RAHIM KHAN Vs. KHURSHID AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a plurality of less than 2000 votes the appellant was declared elected from the Nuh constituency to the Haryana Assembly in the general election held on March 11, 1972. He was an Independent candidate while his main rival; the first respondent, represented the Indian National Congress. There were three others in the field two of whom were Independents and the third a Jan Sangh nominee- all of them polled poorly. In the electoral history of the constituency fickle fortune has been smiling now on the appellant, now on the first respondent. It also happens that while the appellant had been a Deputy Minister when he was elected to the Haryana Legislative Assembly last from the same constituency in 1967, at the following general election in May 1968 to the same Assembly (before its term the Assembly was dissolved and the non-Congress Government went out of office) the first respondent was elected and he became a Member of the Cabinet formed by the Congress party. The next election fell in 1972 where both figured as combatants from Nuh and we are concerned with the validity of the result declared in favour of the appellant by the returning officer in the present appeal, the High Court having set aside the election.

(2.) It is apparent that the competitive politics of the Nuh constituency has expressed itself through the appellant and the first respondent for quite a long time now and, as the voting figures of the latest poll shows the contest has been contentious and close. In such battles of the ballot where personal feuds foul the air, the decencies and norms set by the law may often be the first casualty. Anyway the disappointed first respondent hastened to challenge the appellant's election on various grounds of "corrupt practices". The High Court has upheld a few of them and voided the appellant's election, a miss being as good as a mile. The campaign pollutants must 'be kept down at the polls if electoral disenchantment is not to grip the general community. The Court, in this regard, is the sentinel on the quivive.

(3.) Shri Bindra, learned counsel for the appellant, has argued the case in minute detail, countered by Shri Sharma, for the first respondent; but since at the appellate level jejune infirmities and probative trivialities may not tilt the scales even on the principle of Juncta Juvant, we will focus largely on the major circumstances. The correct appellate perspective in an election case has been indicated by this Court and we are bound to set out our sights on those lines. In Laxminarayan v. Returning Officer, AIR 1974 SC 66 at page No. 78 the implied limitations on the appellate power under Section 116-A were stated thus: