Kerala High Court
C.R.Mahesh vs R.Ramachandan on 15 May, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN
MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/24TH ASWINA, 1939
El.Pet..No. 10 of 2016 ()
--------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------
C.R.MAHESH, S/O. RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI,
AGED 37 YEARS, CHEMPAKASSERIL HOUSE,
THEKKUM MURI WEST, THAZHAVA,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM - 690 523.
BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
RESPONDENT:
--------------
R.RAMACHANDAN, S/O. RAGHAVAN UNNITHAN
AGED 63, KALATHIL HOUSE, KALLELI BHAGAM P.O.
KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690 546.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
R1 BY ADV. SMT.MEENA.A.
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.SAJU.S.A
R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.C.KIRAN
R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.DEVESH
R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINAY MATHEW JOSEPH
R. BY ADV. SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, SC,ELE.COMMN.
R. BY ADV. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION
THIS ELECTION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-10-
2017, THE COURT ON 16.10.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
APPENDIX (EP 10 OF 2016)
PETITIONER'S EXTS.
EXT.P1: NOTICE WITH THE CAPTION "KARUNAGAPPALLYILE JWELIKKUNNNA
CONGRESS YOUVATHWAME........ THANKAL EVIDE AYIRUNNU".
EXT.P1 (a): THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF ANNEXURE A NOTICE
EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE STATE ELECTORAL
OFFICER, KERALA BY SRI IBRAHIMKUTTY.
EXT.P3: NON DELIVERY NOTE DATED 15.5.2016.
EXT.P4: CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ADVOCATE V.R.PRAMOD.
EXT.P5 : LETTER DATE 24.6.2016 RECEIVED FROM PUBLIC INFORMATION
OFFICER, KARUNAGAPPALLY POLICE STATION, UNDER THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ACT.
Lgk
//true copy//
PS TO JUDGE
P.D. RAJAN, J.
-------------------------------------------
Election Petition No. 10 of 2016
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of October, 2017
JUDGMENT
'C R' 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 E.P.No.10/2016 2 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 E.P.No.10/2016 3 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 E.P.No.10/2016 4 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.
4. In view of the above pleadings, following issues/points are raised for consideration:
"(1) Whether this petition is maintainable?
(2) Whether the returned candidate or his agent or by any person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent has made any publication or any statement of facts which is false as stated under Sec.123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951?
(3) If any of the corrupt practice has been proved against the returned candidate, whether the election of E.P.No.10/2016 5 the returned candidate has to be declared void?
(4) Reliefs and Cost."
Petitioner and respondent adduced evidence in support of their contentions. Petitioner's evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1 to PW14 and documentary evidence of Exts.P1 to P5, respondent's evidence consists of oral testimony of RW1.
5. Issue No.1 - (Maintainable, vide separate order).
6. Issue Nos. 2,3 & 4: The ground taken in this case by the petitioner is that Ext.P1 had been published by the respondent and his election agent with their consent and it was distributed by LDYF, the Youth Organisation of Karunagappally LDF Election Committee. Petitioner contested in the election as the official candidate of Indian National Congress (I) which is the main party in the political coalition of UDF who got only 68143 votes. The respondent is the official candidate of Communist Party of India (CPI) a coalition political party of LDF, who got 69902 votes and he won the election by a margin of 1759 votes. It was alleged that Ext.P1 notice contained false statements as to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner which were calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election. When statement of facts made in Ext.P1 related to the personal E.P.No.10/2016 6 character or conduct of the petitioner, the election of the respondent is to be set aside under S.123(4) of the R.P.Act, 1951. In this context I may extract Section S.123 (4) of the R.P.Act, 1951 which reads as follows:
1. * * * * * * *
2. * * * * * * *
3. * * * * * * * "(4) The publication by a candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, of any statement of fact which is false, and which he either believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, or in relation to the candidature, or withdrawal of any candidate, being a statement reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election.
5. * * * * * * *
6. * * * * * * *
7. * * * * *
8. * * * * * Explanation - (1) " In this section the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate".
The ingredient of the sub-section are as follows: (i) publication of any statement of fact by a candidate, or his agent or by any other person with the consent of the candidate or his agent,(ii) that publication should contain a statement of facts which is false, (iii) the person making such publication should either E.P.No.10/2016 7 believe it to be false or does not believe it to be true, (iv) the false statement is in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate; and (v)the said statement is one being reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the other candidate's election. This Section clearly lays down that the responsibility of the candidate for the publication arises if he publishes any notice or pamphlet. Secondly, he is equally responsible for the publication if it is published by his election agent. Thirdly he is responsible where the notice is published by any other person, but with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. In these three situations the responsibility is of the candidate and if the candidate either believes the statement to be false or does not believe it to be true, he would be responsible under S.123(4) of the R.P Act, 1951. In the present case, it was alleged that Ext.P1 was distributed by the respondent and his agent and it was published with their consent.
7. It was stated by the petitioner that Ext.P1 notice was published on behalf of the LDYF Karunagappally Election committee with the consent of the petitioner and his election agent. The English translation of the published notice is marked as Ex.P1(a), which reads as follows:
E.P.No.10/2016 8
"Where were you when the relief works of tsunami in which hundreds of lives were perished in the devastating waves?
Where you were at the time of Puthentheruvu Gas Tanker disaster in which human being charred like moth?
