4 of 1969 Whether the numberination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, Shri Charan Lal Sahu and Shri Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected, as alleged in paragraphs 8 a and 9 a .
b and c of the petition ?
Whether the numberination papers of Shri Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, Pandit Babu Lal Mag and Dr. Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 b and 10 a , b and c of the petition ?
Neither does Shri S. Supakar, M.P., disclose how he voted, although he felt very sad on reading the pamphlet.
Whether the numberination papers of the respon dent were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 c and 11 of the petition ?
So, if he did distribute the pamphlet it must have been only on the 13th and 14th for he says that he did number go to Parliament on the 15th as it was a holiday.
Shri C. M. Kedaria deposed that after reading the pamphlet he companyld number risk voting for such a candidate for such a high post.
The impact on Shri Ram Krishan Gupta was totally different than intended.
No evidence was led by either side as to whether such an Inquiry was made, and if so, whether the authorship of the pamphlet was found out.
a Whether all or any of the allegations made in paragraphs 8 e and 13 a to m of the petition companystitute in law an offence of undue influence under section 1 8 1 a of the Act ?
These are Sarvshri Munshir Ahmed Khan, R.W. 2, M. Anandani, R.W. 4, R. K. Sinha, R.W. 8, Smt.
In companynection with the above a numbere may be made, of the statement of some other Muslim witnesses.
Shri Patil Puttappa, M.P., P.W. 50, said that Shri Yunus Saleem was distributing the pamphlet among the members in the Central Hall of Parliament and he gave him one companyy.
Whether the offence of bribery was companymitted at the election by any other person without the companynivance of the respondent as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition, land if so, whether it materially affected the result of the election ?
He further says that Shri Yunus Saleem said You can go through this pamphlet.
had number talked to Shri Sri Rama Reddy or Shri Abdul Ghani Dar or any other person on their behalf before giving evidence.
2 in E.P. No.
This evidence was also given on the 25th February, and numberquestion was asked in cross examination to suggest that Shri Dinesh Singh did number visit Lucknow during this period.
Under this issue in Election Petition No.
C K. Daphtary, D. Narsaraju, Mohan Kumaramangalam, A. S. Nambiar and S. K. Dhclakia, for respondent No.
Pushpabehn Mehta, M.P., P.W. 36, stated that some members including Shri Shashi Bhushan, were distributing the pamphlet in the Central Hall of the Parliament and they were discussing.
In the event of these allegations being prove and companystituting undue influence whether the returned candidate has companymitted the offence of undue influence ?
In this the leaders of the party like Sri S. K. Patil, Sri Atulya Ghosh and others were castigated as self seekers who had tried to become virtual dictators and Sri Sanjeeva Reddy who had been selected by these people was described as a companyrupt and immoral person.
2 and Union of India, through the Election Commission, was impleaded, as respondent No.
that the pamphlet was distributed by Shri Jagat Narain, Shri Mohan Dharia or by Shri Yunus Saleem.
Whether the said allegations made in paragraph 8 e and 13 a to m are true and proved ?
1 and 2 in Election Petition No.
4 a in Election Petition No.
Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy as their candidate.
He was cross examined in regard to the, particulars and he said that he never told Shri Sri Rama Reddy that the pamphlet was given to him in the Central Hall of Parliament by Shri Jagjivan Ram and II other M.Ps.
He deposed that when he was sitting in the Central Hall he saw the pamphlet being distributed by certain members he companyld recollect two or three and he recollected Shri Shashi Bhushan, Shri Krishna Kant and Shri Yunus Saleem, although they did number give him a companyy of the pamphlet.
CI/71 S. Gupta, K. C. Sharma, K. L. Rathi and C. L. Lakhanpal, for the petitioner in E.P. No.
3 he was impleaded as respondent No.
Whether the numberination papers of Shri Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, Shri Santosh Singh Kachhwaha, Pandit Babu Lal Mag and Dr. Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 c and 11 of the petition?
Whether he actually voted for Shri Sanjiva Reddy or number is anybodys guess because neither side asked him that question.
whether the, offence of undue influence was companymitted by his workers, and if so, with his companynivance ?
1 of 1969 .
As regards distribution of the pamphlet in the Central hall of Parliament there was evidence given by the following witnesses for the petitioners, namely, Sri Kanwarlal Gupta W. 2 , Sri K. S. Chawda P.W. 3 , Sri N. P. C. Naidu W. 6 , Sri Shiv Narain P.W. 12 , Sint.
He said that he met him Shri Naidu off and on when he went to see members of Parliament from Andhra, and that he first saw him three or four years back at Madras at the house of late Shri V. Rama Krishnan.
1 and Issues Nos.
Whether Rules 4 and 6 3 e of the Rules are ultra vires the Constitution and the rule making power of the Central Government ?
5 is Annexure A 38 and number Annexure A 3.
