C R MAHESH Vs. R RAMACHANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This election petition is filed under Sections 100(1)(b) and 123(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951 (for short R.P. Act 1951) by C.R. Mahesh, who is the defeated candidate in the election held on 16.05.2016, to the (116) Karunagappally Assembly Constituency of the Kerala Legislative Assembly, challenging the election of the respondent R. Ramachandran, who is the returned candidate from the above constituency. Petitioner contested in the election as the official candidate of Indian National Congress (I), the main constituent of the United Democratic Front (for short 'UDF' ) and the respondent was the candidate of communist Party of India (CPI) a constituent of Left Democratic Front (for short 'LDF').

(2.) The petitioner's case is that the respondent and his Chief Election Agent, Mr. Soman Pillai, who is also the Secretary of the LDF Election Committee, Karunagappally, during election campaign had made personal vilification against him by attacking personal character and conduct of the petitioner due to political rivalry. They published notice among the voters of the constituency making personal accusation which are false, on behalf of the Left Democratic Youth Front (for short 'LDYF'), which is a combination of several Youth organisations of the Left Democratic Constituents. It was alleged in the notice that "the petitioner visited several foreign countries, he travelled in a vehicle belonging to the leader of Rashtreeya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS), he had spent crores of rupees for election propaganda, he tortured a Dalit girl, he is a fraudulent person and he supported BJP candidate in the Grama Panchayat election in his home ward". These allegations in the notice are false which is only to attack him personally and made to tarnish the secular image of the petitioner among minority community such as Muslims and Christians. The publication of Annexure-A notice by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent of any statement which is false and he believes to be false in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, therefore, would be a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the R P Act, 1951, hence the petitioner prays to declare the election of the respondent as void u/s.100(1) (b) of the R P Act, 1951.

(3.) The respondent in his written statement contended that the election petition and annexures are not properly verified. The affidavit contemplated under Rule 94A of the Conduct of Election Rules does not contain the necessary facts. Annexure-A notice was not published and distributed in the constituency by the respondent or his election agent or any other person with the consent and knowledge of the respondent or election agent and there is no organisation in the name of LDYF. Annexure-A will not be a corrupt practice contemplated u/s.123(4) of Representation of People's Act and it does not contain any facts reflecting the personal character of the petitioner and all allegations found in Annexure-A are with respect to the political activity undertaken by the petitioner. There is no pleading in the election petition that the alleged publication and distribution of notice was effected with the consent and knowledge of the respondent or his election agent. Specific pleading is necessary with regard to the corrupt practice in an election petition and in the affidavit under Section 123(4) of the R P Act, 1951. Moreover, it has to be pleaded that the respondent or his election agent or the alleged distributors of notice knew that the statements contained in the notice are false. There was no campaign by the respondent or his agent against the petitioner by attacking the personal character and conduct. The agent Mr.Soman Pillai has nothing to do with the alleged printing and publication of the notice. The allegations made in the notice cannot be treated as an attack against personal character of the petitioner, but that can be treated as criticism of political activity undertaken by the petitioner and there is no innuendo in the notice. There is no pleadings that the respondent or his election agent or with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, made the above allegations. Hence, in the absence of necessary pleadings about corrupt practice, the election petition is not maintainable in law and the same is liable to be dismissed.