You are the left hand of Oommenchandy, right hand of Chennithala and conscience keeper of K.C.Venugopal which are the development achievements you have obtained for Karunagappally with your influence on Government level?
Where the construction of Chittamoola
Railway Overbridge and Ochira Railway under
bridge accomplished by you through K.C.
Venugopal stands?
Were you the member of Thazhava
Panchayat for five years? What developments you have done with your blazing youth?
From the inception of Thazhava Panchayat, congress ruled till date. How the lotus of BJP bloomed in the ward in which you have born? Do you have any role in it?
While conducting zealous activities during the tri-Panchayat election, why you have resigned the position of Youth Congress Vice President putting the congress in a crisis?
Whether you were the guardian of the E.P.No.10/2016 9 accused in the case of torture of Kadambanad School girls by bringing them to Vallakkadavu and tying? Isn't true that certain accused in this case were your close friends?
Who was the accused in the crime of Karunagappally Police Station for torturing a Dalit girl?
Who appeared as a saviour when some youth congress leaders of Karunagappally sent a lady with gold and money to Kozhikode along with Salim Raj, the close confident of the Chief Minister and taken into custody by the police?
Is there any substance in the allegation in respect of your intermittent foreign trips?
Who was the person who came as savior of R.S.S. Workers when RSS unleashed clash throughout Karunagappally constituency?
Whether the owner of the Maruthi Gipsy (KL 23F 8189) being used by you is RSS leader and native of Thazhava Vipin (Relied on RTO record).
Blazing youth..................
What development in Karunagappally can be made by you, who have not shown any interest at least to construct a Kanjipura (kitchen) for the Adityavilasam Primary School adjacent to your house with your prolonged social work?
How many crores of rupees you have spent for the election propaganda when you have only 8 cents E.P.No.10/2016 10 of land and two grams of gold? Whether the information about the course of funds is true?
Development is not the fraudulent shining of the Khadi worn Not the deceptive collinose smile Not the foolishness of attending uninvited marriage.
Not the fraud of stabbing own party men from the back when opportunity arise A population which realized it is waiting carefully With the strength of won vote To try and take the skin off."
8. In this context, the main aspect to be considered is whether there was any publication of notice by the candidate or his election agent or any other person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. For that, I have examined the oral evidence of the petitioner, who was examined as PW1 in this case. His evidence shows that LDYF, Karunagappally Election Committee had published Ext.P1 notice attacking his personal character and conduct, with the consent and knowledge of the respondent and his Chief Election Agent. He deposed that on 15.5.2016 at 4 p.m, Ansar, the agent of the respondent, who is the Secretary, CPI(M) branch Committee distributed Ext.P1 notice in Varavila area within E.P.No.10/2016 11 the Clapana Panchayat. He knew about the distribution from PW4 Dharmapalan and PW5 Babu, who received Ext.P1 notice. On the same day at 3 p.m., the agent of the respondent Velayudhan Pillai, who is the branch Secretary of CPI, distributed Ext.P1 notice in Thodiyoor area. PW6 Shafeek and one Anshad and Sajith got notices from Velayudhan Pillai. But, Anshad and Sajith were not examined as witnesses. PW1 came to know about the publication of Ext.P1 from Sajith. On the same day at 4 p.m., Sivadasan distributed Ext.P1 in Ochira, which is within booth No.41 of Ochira and one Prakashan received Ext.P1 notice. The petitioner came to know about distribution of Ext.P1 from Gireesh (PW7) at 6 p.m. On the same day, one Pradeep, Branch Secretary of CPI(M) distributed copy of Ext.P1 at Thazhava in booth No.58 of Karunagappally constituency. PW8 Hareesh Kumar and PW12 Raveendran Pillai received copy of Ext.P1. The petitioner knew about the distribution from Gangadharan (PW9) at 6 p.m. on the same day. Ranjith distributed Ext.P1 at Thazhava area on the same day at 4 pm in booth No.66 of Karunagappally Constituency to one Yunus (PW10). On the same day at 4 pm, Ext.P1 was distributed at K.S. Puram within the area of Booth No.87 by one Syam Vishnu to one Shaji and others. The petitioner knew about E.P.No.10/2016 12 the distribution of Ext.P1 from one Irshad Basheer at 7 p.m.
9. PW1 stated that on 15.5.2016, Aneesh distributed Ext.P1 at Karunagappally Municipal area within Booth No.115 to Sunil Kumar and the petitioner came to know about the distribution from one Sumanjith Misha at 7 p.m., but Sunil Kumar and Sumanjith Misha were not examined in this case. On the same day, at 5 p.m., Sreelal distributed copy of Ext.P1 at Alappad within Booth No.19, one Sunil Kumar received Ext.P1 and the petitioner came to know about notice from PW13 Varun Alappad at 7 p.m. Analysing the evidence of PW1, it is clear that some persons, who received Ext.P1 notice were not examined as witnesses, but Pws 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 supported PW1. Even though PW1 deposed so, nothing has been pleaded in his petition that the above persons were members of LDYF and distributed Ext.P1 with the consent of the respondent and his election agent. On the other hand, a reading of the evidence shows that Ext.P1 was published at various places of the constituency by several persons. PW1 has only hearsay information about the distribution and publication, for that he filed a complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer and Ext.P2 is the copy of the complaint. Ext.P3 is the non-delivery note. Ext.P4 is the certificate issued by Adv. Pramod which shows E.P.No.10/2016 13 that the complaint was forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer through his computer. The letter issued by Sub Inspector of Karunagappally is marked as Ext.P5. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that the respondent is a candidate representing the LDF and nothing has been mentioned in Ext.P1 that it was published by LDF election committee. It is pertinent to note that the name of the respondent or his election agent are not mentioned in Ext.P1 notice. But, PW1 during cross examination answered that on a reading of Ext.P1, it has to be presumed that Ext.P1 was published with the consent of the respondent and his election agent.