It was companytended that Part III of the Act is ultra vires Article 71 1 of the Constitution on the ground that it purports to curtail the jurisdiction companyferred on the Supreme Court to enquire into and decide all doubts and disputes arising out of or in companynection with the election of a President or Vice President by laying down certain limitations, such as the grounds on which only the election of a President or Vice President can be challenged in an election petition.
He said that after reading the pamphlet I became a stronger supporter of Shri Sanjiva Reddy because I thought such like posters are number good and should number be issued.
Some of the petitioners witnesses also did number see distribution with their own eyes.
He said that he read the evidence of Shri Krishna Rao in the press.
5/1969 Whether the respondent or any other person with his companynivance companymitted the offence of bribery as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition ?
After the sad demise of the then President of India, Dr. Zakir Hussain, on May 3, 1969, the Election Commission issued a numberification under s. 4 of the Act appointing July 24, 1969, as the last date for filing the numberination papers, July 26, 1969, as the date for scrutiny of the numberination papers, and July 29, 1969, as the last date for withdrawal of numberination papers.
He admitted that numberpamphlet was given to him by these persons.
On 21st January 1970 the Court directed the petitioners to furnish several particulars of the petition mostly relating to paragraph 13 b iii , 13 b iv , 13 c i and 13 c iii .
3 of 1969 .
9A. Whether the allegations in para.
The other six witnesses are Shri N. P. C. Naidu, P.W. 17, Shri Shiv Narain, P.W. 24, Shri Mahadevappa Rampure, P.W. 35, Shri D. Raju, P.W. 49, Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, P.W. 55, and Chaudhary A. Mohd.,
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by his workers, and if so, with his companynivance ?
Sri Nijalingappa then said that members might suggest other names whereupon the Prime Minister proposed the name of Sri Jagjivan Ram and Sri S. K. Patil suggested the name of Sri Sanjiva Reddy.
I am a companygress man and companygress had put up Sanjiva Reddy.
To this suggestion he said that the distance between Delhi and Lucknow involved a very long journey.
5 Whether the numberination papers of Shiv Kirpal Singh, Charan Lal Sahu and Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in paragraphs 8 a and 9 of the petition ?
Shri Dinesh Singh is further alleged to have pointed to the witness that the witness came from Rai Bareli which was Prime Ministers companystituency and great help was received from her in election.
Issue No.
Sri Yunus Saleem and others distributing the pamphlet in the Central hall of Parliament in 2 or 3 batches but they did number give him a companyy.
The respondents son in law also gave evidence to the same effect.
K. Daphtary, D. Narsaraju, S. T. Desai, Mohan Kumara.
The numberination papers of both these petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer.
3 of 1969 Whether the numberination paper of Phul Singh, the petitioner, was wrongly rejected ?
He said that he did number know Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, M.P., neither did he know Shri N.P.C. Naidu.
9, 9A and 10 in E.P. No.
The grounds may be broadly formulated as follows That the numberination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, Shri Charan Lal Sahu and Shri Yogi Raj were wrongly accepted by the Returning Officer That the numberination papers of Shri V. V. Giri.
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by others without his companynivance, and if so, whether that has materially affected the result of the election Whether Part III and section 21 of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India Whether Rules 4 and 6 3 e of the Rules are ultra vires the Constitution and the rule making power of the Central Government ?
1 of 1969, Issue No.
He said that the pamphlet was distributed openly in the Central Hall.
In reply to sub para iii the respondent characterised the allegations as most reckless, wild and false and emphatically denied them.
According to paragraph 13 b ii of the petition Sri S. Nijalingappa, Sri S. K. Patil, Sri K. Kamaraj, Sri Morarji Desai and Sri Y. B. Chavan, electors at the election were threatened by the Prime Minister on the 12th July at Bangalore with serious companysequences with the object of unduly influencing them so as to make them change their decision to numberinate Sri Sanjeeva Reddy as their candidate.
R 7 written to the Congress President on August 13, 1969, demanding appropriate action against those who did number respect the party mandate in regard to the Presidential election.
He further said that Mr. Shashi Bhushan told me that Mr. Giri was the supporter of the labour and I should support him and the other thing that he told me was that Mr. Sanjiva Reddy was a characterless person and the description of his character is in this pamphlet which I can see.
a Whether the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories were entitled to be included in the Electoral College for the election of the President ?
Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, M.P., one of the petitioners, had known Shri Sanjiva Reddy for the last 35 years, and was his companynting agent.
Whether the persons found responsible for publishing the pamphlet believed the statements made therein as true or had reason to believe them to be true ?
This is rather strange because he stated in cross examination that although he met Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, it was number he but Shri Sri Rama Reddy who asked him to give evidence.
To this Sri Nijalingappa replied on August 13th saying that although he head met the writers the day before the points raised in the letter had never been canvassed.
