HAR GOVIND Vs. PALOO RAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ petitions Nos. 807, 866 and 867 of 1963. In these petitions the petitioners are different persons but the attack is on the same notification dated the 29th of April, 1963, which in the case of Civil Writ No. 807 was published on the 3rd of May and in the case of Civil Writ Nos. 866 and 867 was published on the 10th of May, 1963. By reason of these notifications the elections of these three petitioners to the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, were declared void. The basis on which the Election Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner's elections should be set aside is the same, namely, the poster exhibit P.W. 5/1 in Civil Writ No. 807 of 1963 entitled as "Atma -ki -Awaz."

(2.) ALL the petitioners, namely, Hargobind, Paras Ram and Sudesh Kumar contested the elections to the Municipal Committee, Rohtak, in the month of July, 1961. All of them were declared successful candidates with regard to their respective wards. Their elections were challenged by election petitions filed by Paloo Ram, Narsingh Das and Hira Nand in Civil Writ Nos. 807, 866 and 867 of 1963 respectively. Numbers of grounds were raised in these petitions but all of them were dropped excepting ground in paragraph 6(g). That ground reads thus -

(3.) THE approach to posters published at the time of elections or election speeches, which are made the subject -matter of corrupt practices, in an elections petition, has been settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Jagdev Singh Sidhanti v. Partap Singh Daulta, 1964 Curr. L.J. 231 and Kultar Singh v. Mukhtiar Singh : 1964 Curr. L.J. 268 : (1965) 67 P.L.R. 201. It would be apparent from the close reading of these two authorities that a tirade, however, obnoxious against a political party would be of no consequence and even an indirect appeal to religion would not amount to a corrupt practice. In view of the aforesaid decisions it must be held that the offending portion of the impugned posts does not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of rule 51(xi).