10. The evidence of PW2 shows that the respondent and his Chief Election Agent distributed Ext.P1 notice throughout Karunagappally Assembly Constituency on 15.5.2016 and he came to know about the distribution from various voters and workers of United Democratic Front (UDF). For that he preferred a complaint to the Chief Electoral Officer by E.mail through the computer of PW3, who is a lawyer at Karunagappally. Since the inbox of the website of the Election Commission was full, Ext.P2 complaint was not delivered to the addressee. It is pertinent to note that PW2 never saw the distribution of Ext.P1 notice by the respondent or E.P.No.10/2016 14 his Election Agent and he has no direct knowledge about it. The office of the Returning Officer, Karunagappally is functioning at Civil Station, Kollam and the office of the Assistant Returning Officer is at Ochira. He never filed any complaint before the Returning Officer or Asst. Returning Officer. PW3 came to know about the distribution of Ext.P1 from one Ibrahim kutty, who was the Chief Election Agent of the petitioner, but he admitted that on 15.5.2016, Ext.P2 complaint was forwarded to the Chief Electoral Officer, Kerala through his E-mail address. He identified Exts.P1, P2, P3 and P4. Analysing the evidence of PW2 and PW3, it is clear that they have no direct knowledge about the distribution of Ext.P1 by the respondent or his election agent.
11. The evidence in its widest sense includes everything which makes a fact evident, but in law the word obtains only a restricted sense. Thus, I have examined whether there is any substance in the oral evidence of the other witnesses. The evidence of PW4 shows that on 15.5.2016, Ansar, the Branch Secretary of CPIM, distributed Ext.P1 notice throughout Karunagappally Assembly Constituency and he told about the distribution to Amal, who was the Booth President of Indian National Congress. PW5 stated that Ext.P1 notice was distributed E.P.No.10/2016 15 throughout the Karunagappally Assembly Constituency by Ansar, who is the Secretary of CPI(M). The evidence of PW6 shows that Velayudhan Pillai, Branch Secretary of CPI, Thazhava distributed Ext.P1 notice throughout Karunagappally Assembly Constituency. The evidence of PW7 shows that Sivadasan, LDF agent, Ochira distributed Ext.P1 notice throughout Karunagappally Assembly Constituency and he came to know about the distribution on 15.5.2016 at 5 p.m. from Sri Prakash. The evidence of PW8 shows that Ext.P1 notice was distributed throughout Karunagappally Assembly Constituency and on 15.5.2016 at 5 p.m, Pradeep, Branch Secretary of CPIM gave one copy to him. Analysing the evidence of above witnesses, it is seen that they have not seen the respondent and his election agent at the time of distribution of Ext.P1 notice. If a fact of distribution is made by the respondent or his election agent, it must be proved by oral evidence and it must be direct oral evidence or in any other manner the law prescribes. In other words, if it was distributed with the consent of the respondent or his election agent, evidence has to be given to prove their consent. In effect, it is found that they have only hearsay knowledge about the involvement and alleged consent of the respondent and his election agent.
E.P.No.10/2016 16
12. The evidence of PW9 shows that on 15.5.2016, the respondent and his Chief Election Agent distributed Ext.P1 notice throughout Karunagappally Assembly Constituency and he came to know about the distribution at 6 p.m. from Raveendran Pillai and from Hareesh Kumar. According to PW9, Pradeep, branch Secretary, CPI(M), Kadathur distributed the notice. The evidence of PW10 shows that the respondent and his Chief Election Agent distributed Ext.P1 notice in the Karunagappally Assembly Constituency and he came to know about the distribution on 15.5.2016 at 5 p.m from Sri. Ranjith, who was the Unit Secretary, DYFI Manappally. During cross examination, he answered that he contacted PW1 at 4.30 p.m and informed about the distribution. The evidence of PW11 shows that the respondent and his Chief Election Agent distributed Ext.P1 notice in the Karunagappally Assembly Constituency and he came to know about the distribution on 15.5.2016 at 3 p.m from Sri. Shafeek and from Sri. Anshad. One Velayudhan Pillai, branch Secretary, CPI, Puli East distributed the notice. Analysing the evidence of PW9, PW10 and PW11, it is clear that they have no direct knowledge with regard to the distribution. The evidence of PW12 shows that Pradeep, Branch Secretary, CPIM gave one notice to him on 15.5.2016 at 5 E.P.No.10/2016 17 pm and he came to know about the distribution on the same day at 5 p.m. The evidence of PW13 shows that he came to know about the distribution on 15.5.2016 at 6 p.m. from one Sunil Kumar. The above notice was served by Srilal to Mr.Sunil Kumar, activist of CPI(M), Vellanathuruthu branch. A scrutiny of the evidence of PW1 to PW13 shows that these witnesses have no direct knowledge with regard to the distribution of the notice by the respondent or his election agent.