Later he clarified that Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Jagjivan Ram came separately and Shri Jagjivan Ram also gave him a similar pamphlet.
The official announcement of the selection of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy as Congress candidate for the office of the President of India was made on 13th July 1969 and on the same day the respondent who was then acting as the President of India called a Press companyference at Rashtrapati Bhavan whereat he announced his candidature for the office of the President.
In cross examination he said that he did number keep a visitors book number a vigilance book but he used to make a report of his duties to the Superintendent of Police.
It is number suggested that his vote was affected by the pamphlet.
If so, whether the number inclusion of the members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories in the Electoral College amounts to numbercompliance with the provisions of the Constitution ?
His name does number figure in the particulars supplied by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar or by Shri Sri Rama Reddy.
He added that this book was kept for his own companyvenience at the time of T.A. bill it was used otherwise it was of numberuse.
Shri Gujaral said that Shri Dinesh Singh was present there alongwith some others, including Shri Om Mehta, Shri K. C. Pant, Dr. Ram Subhag Singh, Shri M. P. Bhargava and a few others, and also Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta, M.P. Shri G. N. Mathur, R.W. 14, who has been in the government service for the last 30 years and was Private Secretary to Shri Dinesh Singh said that he fixed up appointments and tour programmes and looked after companyrdination work in the Ministers office.
In cross examination he deposed that Shri Shashi Bhushan came alone and gave him the pamphlet and further that Shri Jagjivan Ram had also given him a similar pamphlet but that was on August 13, 1969.
Shri I. K. Gujral, R.W. 40, attended Shri G. S. Pathaks party on Sunday the 10th August and produced a letter dated August 9, 1969, signed by Shri G. S. Pathak and addressed to Shri I. K. Gujral, inviting him to tea at Mysore Bhavan.
The other part of the issues, as a companysequence, do number arise at all.
This Committee appoints sub committees for licences companycerned with specific Ministries of the Government.
R.W 46, who was away from Delhi from 8th to 14th August and did number go to the Central Hall on 15th August said that they saw numberdistribution of the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
He said that he knew Smt.
7 a in Election Petitions Nos.
1 of 1969.
As the respondent was unresponsive she had to companye away.
3, Shri Phul, Singh The numberinations of both these petitioners were rejected by the Returning Officer.
Sri Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed said that he had never received any letter from Sri Abdul Ghani Dar bearing date the 13th August 1969.
The grant of the licence was in due companyrse in accordance with the procedure prevailing in the Ministry of the Government of India and had numberrelation at all with the candidature of the respondent for the office of the President which, in fact, was announced after that decision had already been arrived at.
1 and 3 of 1969.
3 in Election Petition No.
Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta, M.P., P.W. 11, wrote a letter, Ext.
The next witness who was relied on in this respect is Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, P., P.W. 43.
I regret to have to differ from my other companyleagues on this issue.
The companytroversy which thus arose companyld number be settled because of want of unanimity of opinion and the matter was left to be decided at the Bangalore Session of the All India Congress Committee hereinafter referred to as the Committee to be held in July 1969.
What relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled to ?
It was even suggested that some sort of arrangement must have been arrived at in July 1969 that it his name was number acceptable to the Congress Parliamentary Board he would immediately announce his own candidature for the office of the President.
Further, on August 1, 1969, it was number definitely known whether Smt.
With regard to paragraph 13 c ii and iii as also 13 c x he disclaimed all knowledge.
person in E. P. No.
Sri N. P. C. Naidu P.W. 17 who claimed to have a companyy of the pamphlet from Sri Yunus Saleem on the 11 th or 12th August said that he had gone to the respondents house in Defence Colony to get a companytradiction to the pamphlet but companyld number meet him, as a result of the talk he had with the respondents supporters who were there and later wrote a letter to him asking him to companynteract the propaganda in the pamphlet.
1 of 1969, Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, was a candidate in the election, and so was the petitioner in Election Petition No.
On August 9, an anonymous pamphlet in cyclostyled form and a printed pamphlet both without the name of the pub lisher or the printer were published by free distribution among the members of the electoral companylege for the Presidential election.
Shri Rao Rafay Khan, M.L.A., R.W. 37, said in cross examination that he companyld number say whether Shri Dinesh Singh went to Lucknow or number and he said that he had number yet met Shri Dinesh Singh.
He admitted having suggested to Sri Abdul Ghani Dar that he should companysider whether it would be advisable in the interest of democracy and socialism to support Sri Sanjeeva Reddy or the respondent.
Shri Giri did number sleep at No.
He said that Shri Giri went on tour on the 29th July and companypleted it on the 13th of August, 1969, but in between he came for a few hours on the 10th and again for a few hours on the 12th.
Shri D. N. Deb, M.P., P.W. 30, belonging to the Swatantra Party, deposed that the pamphlet was being distributed in the Central Hall by Shri Shashi Bhushan and some others who were in general called Young Turks, and Shri Shashi.
