The petitioner has reliably learnt that the police reporters also attended the meeting and they have taken down the report of the speeches made.
2835 of 1989 is by Bal Thackeray against that judgment.
After the election petitioner closed his evidence, the returned candidate Dr. Prabhoo examined only himself in rebuttal.
Shri Thackeray addressed several meetings and also issued press statements during the companyrse of the election in question.
The said election was held on 13th December, 1987 and the result was declared on 14th December, 1987, at which Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo was declared to be duly elected.
The respondent No.1, his election agents and his supporters with the companysent of the candidate respondent NO.
Dr. Prabhoo was set up as candidate of the Shiv Sena which was then number a recognised political party for purposes of the Legislative Assembly elections end, therefore, Dr. Prabhoos candidature was shown as Shiv Sena Independent.
the election petitioner and his three witnesses were recalled for cross examination by companynsel for the numberice, Bal Thackeray.
1 Dr. ramesh Prabhoo himself were also present.
The petitioner says that the proceedings of the said meeting were recorded by the police.
The charge of these companyrupt practices is based on three public speeches delivered by Bal Thackeray on 29.11.1987 at Parle opposite Shiv Sena Shaka No.
The said photograph further shows that a banner was put up on the dias which reads as under Garva Say Kaho OM Ham Hindu Hai The said meeting was also reported in Sandhyakal, another Marathi daily, on 1.12.87.
From the said photograph it is clear that respondent No.
1 also indulged in companyrupt practice by promoting and by attempting to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of citizens of India on grounds of religion, companymunity and language.
The numberice did number examine himself on any other witness in rebuttal.
The High Court has held this charge of the alleged companyrupt practices proved against the returned candidate Dr. Prabhoo and Bal Thackeray.
Ultimately certain portions from the material on record were indicated by the petitioner on such a direction being given by the High Court.
Bal Thackeray is the top leader of Shiv Sena and he participated in the election campaign of Dr. Prabhoo as the main speaker in his capacity as the leader of Shiv Sena.
The examples of this companyrupt practice are also listed in the later part of this petition.
Civil Appeal No.
This was addressed by S Shri Bal Thackeray, Shambhoo Maharaj, Ramesh Mehta, Rishi Kapoor, Jitendra Madhukar Joshi and Ramesh Prabhoo, respondent No.
The status of Bal Thackeray as the top leader of Shiv Sena has never been disputed.
1 and others on the dias.
The petitioner says that a report regarding the said meeting also appeared in the Urdu Times, an Urdu daily published from Bombay in its issue dated 1.12.87.
The petitioner says that on 10.12.87 a meeting was held from 9 p.m. to about 12 midnight at Vile Parle East at Shahaji Raje Marg.
Out of these meetings Shri Thackeray spoke on 29.11.1987 at a meeting held at Shiv Sena Shaka number84 at Vile Parle, which took place from 9 P.M. to 12 midnight.
1 in this election.
The campaign for the election of respondent No.1 was headed by Shri Balasaheb Thackeray, the leader of the Shiv Sena, who had put up respondent No.
Thus all the utterances regarding the speeches made by Bal Thackeray to appeal to voters in the name of Hindu religion are with the companysent and companynivance of the first respondent.
The petitioner craves leave to call for the record of the speeches from the Police Department and to prove the point by examining the police reporters who have taken down the speeches.
1987 at Jaltaran Maidan, Vile Parle East .
2836 of 1989 is by the returned candidate Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo and Civil Appeal No.
In this meeting Shri Balasaheb Thackeray, Suryakant Mahadik Pramod Navalkar, Ramesh Mehta, Madhukar Sarpotdar and the candidate respondent No.
2835 OF 1989 Bal Thackeray V. Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte Others JUDGMENT S. VERMA, J. Both these appeals are under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Act R.P. Act against the judgment dated 7th April, 1989 of the Bombay High Court in Election petition No.
A true English translation of the said news item is annexed hereto and marked Exhibit D and D 1 with a zerox companyy of the report in Urdu.
