Vidya Charan Shukla vs Purshottam Lal Kaushik on 15 January, 1981
12. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Hanuman Prasacl v. District Judge, Merta (5) distinguished the decisions of the Apex Court in Mani Lal's case as well as Vidhya Charan Shukla's case (supra) on the ground that the said cases pertained to conviction resulting into acquittal, whereas the case under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act pertained to a distinct happening of commencement of the trialon framing of charge. According to the learned Single Judge, the statutory disqualification provided under Section 19(gg) cannot be wiped off by a subsequent acquittal. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the learned Single Judge. We fail to understand the distinction drawn between 'conviction resulting into acquittal' or 'the commencing of a trial on framing of charge concluding into acquittal'. In our view, the learned Single Judge has erroneously distinguished both the decisions of the Apex Court. The ratio decidendi of both the cases is that if the successful candidate is disqualified for being chosen at the date of election or at any earlier stage of any step in the election process on account of his conviction and sentence but his conviction and sentence are set aside and he is acquitted on appeal before the pronouncement of judgment in the election petition pending against him, his disqualification is annulled and rendered non-est with retroactive effect from its very inception and the challenge to his election on the ground that he was disqualified, can no longer sustain. We are of the view that courts should be extremely slow in ousting a person elected by a democratic process. It is well settled that in the matter of challenge to the election, if two views are possible, the court will favour a a view sustaining the election particularly in a case where there are no allegations of misuse or corrupt practice. A distinction has to be made between 'a right to contest the election' and 'removal of a person duly elected by a democratic process' by. Court order. The constitutional mandate is in favour of the person in whom people have reposed confidence. The object of amended Clause (gg) of Section 19 is to keep a person under cloud away from election till he is facing a trial before the competent court. The purpose is not to punish a person because he is facing trial.