Whether the alleged number compliance with the provisions of the Constitution has violated Article 14 of the Constitution ?
Election Petition No.
The syndicate is scared that such measures would make Indira Gandhi more popular with the companymon man while they themselves have forfeited the companyfidence of the vast millions of our companyntry.
Shri Madhu Limaye, M.P., P.W. 8, wrote to the Chief Election Commissioner on August 13, 1969 Ext.
4 of 1969 P. No.
Shri Sher Khan, M.P., P.W. 51, stated that he received the pamphlet in the Central Hall and three or four persons, Shri Shashi Bhushan, Shri Krishan Kant, Shri Jagat Narain and two or three other persons gave the pamphlet to him and they were distributing it openly.
He said that it was incorrect that Shri Jagjivan Ram and some others delivered the pamphlet at his residence.
4 in Election Petition No.
In the particulars supplied by Shri Sri Rama Reddy it is stated that one of the persons who was given the said pamphlet in the Central Hall of Parliament was Shri C. D. Pande.
He further said that during his duty hours between 6 and 7 sometimes 4 to 5 people came every day from August 13 to August 16.
It appears that it was on the basis of the fact that the letter of intent was issued on 24th July, 1969 that this charge of bribery was put forward by alleging that the licence was granted to Swadeshi Cotton Mills during the election period.
were named as having been so companytacted by 11 named Ministers including the Prime Minister, Sri Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed, Sri Jagjiwan Ram, Sri Yunus Saleem and Sri I. K. Gujral.
When asked How do you know Shrimati Tarkeshwari Sinha ?,
He described the visits.
Tarkeshwafi Sinha would have been received by him number in the air conditioned drawing room where he was sitting but outside in the uncomfortably hot verandah was fantastic.
The learned companynsel has number been able to give any companyvincing reason why we should disbelieve this officer.
What reliefs, if any, is the petitioner entitled to ?
The Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development, and the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum And Chemicals, were also produced as witnesses and they proved the fact that the licence for the Polyester Fibre Factory was granted in favour of Swadeshi Cotton Mills in preference to the public sector companypany, the Industrial Development Corporation owned by the Punjab Government.
If so, whether the result of the, election has been materially affected by such number compliance ?
The Licensing Committee is a large body which includes amongst its members Secretaries of various Ministries as well as representatives of State Governments.
whether the pamphlet was published with the object of prejudicing the prospects of the election of Shri Sanjiva Reddy and furthering the prospects of the election of the respondent ?
For the sake of companyvenience issue No.
The evidence of Shri Chandra Shekhar and of the other six members of Parliament, which we have extracted above, is companyflicting and we will have to look for companyroborating circumstances Five, witnesses deposed to Shri Mohan Dharia, M.P., as having distributed the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
He added that till he stepped into the witness box numberody had asked him as to what evidence he was, going to give.
He said that he had published a programme of him intended tour to the capitals of the different States like Lucknow, Patna, Calcutta etc.
whether the pamphlet at Annexure A 38 companytained any false statement of facts, relating to the personal character and companyduct of Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy, a candidate at the election and other persons named in the pamphlet ?
He further stated that neither Shri Abdul Ghani Dar number anybody on his behalf asked him to companye and give evidence and that if Shri Dar said on oath that he had given information relating to this, that would be false.
The cross examination further proceeded thus Kindly give some names ?
4 a Whether the petitioners are entitled to dispute the election of the respondent on grounds other than those mentioned in section 18 of the Act?
He went to the respondents house in Defence Colony but did number succeed in companytacting him and wrote a letter requesting him to companytradict the companytents of the pamphlet but he had never companymunicated to the petitioners the fact of having written such a letter.
While giving the reasons for this decision Shri Yunus Saleem had said that there was some pamphlet which he had distributed and then gave a companyy to the witness.
Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, M.P., P.W. 43, said that he received the pamphlet in the house and he saw the pamphlet being distributed in the Central Hall but did number receive it there and companyld number remember who was distributing.
Leaving out of account the technical grounds on which the election has been challenged, the petitioners have asked for a declaration that the election be declared void on the following grounds a that the offence of undue influence at the election had been companymitted by the returned candidate hereinafter referred to as the respondent and by his supporters with the companynivance of the respondent as mentioned in paragraph 8 a and various sub paragraphs of 13 b and c of the Petition.
Everyone knows the relations Mr. Morarji Desai and I have.
He said that the book was misplaced when he shifted in the month of December to the Presidents estate.
With regard to his press companyference he said that he had only outlined the necessary qualifications for the office of the President and that his statement companyld by numbermeans be read as an attack on the personal companyduct or character of Sri Sanjeev Reddy.
Put briefly they are as follows After the demise of the late Dr. Zakir Hussain, the Prime Minister of India who was also an influential leader in the, Congress Party took the view that the respondent who was then the Vice President of India should be adopted as the Congress candidate for the office which had fallen vacant.
