BECHARBHAI MADHABHAI PALSANA Vs. DILIPBHAI SANGHANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, under the provisions contained in Part VI of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 [ for short "the Act" ], the petitioner had called in question, the election of Respondent No.1 Dilipbhai Sanghani who has been declared elected as a member of the Lok Sabha on the 7 Amreli Parliamentary Constituency by Notification dated June 17,1991, on the ground that Respondent No.1 and/or his election agent had, during the election campaigning which preceded the election which was held on June 15,1991, resorted to various corrupt practices within the meaning of that expression as used in Sec. 123 of the Act

(2.) According to the petitioner, Respondent No.1 and/or his election agent and/or others with the consent of Respondent no.1 and/or his election agent - Respondent No.2 - had committed corrupt practice of undue influence as defined in Secs. 123(2), 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Act The nomination papers for the Lok Sabha election which took place on June 15,1991 were required to be filed between April 19,1991 and April 26,1991. As per the original calender of election, the polling was to take place on May 26, 1991. However, the date of polling was subsequently adjourned to June 15,1991, and on June 15,1991, the polling took place. It is also the case of the petitioner that one Purshottam Rupala, who happened to be the President of Bharatiya Janta Party, Amreli District, was the election agent of Respondent No. 1. I may mention here that said Purshotttam Rupala was joined in the petition as Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Manubhai Kotadia, who was main rival candidate against Respondent No.l at the aforesaid election was also joined as Respondent No. 3 to the petition. However, the names of Purshottam Rupala- Respondent No. 2, and Manubhai Kotadia - Respondent No. 3, have been deleted by the court's order. Therefore, now only Dilipbhai Sanghani - the returned candidate - remains as the Respondent to the petition, and I will hereinafter refer to him as "the Respondent".

(3.) According to the petitioner, as an election strategy, a religious organisation named Vishwa Hindu Parishad ("VHP" for short) brought all relligious heads of Hindu Religion all throughout the country, and All India Dharmasabha was held which decided to actively campaign for vote in general election for the party which will construct the temple of Lord Ram at Ayodhya, delete Article 370 from the Constitution of India and establish Hindu Religious Rule in the country. It may be noticed that at the aforesaid election, the Respondent was a candidate of Bharatiya Janta Party ("BJP" for short), while Mr. Manubhai Kotadia was as originally impleaded as Respondent No. 3 was a candidate of Janta Dal. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in order to support BJP, VHP resorted to different types of media propagands. It is averred in the petition that VHP started campaigning for BHP by organising Dharma Sabha in different parts of the constituency right from March, 1991, and also started DHARMACHAKRA RATH moving in different parts of the constituency and Dharma Sabhas. In all those meetings, according to the petition, the main thrust of the propaganda was by high-lighting the three demands referred to hereinabove, viz. (i) to construct the temple of Lord Ram at Ayodhya; (ii) to delete Article 370 from the Constitution of India ; and (iii) to establish Hindu Religious Rule in the country. It is the case of the petitioner that BJP had also raised three demands similar to those raised by VHP, viz. to construct the temple of Lord Ram at Ayodhya, to delete Article 370 from the Constitution of India, and to establish Hindu Religious Rule in the country. It is the contention of the petitioner that as far as he is aware, some of the objectives canvassed by VHP for achievement (of its goal) are also the part of election manifesto of BJP.