13. Now the evidence of the owner of Adi Printers, Chavara who printed Ext.P1 in his press is more relevant. PW1 pleaded that Soman Pillai, Chief election agent had got printed Ext.P1 notice. The owner of the Press was examined as PW14 and his evidence show that he had printed notices for political parties during 2016 Assembly Election and he stated that he might have printed notices for R.Ramachandran also. In connection with the printing of Ext.P1, three persons came to his Press and showed the handwritten notice, at that time he told them to bring soft copy and they brought soft copy of Ext.P1 and he printed nearly 500 to 600 copies late in the night. He admitted that he is maintaining a register for identifying the name of the persons who entrusted the matter. Only at the time of printing he had gone E.P.No.10/2016 18 through Ext.P1, at that time, he realized that if contents of the notice is published, it will cause harm to him. Immediately, he stopped the printing and told the person, who brought Ext.P1, not to publish the notice among voters. Later, he came to know about Ext.P1 only after filing this petition. This witness denied the suggestion that Ext.P1 was entrusted to him by one Ajayan for LDF candidate Ramachandran. In effect PW1 has only hearsay information about the printing and distribution of Ext.P1 by respondent and his agent Soman Pillai, that evidence is a weak evidence and incompetent to satisfy the court the existence of the publication of a statement of facts.
14. Petitioner alleges that Ext.P1 was published on behalf of LDYF, with the consent of the respondent and his election agent. Even though PW1 contended that several allegations are made in Ext.P1 by LDYF, the Youth Co-ordination of LDF to tarnish his political life with the consent and knowledge of the respondent and his election agent, no evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to prove that LDYF is the Youth Organisation of LDF, moreover consent given by the respondent or his election agent to LDYF has also to be proved. Explanation 1 of Section 123(8) is relevant in this context. It is stated in the above explanation that E.P.No.10/2016 19 the expression "agent" includes an election agent, a polling agent and any person who is held to have acted as an agent in connection with the election with the consent of the candidate. Normally, an agent must have the express or implied authority to act on behalf of the candidate. Apex Court in Mercykutty Amma V. Kadavoor Sivadasan (AIR 2004 SC 342)held that "for the purpose of proving corrupt practise on the part of such 'agent' there would not be any material difference between third category of agents or any other person, in as much as in both cases, facts are to be pleaded and proved". The respondent and his election agent were not present at the place of distribution when Ext.P1 was distributed at various places of the constituency. A broad and general analysis of the evidence of PW1 to PW13 shows that they failed to prove the existence of an organisation LDYF and they deposed that the members of CPIM, CPI, DYFI had distributed notices as agents of the respondent or election agent. What would be the position when the candidate had no knowledge at all, about the publication before it was made. It is disputed by the respondent that the statement in Ext.P1 was not with his knowledge. It is necessary that there should be 'consent' as distinguished from mere 'knowledge' given to the person acting as E.P.No.10/2016 20 his agent before he can be treated as an agent of the candidate for the purpose of corrupt practice. Apex Court in Harasingh Mohanthy v. Surendra Mohanthy [AIR 1974 SC 47] held that "when corrupt practice is by an agent who is not an election agent the election petitioner must prove that it was committed with the consent of the candidate." In this case, several persons were alleged to have distributed the notice as agents but the consent of the candidate or his election agent for distribution by a third person was not pleaded in the petition as a corrupt practice. Consent to connect the candidate with the action of the other person, which may amount to corrupt practice, must be specifically pleaded.
15. It is however urged on behalf of the respondent that there was no pleading or evidence to show that the respondent or his election agent gave consent to third parties to distribute any notice as their agent on behalf of LDYF. PW4 and PW5 knew about the publication from Ansar, who is the branch secretary of CPI(M). This shows that PW4 and PW5 have no direct knowledge about distribution. There is no evidence or pleading that Ansar was a member of LDYF and agent of the respondent or his election agent. PW4 informed about the distribution to Booth President E.P.No.10/2016 21 Amal. PW6 came to know about the distribution of notice from Velayudhan Pillai who was the branch secretary of CPI, Thazhava. PW7 came to know about the distribution of notice from Prakash. One Sivadasan, agent of LDF candidate gave notice to Prakash. PW8 came to know about the distribution of notice from Pradeep, branch secretary, CPI(M), Thazhava. PW9 Booth President of UDF came to know about the distribution of notice from Raveendran Pillai and Hareesh Kumar. Pradeep served notice to them. PW10 came to know about the distribution of notice from Renjith, who gave one notice to him. PW11 came to know about the distribution of notice from Shafeek and Anshad. One Velayudhan Pillai distributed the notice. PW12 came to know about the distribution of notice from Pradeep. PW13 came to know about the distribution of notice from Sunil Kumar. The notice was served by Sreelal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there was no specific denial of distribution of Ext.P1 in the written statement. If no denial is made in the written statement, it amounts to admission of the allegation and for that he relied the decision reported in Sushil Kumar V. Rakesh Kumar [2003 (8) SC 673]. It is an admitted fact that there is no specific pleading that the above persons who E.P.No.10/2016 22 distributed Ext.P1 are members of LDYF. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that when there is no specific pleading to that fact, no specific denial is necessary and the above decision is not binding in this case.