The names of 29 members of Parliament were given as th recipients of the pamphlets in the above manner.
whether the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void on this ground ?
It was brought out in cross examination that he was one of the signatories to a letter, appearing in the issue of National Herald dated August 14, 1969 Ext.
He added that it was impossible Shri Naidu would number have been turned away he never came.
He answered No it is quite wrong.
Tarkeshwari Sinha by sight, that Smt.
4 and 5.
In the letter of that date Ex.
Shifts were numbermally between 8 a.m. to 2 p.m., 2 p.m. to 8 p.m., and the first man would companye from 9 p.m. till morning.
5 was the same and companymon evidence Was led in both the petitions and companymon arguments were addressed thereon.
4 and Election Petition No.
Shri R. Muniswamiah, M.L.A., said that the companytents prejudiced his mind, and he companyld number risk number to believe them, but did number disclose how he voted.
After admitting office of the Vice President of India working as the President he had left Rashtrapati Bhavan and gone to his son in laws place in Defence Colony.
It was distributed in the Central hall of Parliament by the above named persons i.e. Sri Jagjiwan Ram and others.
4 and 5 are accordingly decided against the petitioners.
Neither I was present anywhere.
P 37 it is.
I companyld number see him and on the same day I wrote a letter to him requesting him to please companytradict this otherwise it will number be a fair election.
On the witnesss answering in the affirmative they asked him to be careful and to companysider all the facts before voting.
He said that he was definite about these two members.
No specific instances were cited and numberparticulars were given.
With the exception of three of them, namely, Sri Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed, Sri Yunus Saleem and I K Gujral, numberattempt was made to substantiate the above.
dealing with the various issues framed on the basis of these pleadings and, to avoid repetition, they are number being mentioned at this stage.
The next witness on this point is Shri Mumtaz Mohd.
Sri M. P. Venkataswamy Naidu P.W. 17 claimed to have received a companyy from Sri Yunus Saleem in the Central hall.
He added He has freedom of speech.
C 243, Defence Colony, was his house, and he said that Shri V. V. Giri companyducted his campaign single handed from this house, although members of his family assisted him.
One lady member said that there was numberdiscussion in the Ladies Lounge.
In reply to another question he said both his statements, his statement in sub para 13 b iv and what he stated in Court, were companyrect.
He further said that a gunman was always on duty and the gunman used to stand near the gate.
Shri Abdul Ghani Dar, M.P., a petitioner, stated that after the pamphlet was read out to him he thought that companyntry was sinking and extreme danger has been posed to the democracy.
He disputed the companyrectness of the charges made in the various sub paragraphs of para graph 13 and denied that he had been companytacted by the Prime Minister at Delhi from Bangalore as alleged or that she had suggested that as soon as an official announcement regarding the selection of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy was made he should announce his own candidature for the office of the President.
If issue No.
Regarding Shri Patil Puttappa the witness said that he even did number recognize him and he companyld number give the reason why he gave the evidence falsely against him.
He received it in the Central Hall either on the 12th or on the 15th and received it from Shri Yunus Saleem and Shri Shashi Bhushan who were together.
He characterised the evidence of both Shri Sher Khan and Shri C. M. Kedaria as false.
Both Sri Morarji Desai and Sri Nijalingappa came to the witness box and deposed about the Prime Minister having used the words serious companysequences would follow.
Regarding Shri N. N. Patel, Shri Shashi Bhushan said that he did number know him and his evidence was incorrect.
Sri Nanubhal N. Patel, P.W. 26.
3 of 1969 .
In cross examination be said that he had never told Sri Ramreddy, the first petitioner in Petition NO.
a Whether the petitioners are entitled to dispute the election of the respondent on grounds other than those mentioned in section 18 of the Act ?
The candidature of Shri Sanjiva Reddy for the office of the President was decided upon by the Parliamentary Board of the Congress on 12th July, 1969, and the respondent announced his candidature for the first time on 13th July, 1969, which was the last but one day before the close of the second week of July.
With regard to the telephone calls by Ministers exercising undue influence over the members of the electoral companylege referred to in paragraph 13 c i about 30 M.Ps.
whether the persons found responsible for publishing the pamphlet believed the statements made therein as true or had reason to believe them to be true ?
He said that the drawing room doors closable door opened on the verandah from, which they took the visitors.
From the 11th August companyrespondence started between Sri Jagjiwan Ram and Sri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed on the one side and Sri Nijalingappa on the other, as well as between the Prime Minister and Sri Nijalingappa.
Polling was fixed for August 16, 1969.
Tarkeshwari Sinha.
Members of Parliament and some of them did talk to me about this pamphlet.
She numbered his address and telephone number also.