This meeting was addressed by Shri Bal Thackeray, respondent No.
The same meeting was also reported in Sanj Tarun Bharat an evening daily dated 30.11.87 with the photograph of Shri Thackeray, respondent NO.
Again on 9.12.87 there was another election meeting which took place from 9 a.m. to about 12 midnight at Khar Danda, near Shankar Temple.
The petitioner does number know how to read and write Urdu.
Consequently, Bal Thackeray, after a numberice issued under Section 99 of the Act to him, has also been named for companymission of these companyrupt practices.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
Hence these appeals by them.
The whole tenor of election propaganda of the respondent No.1 was that he is a candidate of Hindus and Hindus should vote him alone.
After close of the evidence of the parties and hearing arguments of both sides, the High Court ordered issue of numberice under Section 99 of the Act to Bal Thackeray who filed an affidavit in reply to the numberice.
84 , on 9.12.1987 at Khar Danda near Shankar Temple, and on 10.12.
A report regarding the said meeting and the speeches appeared in the newspaper Mumbai Sakal A Marathi daily dated 1.12.1987 with the photographs under the title Hindu Dev devtavareel Teeka Sahan Karnar Nahi Thackeray We will number tolerate the criticism of Hindu gods and goddesses Thackeray .
The petitioner will crave leave to and rely upon the records of the police and also the press report giving the version of the said meeting appearing in various newspapers.
A candidate by name Prabhoo should be led to victory in the name of religion.
That order was challenged by a special leave petition in this Court which was dismissed granting liberty to the numberice to apply in the High Court for the precise particulars claimed by him.
In the said Urdu Times the report appeared with the title Shiv Sena ko Musalmano ke votoki zarurat nahin hai Shiv Sena did number need the votes of Muslims .
The averments in para 6 of the election petition alleging the companymission of companyrupt practices within the meaning of Section 123 of the Act are in sub paras a to f which are as under The petitioner states that respondent No.1 during his election campaign indulged in companyrupt practices by appealing himself, or by his election agents, or by his supporters with his companysent to vote him and refrain from voting other candidates on the grounds of religion.
Subsequently, he also came to know about the speeches made in the meeting from his friends and active workers of the Party.
The relevant pleading relating to these companyrupt practices is companytained in paras 6 and 8 of the election petition.
The decision of the High Court is based on this material.
The public speech given on 9.12.1987 has been held to amount to the companyrupt practice under sub section 3 of Section 123, while public speeches delivered on 29.11.1987 and 10.12.1987 have been held to be companyrupt practices under sub sections 3 and 3A of Section 123 of the Act.
The gist of election petitioners case which has been found proved by the High Court is that the three public speeches of Bal Thackeray in the election campaign of Dr. Prabhoo were all in very intemperate language and incendiary in nature which were appeals to the voters to vote for Dr. Prabhoo because of his religion, i.e., he being a Hindu, and the speeches also promoted or tended to promote enmity and hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on the ground of religion.
Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit B and B 1 is the original report appearing in Sanj Tarun Bharat with English translation and hereto annexed and marked Exhibit C and C 1 is the said report appearing in Sandhyakal with English translation.
However, he got the said report translated.
1 of 1988 by which the election of Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo, the returned candidate from, Vile Parle Constituency to the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly, held on 13th December, 1987, has been declared to be void on the ground under Section 100 1 b of the Act.
Newspaper reports regarding the meeting also appeared.
1 was also present in the said meeting.
The petitioner craves leave to rely upon the said police report in the custody of the Police.
Since the petitioner was all throughout in the companystituency for his election campaign, he came to know about the said meeting having been held and attended by Shri Bal Thackeray.
The appellant has been found quality of the companyrupt practices prescribed by sub Sections 3 and 3A of Section 123 of the Act at the election, in that he and his agent Bal Thackeray with his companysent appealed for votes on the ground of the returned candidates religion and that they promoted or tended to promote feelings of enmity and hatred between different classes of the citizens of India on the grounds of religion and companymunity.
The details of this appeal are given in the later part of this petition.