16. In this context, it is better to scrutinize the pleadings in this case, for that I may extract Section 83 of the R.P.Act, 1951 which reads as under :-
"83. Contents of petition.- (1) An election petition-
(a)shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies:
(b) shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice; and
(c)shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the verification of pleadings:
Apex court in Hari Shankar Jain v. Sonia Gandhi [AIR 2001 SC 3689] held that Section 83(1) of R P Act, 1951 directs that an election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. The question, therefore, is what is the effect of lack of material facts, material particulars and proper pleadings in an election petition. It is well-settled that the material facts required to be stated are those facts which are supporting the allegations made. In other words, they would E.P.No.10/2016 23 frame a basis for the allegations made in the petition and would constitute the cause of action as stated in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The expression 'cause of action' means every fact which it would be necessary for the petitioner to prove, if opposed, in order to establish his right in the judgment. Omission to plead a single material fact amounts to an incomplete cause of action and the statement of claim becomes bad. The responsibility of the petitioner is to present in full, a picture of the cause of action with such further information in details as to make the opposite party understand the exact nature of the case.
In support of their rival contentions, various decisions of the apex court were cited at the Bar and I have considered all the decisions.
Apex Court in Samant N. Balakrishna and another v. V. George Fernandez and others [AIR 1969 SC 1201] held as follows:
"36. It would appear from this that to make out a complete charge the facts necessary must be included in relation to a 'ground' as stated in the Act. Merely repeating the words of the statute is not sufficient. The petitioner must specify the ground i.e. to stay the nature of the corrupt practice and the facts necessary to make out a charge. Although it has been said that the charge of corrupt practice is in the nature of quasi charge, the E.P.No.10/2016 24 trial of an election petition follows the procedure for the trial of a civil suit. The charge which is included in the petition must, therefore, specify the material facts of which the truth must be established. This is how the case was understood in numerous other cases, some of which we have already referred to. In particular see j. Devaiah v. Nagappa and Ors. 1965 Kar 102 and Babulal Sharma v. Brijnarain Brajesh and Ors. 1958 Madhya Pradesh 175(F.B.)".
17. Another point advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies. He shall set forth particulars of any corrupt practice in the petition including a full statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice. The contents of allegation have to be described in the body of the election petition with sufficient clarity for defending the case by the returned candidate. These rules of pleadings are intended in the section for fair trial and for taking a just decision. Apex Court in Ashraf Kokkur v. K.V. Abdul Khader [AIR 2015 SC 147] held that "the pleadings, if taken as a whole, clearly indicate that they constituted the material facts so as to pose a triable issue as E.P.No.10/2016 25 to whether the returned candidate was disqualified to contest election to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly while holding an office of profit under the State Government as Chairperson of the Kerala State Wakf Board". Apex Court in Bhagwati Prasad Dixit 'Ghorawala' v. Rajiv Gandhi [AIR 1986 SC 1534, 1986 SCR(2) 823] held that in an election petition pleadings must be precise, specific and unambiguous and if it did not disclose a cause of action it should be rejected in limine. Apex Court in D. Venkata Reddy v. R. Sultan (AIR 1976 SC 1599) held that since a single corrupt practice committed by the candidate, by his election agent or by another person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent is fatal to the election, the case must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. If it has not been pleaded as part of the material facts, particulars of such corrupt practice cannot be supplied later on. The importance of pleadings in an election petition alleging corrupt practice falling under Section 123 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has been considered by the apex court in L.R. Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar [(1999) 1 SCC 666] and held that "the failure to plead material facts is fatal to an election petition and no amendment of the pleadings could be allowed to introduce such E.P.No.10/2016 26 material facts after the time-limit prescribed for filing the election petition, but material particulars can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment". In Ananga Uday Sngh Dev v. Ranga Nath Mishra [(2002) 1 SCC 499] apex court held that "to plead corrupt practice as contemplated by Section 123 of Representation of the People Act, 1951, it has to be specifically alleged that the corrupt practices were committed with the consent of the candidate and that a particular electoral right of a person was affected".
18. In another decision of the apex court in V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis and another [AIR 1999 SC 2044] it was held that material facts are preliminary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause of action. Referring to various decisions, apex court held as follows:-
"It would thus appear, that the election petition was rejected mainly on the ground that it did not disclose the cause of action as according to the learned trial Judge the allegations regarding corrupt practice were vague and did not disclose "material facts and full particulars" of the corrupt practice alleged. It is evident that the learned trial Judge did not distinguish between the 'material facts' and 'material particulars' of allegations regarding corrupt practices as defined under Section 123 of the Act. The law on the point is well-settled which appears to have not E.P.No.10/2016 27 been taken note of, appreciated by the learned trial Judge. After referring to various pronouncement of this Court including cases in Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain (1960) 3 SCR 91: (AIR 1960 SC 770), Samant N. Balakrishna v. George Fernandez (1969) 3 SCC 238: (AIR 1969SC 1201), Virendra Kumar Saklecha v. Jagjiwan (1972) 1 SCC 826: (AIR 1974 SC 1957), Udhav Singh v.
Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC 511: (AIR 1976 SC 744 F.A. Sapa v. Singera (sic) and Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat v. Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe (1995) 5 SCC 347:
(1995 AIR SCW 3407): AIR 1995 SC 2284 and host of other authorities, this Court in L.R. Shivaramagowda v. T.M. Chandrashekar (1988) 6 Scale 361: (1998 AIR SCW 3767): AIR 1999 SC 252, held that while failure to plead 'material facts' is fatal to the election petition and no amendment of the pleading is permissible to introduce such material facts after the time limit prescribed for filing the election petition, the absence of 'material particulars' can be cured at a later stage by an appropriate amendment. An election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particulars of corrupt practice alleged were not set out.