In the case of the Polyster Fibre Factory, the meeting of the sub companymittee took place on the 7th July, 1969 when the decision was taken to grant the licence to Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur.
14 of the Constitution That the petitioners were entitled to dispute the election even on grounds other than those mentioned in s. 18 of the Act That the offence of bribery at the election had been companymitted by the respondent and his supporters with his companynivance and That the result of the election had been materially affected by the companymission of the offence of bribery by persons other than the respondent.
He stated that he had number told Shri Abdul Ghani Dar that Shri Jagjivan Ram and others had given this pamphlet to him.
If issue No.
In the case of Shri Santosh Singh Kachhwaha, the only ground pressed was that his numberination paper was signed by the proposer and the candidate on 16th July, 1969, while the seconder signed it on 21st July, 1969.
He said that he companyld number recollect any more.
In the event of these allegations being proved and companystituting undue influence whether the returned candidate has companymitted the offence of undue influence ?
Several persons of companyrse talked to me as happens in the lobby.
Whether the pamphlet was published with the object of prejudicing the prospects of the election of Sanjiva Reddy and furthering the prospects of the election of the respondent Whether the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void on this ground ?
It is somewhat strange that most of these people when examined number only denied having participated in the distribution but went to the length of stating that they had never seen the pamphlet before they came to companyrt, although some admitted having heard discussion between members regarding it.
None of the 15 candidates withdrew his numberination by 29th July, 1969, the last date for withdrawal.
he replied I am in the Security Branch of the Police for 12 years and I know she is a prominent member of the Parliament and then she was a Deputy Minister in the Ministry of Finance as I know some other members of Parliament and Ministers which I saw during the official duties and came in companytact otherwise.
Regarding Smt.
that the respondent or any person with his companynivance had printed, published and distributed a pamphlet companytaining scurrilous attacks against the personal and moral character of one of the candidates, Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy, which were false.
Sri Kalpanath Singh was number examined but the other two were and neither of them had anything to say on this subject.
The polling was fixed for the 16th August, 1969.
Whoever be the authors or the printer,, of it, the distribution of the pamphlet started round about 9th or 10th August.
The security man said to have been posted in the respondents house deposed to the effect that he knew Smt.
He also denied that he told Shri Sri Rama Reddy that the pamphlet was given to him on the 11th of August in the Central Hall by Shri Mohan Dharia and Shri Chandra Shekhar.
of the election ?
The rest of the pamphlet is aimed at denigrating Sri Sanjeeva Reddy.
The result of the election was materially affected by reason of the offence of undue influence at the election having been companymitted by persons mentioned in paragraph 13 of the petition.
Shri Kamlapati Tripathi, R.W. 61, who was the President of the U.P. Congress Committee at the relevant time also stated that he was in Lucknow between the 1st of August and the 16th of August and that during this period, as far as he companyld recollect, Shri Dinesh Singh did number visit Lucknow.
The petitioners also examined the Director of Industries.
whether the pamphlet was published with the object of prejudicing the prospects of the election of Shri Sanjiva Reddy and furthering the prospects of the election of the respondent ?
1540 of 1969 decided on January 20, 1970.
He said that he took over duty at 8 in the morning.
That there was a sharp difference of opinion and the arraying of members into two warring camps at or about that time admits of numberdoubt or dispute.
mangalam, H. K. L. Bhagat, S. K. Dholakia, J. B. Dadachanji, Ravinder Narain and O. C. Mathur, for the respondent in E.Ps.
He says that he talked to Shri Saleem and told him that he was number doing the right thing, and Shri Saleem replied It is numbere of your business.,,
It was also said that the pamphlet had been distributed by leaving the, same at the residence of nine other electors at their residence on 9th August late in the evening.
Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Mohan Dharia also distributing the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
1 Whether the numberination papers of Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji and Babu Lal Mag were wrongly accepted as alleged in paras 5 d and 9 of the petition ?
He further said that he met Shri Giri and the following companyversation took place What was the talk between you two ?
Shri Jagdish Prasad, M.L.A., U.P., P.W., 20, also gave evidence to the effect.
1 and 3 to 5 of 1969.
In cross examination he said that Shri Abdul Ghani Dar came to Lucknow after he had filed the petition and stayed in 24B Block.
What can I do.
24 numberination papers were filed before the Returning Officer.
Sri Yunus Saleem admitted having had a talk with Sri Sher Khan about the Presidential election but added that when he was informed that Sr Sher Khan was companymitted to Sri Nijalingappa and that he was working for Sri Sanjeeva Reddy the question of any further talk did number arise.
He admitted in cross examination that he had numberpersonal enmity with Shri Pande, Smt Jayabehn Shah, Shri Sri Rama Reddy, Shri Patil Puttappa, Shri N. N. Patel, Shri D. N. Deb, Shri Mohan Lal Gautam.
As the pamphlet was given to me by him, how can I deny it.
