SHEIKH MOHAMED ARSHAD FAIZULLA Vs. DEVIDAS VITHAL SALSINGIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order made by the 10th respondent, the Additional Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bombay, on July 16, 1975 in Election Petition No. M/261 of 1973. The election petition was preferred by the 1st respondent Devidas Vithal Salsingiar challenging the election of the petitioner Dr. Sheikh Mohamed Arshad Faizulla at a municipal election for Ward No. 96, Squatters Colony, Jogeshwari, Bombay, held on March 9, 1973 AT that election, the petitioner secured the highest number of votes, namely, 4,705, whereas the 1st respondent secured the next highest number of votes, namely, 4,353. The Additional Chief Judge by the impugned order set aside the election of the petitioner and declared the 1st respondent to have been duly elected at the said election.

(2.) Respondents 2 to 7 are the other candidates who had contested the election. Respondent No. 8 is the Municipal Commissioner for Greater Bombay, Respondent No. is the Municipal Corporation of Greeters Bombay. The Petitioner had contested the election as an official candidate of the Muslim League. The 1st respondent had contested it as an official candidate of the Shiv Sena.

(3.) There does not appear to be any dispute that the total population of the constituency in question was 48,582 of whom only 20 per cent were non- Hindus. The strength of voters from the constituency was 23,40. The main challenge to the election of the petition by the 1st respondent in his petition was that prior to the election on March 9, 1973, several meetings were held in the constituency on 2nd, 3rd 4th, 5th and 6th March 1973 and those meetings were addressed by Shri Banatwala. the President of the Muslim League, and others. The petitioner was present at most of those meetings. At those meetings, the leaders of the Muslim League, with the connivance of the petitioner, made speeches which were highly communal and anti-national and had the effect of promoting feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on the ground of religion. Appeals were also made to the voters in those meetings to vote for the petitioner in the name of religion. It was on account of this king of propaganda at those meetings that the Muslim voters, who would not have possibly voted for the petitioner, had voted for him. The appeal to the voters on the ground of religion had consequently materially affected the result of the election. There were other allegations also, but we are not concerned with those allegations in this petition.