It is, therefore, evident that material facts are such primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause of action. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material fact or not, and as such, required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon, and in the light of the special circumstances of the case. In Udhav Singh case (AIR 1976 SC 744)( supra) the Court held:-
"In short all those facts which are essential to clothe the petitioner with a complete cause of action are "material facts" which must be pleaded, and failure to plead even a single material fact amounts to disobedience of the mandate of Section 83(i) (a).
"Particulars" on the other hand are "the details of the case set up by the party". "Material particulars"
within contemplation of clause (b) of Section 83(1) would therefore mean all the details which are necessary to amplify, refine and embelish. The material facts already pleaded in the petition in compliance with the E.P.No.10/2016 28 requirements of clause (a). "Particulars" serve the purpose of finishing touches to the basic contours of a picture already drawn, to make it full, more detailed and more informative."
On perusal of various paragraphs of the election petition, it shows that material facts, to provide a cause of action, for trial of the election petition have been provided in a vague manner in the election petition. In various sub-paragraphs of paragraph 6 of the election petition, particulars of corrupt practice have been mentioned. The non-mention of relation between LDYF and the person who distributed notice and the consent of the respondent and his agent were not pleaded. Taking view of the averments in paragraph 6 of the petition, it could be a discrepancy. Pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain the truth. It is the substance and not the form, which is required to be looked into for construing the pleadings. The intention of the party can be inferred from the terms of his pleadings while taken as a whole. Considering the well settled principles of pleadings, I am of the opinion that there is lack of material facts found in this election petition.
19. In this context, the next point to be considered is E.P.No.10/2016 29 whether the statement in Ext.P1 can be considered as false and the person making such publication should either believe such statement to be false or not to believe it to be true. The specific ground taken by the petitioner was that Ext.P1 contains statement of fact which is false and the person making it should either believe it to be false or does not believe it to be true, and the statement of fact was with regard to his personal character or conduct which was calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election. It was alleged that above leaflet was published on behalf of LDYF, with the consent of the respondent and his election agent. PW1 stated that several allegations made in Ext.P1 were false and only to tarnish his political life. Respondent contended that he never published Ext.P1 with his consent and there is no organisaction in the name of LDYF. He also urged that the contents in Ext.P1 will not be a corrupt practice u/s.123(4) of the R.P. Act, 1951. Therefore, publishing of any false statement of fact in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate is a serious matter relating to the contesting candidates. Apex Court in Ram chander Bhatia V. Hardayal ( AIR 1986 SC 717) held that "One of the ingredients of Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 is that the statement of the E.P.No.10/2016 30 offending document must be false and the person making it either believes it to be false, or does not believe it to be true in relation to the personal character or conduct of the candidate. The Court should record a finding whether the statement of facts about the personal character of the respondent was false to the knowledge of the author of the statement, or in any case believed by him to be false and not true. In the absence of a finding on this, requirement of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act would not be satisfied". There is a great primeness between false statement of fact, which affects the personal character or conduct of a candidate and his political position or reputation. It is clear from the statute that during election times, the criticisms relating to the political behaviour and opinion of the candidate, which are not true, are strictly prohibited.
20. The words 'personal character or conduct' were interpreted by the Supreme Court of India in T.K. Gangi Reddy v. M.C. Anjaneya Reddy [(1965) 1 SCR 175] and held that this is 'to be equated with his mental or moral nature. Conduct connotes person's actions or behaviour'. Further sub-section (4) of Section 123 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, require the publication with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. E.P.No.10/2016 31 In Guruji Shrihari Baliram Jwatode v. Vithalrao [(1969) 1 SCC 82], apex Court while considering the meaning of the expression 'personal character or conduct', indicated that the allegations must reflect on the moral or mental qualities of the candidate relating to his personal character or conduct and not merely to his political personality. In another decision Ram Chand Bhatia v. Hardyal [(1986) 1 SCR 177] apex court explained the distinction between the personal character or conduct of the candidate and his public or political character and conduct and it was indicated that a statement relating to public or political character and conduct of the candidate is not a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the R P Act, 1951. The decision of the Apex Court in Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal [[(1964) 5 SCR 12] views with this angle. In that case, the Court held that "pamphlets/leaflets published and circulated by the elected candidate or his agent or by other persons, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent, containing false statements as to the personal character and conduct of a defeated candidate, reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate, constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(4) of the R P Act, 1951 and consequently declared the election of the elected E.P.No.10/2016 32 candidate as void".
21. A publication lowering the candidate in the estimation of the electorate was considered by the apex court in Mohan Singh v. Bhanwarlal (supra), the Court observed that while considering the publication within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the R P Act, 1951 the Court would be entitled to take into account matters of common knowledge among the electorate and read the publication in that background, for one of the ingredients of the particular corrupt practice is the tendency of the statement in the publication to be reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of that candidate's election. The test is whether the imputation, besides being false in fact, is published with the object of lowering the candidate in the estimation of the electorate, and calculated to prejudice his prospects in the election. For ascertaining whether the candidate is lowered in the estimation of the electorate, the imputation made must be viewed in the light of matters generally known to them.