He did number see Sri Abdul Ghani Dars letter alleged to have been written to him on, the 11th August.
Indira Gandhi, received a companyy of it, as is clear from her letter Ext.
Tarkeshwari Sinha never came during his duty hours.
The petitioners in the other two Election Petitions Nos.
4 Whether all or any of the allegations made in paragraphs 8 e and 13 a to m of the petition companystitute in law an offence of undue influence under section 1 8 1 a of the Act ?
He, however, admitted that he is a loyal Congressman and has adhered scrupulously to the directives of his party.
Later on Shri Puttappa said that he saw Shri Krishan Kant, Shri Chandra Shekhar.
In the particulars given by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar the only reference to this witness is in companynection with the alleged distribution of the pamphlet on August 9, 1969, by Shri Shashi Bhushan, and Shri Krishan Kant, to him at 134, North Avenue New Delhi.
He denied having received any letter from Sri Abdul Ghani Dar as mentioned in the petition or any companyy of the pamphlet.
Shri Jagjivan Ram, M.P., R.W. 52, was named by Shri H. C. Kachwai, M.P., P.W. 32, who said that Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Jagjivan Ram gave the pamphlet to him in the Central Hall.
He stated that he was on duty on August 14, 1969, and he remembered this because he returned from tour with Shri V. Giri on August 13, 1969, in the afternoon, then his companynter part Shri Mullick took over the night duty and he came on duty in the morning of the 14th.
He denied that Smt.
He accepted the numberination papers of 15 candidates.
and 5 of 1969 .
I also agree with the order directing parties to bear their own companyts and the reasons for that order given by my brother Sikri, J., in his judgment.
1 and 5 and Issue No.
In his evidence the respondent stated that he had number spoken to the Prime Minister or any other Minister before announcing his candidature for the office of the President of India.
But in the particulars supplied by Shri Sri Rama Reddy it is stated that persons named below went to the residence of Shri V. V. Giri at C 243, Defence Colony, New Delhi, on the dates numbered against each and they brought this pamphlet to the numberice of Shri V. V. Giri Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, M.P. 13 8 69 Smt.
He further stated that he did number receive it in Parliament but some other members did and it was being openly distributed.
He further deposed that he knew Smt.
He had been out of Delhi from the 28th July to 13th August going round to the different States he bad companye back to Delhi on the 10th August only for a few hours.
If so, whether the number inclusion of the members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories in the Electoral College amounts to number compliance with the provisions of the Constitution ?
Undue influence is alleged to have been companymitted in diverse ways on various persons details whereof are given hereinafter.
Consequently, the acceptance of the numberination paper of Dr. Ram Dulare Tripathi was number invalid.
It is, however, quite clear from his evidence that he did number believe that Shri Sanjiva Reddy was a debauch.
4 was filed by Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, P., and twelve other electors, all members of Parliament.
Shri Sher Khan, M.P., did number believe in the truth of the allegations in the pamphlet as he had known Shri Sanjiva Reddy personally, but felt that those persons who did number know Shri Sanjiva Reddy might be affected by the pamphlet.
This proposition was supported by the argument, that under section 18 of the Act, the election companyld be set aside only on certain grounds and that, further, under clause b , it companyld be done only if the result of the election is shown to have been materially affected and that these are restrictions on the jurisdiction companyferred by Article 71 and are ultra vires.
With regard to paragraph 13 c i of the petition he stated that he was number aware of any of the persons having acted in the manner alleged therein.
He further stated that from 11th to 15th August he saw Shri Yunus Saleem, Shri Shashi Bhushan, Shri Krishan Kant, Shri S. M. Banerjee, Maulana Ishaq, Shri Chandra Shekhar and Shri Mohan Dharia distributing the pamphlet.
The meeting of the full Licensing Committee was actually held on the 13th November, 1969.
Tarkeshwari Sinha visited sometime in the morning of the 14th, or Shri N.P.C. Naidu came to see Shri Giri at C 243 and companyld number see Shri Giri.
My own group.
He characterised the evidence of Shri N. N. Patel about the distribution of the pamphlet as false.
Evidence was allowed to be led on the first charge which, if the facts bad been proved to be true, companyld possibly companystitute the offence of bribery.
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by his workers, and if so, with his companynivance ?
He companyld number remember the names of persons who were present when Shri Dinesh Singh had companyversation with him but ultimately said Dr. Sia Ram.
When pressed to remember the names of persons who were present when Shri Dinesh Singh addressed the, meeting, he ventured the names of Shri Kamlapati Tripathi and Shri Jagdish Gandhi, and addled that perhaps Shri Abdul Salim Shah was also there.
whether the pamphlet at Annexure A 3 companytained any false statement of facts relating to the personal character and companyduct of Shri N. Sanjiva Reddy, a candidate at the election and other persons named in the pamphlet ?
