet.

(3.) The charges made by the 1st respondent to demolish the declaration of the appellant made by the Returning Officer on March 11, 1972 relate to certain malpractices between February 11, 1972 and March 5, 1972. It is a melancholy reflection on the 1st respondent's methodology of winning his election petition that he has adduced evidence, some of which bears traces of forgery and tricky photography backed by perjury. This finding by the trial Court has not been shaken in argument before us. One should have expected a legislative aspirant representing a national party, an ex-Deputy Minister and barrister, to be cleaner in Court while charging his opponent with corrupt practices at the polls.