22. It is not easy to decide the abstract principles, to distinguish between the personal character of a candidate and his public character. In Jagjit Singh v. Giani Kartar Singh [AIR 1966 SC 773], the Supreme Court of India held that "the question E.P.No.10/2016 33 as to what allegations can be said to amount to allegations in regard to the personal character of a candidate, as distinguished from the public character, is not always easy to decide on considerations of abstract principles. The policy underlying the provisions is that in the matter of elections, the public and political character of a candidate is open to scrutiny and can be severely criticized by his opponents, but not so his private or personal character. In order that the elections in a democratic country should be freely and fearlessly conducted, considerable latitude has to be given to the respective competing candidates to criticize their opponents' political or socio-economic philosophy or their antecedents and character as public men. That is why even false statements as to the public character of candidates are not brought within the mischief of Section 123(4) of the 1951 Act, because the Legislature thought that in the heat of election it may be permissible for competing parties and candidates to make statements in relation to the public character of their opponents, and even if some of the statements are false, they would not amount to corrupt practice. Having regard to this policy of the statute, it often becomes necessary to examine carefully whether the false statement impinges on the personal character of the E.P.No.10/2016 34 candidate concerned. Though it is not easy to lay down any general considerations which would help the determination of this issue in every case, in actual practice it may not be very difficult to decide whether the false statement impinges on the personal character of the candidate or on his public character".
23. Normally, the public and political character of a candidate is open to public view and public criticism. If any false statements are made about the political views of a candidate or his public conduct or character, the voters would be able to judge the allegation on that account. Apex Court in Sheo pat Singh V. Rampradeep (AIR 1965 SC 677) held that any criticism of a person's political or public activities and policies is outside Section 123(4) of the Representation of People Act. It was further held in Gadakh Yeshwant Rao Kanakar Rao V. E.V. Alias Balasahib Vikha Patiel (AIR 1994 SC 678) that the word "calculated" means designed, it denotes more than likelihood and imports a design to affect voters. In this context, I have considered the statement in Ext.P1(a). The petitioner and respondent admitted that all the statements in Ext.P1(a) relate to the public and political character, as a leader of his political work except one statement. The only statement which relates to his personal E.P.No.10/2016 35 character is that "Who was the accused in the crime of Karunagappally Police Station for torturing a Dalit girl?" While judging the above statement whether the words used in Ext.P1(a) can be held to be a corrupt practice, apex Court in K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.V. Ramakrishan Iyer and others [AIR 1965 SC 289] held as follows:
"The principle which have to be applied in construing such a document are well-settled. The document must be read as a whole and its purport and effect determined in a fair, objective and reasonable manner. In reading such documents, it would be unrealistic to ignore the fact that when election meetings are held and appeals are made by candidates of opposing political parties, the atmosphere is usually surcharged with partisan feelings and emotions and the use of hyperboles or exaggerated language, or the adoption of metaphors, and the extravagance of expression in attacking one another, are all a part of the game, and so, when the question about the effect of speeches delivered or pamphlets distributed at election meetings is argued in the cold atmosphere of a judicial chamber, some allowance must be made and the impugned speeches or pamphlets must be construed in that light. In doing so, however, it would be unreasonable to ignore the question as to what the effect of the said speech or pamphlet would be on the mind of the ordinary voter who attends such meetings and reads the pamphlets or hears the speeches."
A reading of the above decision shows that the published document must be read as a whole and the effect must be determined in a fair manner. When election campaigns are held, the candidates use exaggerated language or metaphors for E.P.No.10/2016 36 attacking one another about their public conduct, which is part of the game, in such situation the speeches and pamphlets must be interpreted in that angle.
24. The question whether a bare statement amounts to a statement of fact or a mere expression of opinion would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Apex court in Kumara Nand v. Brijmohan Lal Sharma [AIR 1967 SC 808] held in paragraph 13 as follows:
"The question whether a particular statement with respect to a candidate at an election is a statement of fact or is a mere expression of opinion would depend on the facts of each case and will have to be judged in the circumstances in which the statement was made and in the context of the writing in which it appears, in case it is part of a writing. But it is not in our opinion correct to say that a statement with respect to a candidate can never be a statement of fact, unless it is accompanied by particulars as to time, place and date which one finds (for example) in a charge-sheet in a criminal case. Whether in a particular setting a bald statement without particulars would be a mere expression of opinion or would amount to a statement of fact would depend upon the circumstances of each case and the court will have to consider the setting in which the statement was made and the entire writing in the context of which it appears and the nature of the statement itself before it comes to the conclusion that it is a statement of fact or an expression of opinion. Where particulars are given it may not be difficult to come to the conclusion that the statement is a statement of fact, but even a bald statement without particulars may be a statement of fact and not a mere expression of opinions. It seems to us that mere absence of particulars would not necessarily mean that a statement without particulars is E.P.No.10/2016 37 always an expression of opinion. Take a case where a candidate is said to be a murderer. The mere fact that the name of the victim or the date when the murder took place or the place where it happened is not mentioned, would not detract from the statement being a statement of fact. At the same time a similar bald statement that a candidate is a murderer may in the context in which it appears if it is in writing may not be a statement of fact and may be a mere matter of opinion, as, for example, where it is said that a candidate is a murderer of all decencies in life. The question whether a bald statement amounts to a statement of fact or a mere expression of opinion would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and also on the setting in which the statement appears whether it is in writing or oral.
25. In this backdrop, petitioner contended that the statement "Who was the accused in the crime of Karunagappally Police Station for torturing a Dalit girl?" in Ext.P1 would reasonably be understood to be defamatory to him and those words may give rise to a cause of action based on "innuendo". Now the question is whether the words convey a special defamatory meaning than the natural meaning of the words and those persons who are familiar with the petitioner would think that he is of a bad character which amounts to 'innuendo'. The position of innuendo has been discussed by the Apex Court in M.J. ZAKHARIA SAIT v. T.M. MOHAMMED AND OTHERS [(1190) 3 SCC 396]. It was held as follows:
"Duncan and Neil in their book on Defamation (1978 E.P.No.10/2016 38 edn.) while referring to "innuendo" on page 17 onwards have stated that the law of defamation recognises that
(a) some words have technical or slang meaning or meanings which depend on some special knowledge possessed not by the general public but by a limited number of persons and (b) that ordinary words may on occasions bear some special meaning other than their natural and ordinary meaning because of certain extrinsic facts and circumstances. The plaintiff who seeks to refer to an innuendo meaning has to plead and prove the facts and circumstances which give words a special meaning. He has also to prove that the words were published to one or more persons who knew these facts or circumstances or where appropriate, the meaning of the technical terms etc.
35. While referring to the test where identification depends on extrinsic facts, the learned authors have stated that where identification is in issue, the matter can sometimes be decided by construing the words themselves in their context. More often, however, the plaintiff will be seeking to show that the words would be understood to refer to him because of some facts or circumstances which are extrinsic to the words themselves. In these cases the plaintiff is required to plead and prove the extrinsic facts on which he relies to establish identification and, if these facts are proved, the question becomes: would reasonable persons knowing these facts or some of them, reasonably believe that the words referred to the plaintiff.
36. Where identification depends on extrinsic facts these extrinsic facts must be pleaded because they form part of the cause of action.
37. The conspectus of the authorities thus shows that where the defamatory words complained of are not defamatory in the natural or ordinary meaning, or in other words, they are not defamatory per se but are defamatory because of certain special or extrinsic facts which are in the knowledge of particular persons to whom they are addressed, such innuendo meaning has to be pleaded and proved specifically by giving the particulars of the said extrinsic facts. It is immaterial in such cases as to whether the action is for defamation or E.P.No.10/2016 39 for corrupt practice in an election matter, for in both cases it is the words complained of together with the extrinsic facts which constitute the cause of action. It is true that Section 123(4) of the Act stated that the statement of fact in question must be "reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects" of the complaining candidate's election. However, unless it is established that the words complained of were capable of being construed as referring to the personal character or conduct of the candidate because of some specific extrinsic facts or circumstances which are pleaded and proved, it is not possible to hold that they were reasonably calculated to prejudice his prospects in the elections. For, in the absence of the knowledge of the special facts on the part of the electorate, the words complained of cannot be held to be reasonably calculated to prejudice such prospects. Once, however, it is proved by laying the foundation of facts that the words in question were, by virtue of the knowledge of the special facts, likely to be construed by the electorate as referring to the personal character or conduct of the complaining candidate, it may not further be necessary to prove that in fact the electorate had understood them to be so. That is because all that Section 123(4) requires is that the person publishing the complaining words must have intended and reasonably calculated to affect the prospects of the complaining candidate in the election."
26. The above decision shows that in an allegation of corrupt practice by innuendo in an election petition, petitioner has to plead as well as to prove the extrinsic facts to spell out the innuendo meaning of the words complained of. While referring the quoted words mentioned in Ext.P1, it is understood that no ordinary reader could derive any defamatory word from that statement. If it was pointed to the petitioner by mentioning his E.P.No.10/2016 40 identity, with a special circumstance and further publishes certain words having technical or slang meaning pointing to him, he could claim that imputation mentioned in the publication can be understood as defamatory. In such circumstances, the person to whom the words were published, knew the facts for a cause of action and that material fact should be pleaded. In this case there is no such pleading but petitioner would rely on inference that the statement mentioned in Ext.P1 give rise to innuendo, but no identification can be construed from the above words to draw "innuendo". Hence that contention is rejected.
27. It is the duty of the election petitioner to prove the essential ingredients prescribed by sub-section (4) of S.123 of the R P Act, 1951 who alleges publication of false statement of fact. He has to prove that the impugned statement has been published by the candidate or his agent, or if by any other person, with the consent of the candidate or his election agent. He has further to prove that the impugned statement of fact is false and that the candidate either believed that statement to be false or did not believe it to be true. It has further to be established inter alia that the statement was in relation to the personal character or conduct E.P.No.10/2016 41 of the complaining candidate. Finally it has to be shown that the publication was deliberated to prejudice the election prospects of the complaining candidate. If the aforesaid facts are proved, Section 100 (1) (b) is a good ground for declaring election to be void by the High Court on the ground of sub-section (2). Section empowers the High Court that whether any corrupt practice is committed by a returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or his election agent, the High Court shall declare the election of the returned candidate to be void.
28. After considering the pleadings and evidence, I conclude that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent and his election agent made publication of the pamphlets as stated under Section 123(4) of the R P Act, 1951 with their consent. It is also found that Ext.P1 did not contain statements regarding the personal character or conduct of Sri C.R.Mahesh, but they are statements in respect of his public and political character. Therefore the petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. There is no order as to costs.
P.D.RAJAN, JUDGE lgk