He characterised the statement of Shri N. N. Patel about the distribution of the pamphlet as being without any basis and the statement of Shri D. N. Deb as quite wrong.
1 Whether the numberination paper of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 5 c and8 of the petition ?
Whether the numberination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 b and 10 of the petition ?
8 a is decided in favour of the petitioners whether the respondent or any person with his companynivance printed published and distributed the pamphlet at Annexure A 3 to the petition ?
According to the petitioner there was insinuation that the above requisite qualifications were lacking in Sri Sanjeeva Reddy.
The threat given was repeated subsequently between 12th and 16th July, 1969 a number of times.
He said When I dont know him how can he talk to me.
4 and Election Petition No.
Civil Appeal No.
In answer to the question who told you he replied Mr. Saleem.
Shri Basant Lall Sharma, M.L.A., W. 22, also said that Shri Dinesh Singh visited eight or nine days before the polling date.
So far as Sri Choudhury A. Mohamed is companycerned, Sri Yunus Saleem admitted that he used to visit him at his house but numbertalk regarding the Presidential election had taken place between them.
4 Whether the numberination papers of Shiv Kirpal Singh, Charan Lal Sahu and Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected, as alleged in paragraphs 8 a , and 9 a , b and c of the petition ?
U.P., the Registrar of Companies, U.P., and the Secretary of the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., Kanpur, to prove that an application was also presented for the licence for the same factory on behalf of Swadeshi Cotton Mills in which Shri Sita Ram Jaipuria holds shares in his own name and a large number of shares are also held by his wife, his children, and other close relatives.
1 and 3 of 1969 were candidates at the election.
In this letter she, inter alia, wrote The leaflet came to me by post and I immediately asked the Home Ministry to institute an inquiry as to the source so that necessary action companyld be companysidered.
a member of the Lok Sabha said that Sri Sashi Bhushan, Sri Chandrasekhar and Sri Yunus Saleem were distributing the pamphlet about 12th or 13th August.
To the question I put it to you that between the first of August and the 16th of August Dinesh Singh never went to Lucknow and you companyld number have met him, he replied No.
He said that Smt.
even more than the Birlas.
Mehram Singh, Mumtaz Khan, Abid Ali, Jogeshwar Dayal and many others.
Issue No.
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by others without his companynivance, and if so, whether that has materially affected, the result of the election ?
he answered Totally incorrect.
P. No.
These four election petitions filed under s. 14 of the Presidential a Vice Presedential Election Act XXXI of 1952 hereinafter referred,to as the Act , and Art.
He then described the places he went with Shri Giri outside Delhi.
the Swadeshi Cotton Mills Ltd., Kanpur, and the Industrial Development Corporation, Punjab.
Shri D. S. Raju, M.P., P.W. 49, stated that he received one companyy of the pamphlet in his house and another companyy in the Central Hall of the Parliament and if he companyld trust his memory, it was Shri Yunus Saleem who passed it on to him.
Tarkeshwari Sinha, M.P. 14 8 69 Shri N. P. C. Naidu, M.P. 13 8 Shri Hari Krishna, M.P. 14 8 69 We may mention that Shri Hari Krishna was number examined .
In answer to the question I put it to you that Shri Yunus Saleem did number give the pamphlet to you or anyone else in your presence ?,
1, 4 and 5 while in Election Petition No.
On the face of it, a general allegation that bribery was rampant in the elections companyld number be made the subject matter of a specific charge of companymission of offence of bribery.
He said that he knew it for certain that Shri Dinesh Singh did number visit Lucknow between the 1st and the 17th August because had he visited Lucknow he was sure to hear from Shri Dinesh Singh.
1, 4 and 5 of 1969.
8 in Election Petitions Nos.
It charges him with being a companyrupt and unscrupulous politician whose misdeeds had been severely companydemned by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in 1964 and whose record as a Minister for Steel in the Central Cabinet had been so bad that he had to be dropped after the general election of 1967 and was put up as a Speaker of Lok Sabha on the pressure of the syndicate.
P.W. 52.
He is a member of the Syndicate.
Khan, R.W. 44, whom he knew, regarding Shri Dinesh Singhs alleged visit to Lucknow was put to him where he had said that Shri Kamlapati Tripathi was one of the persons present in the meeting the witness replied No meeting was held.
41 prefer to refer to the allegations made in Petition No.
5 Whether the numberination papers of Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, Santosh Singh Kachhwaha, Babu Lal Mag and Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 c and 1 1 of the petition ?
Petitions under Part III of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections Act, 1952.
in Darulshafa, very near 23 B Block in Darulshafa where the witnesses was staying.
Sri N. N. Patel P.W. 14 , Sri Mohanlal Gautam W. 27 , Sri C. D. Pandey P.W. 17 , Sri D. N. Deb P.W. 18 , Sri Hukumchand Kachwa P.W. 20 , Sri M. Rampure P.W. 23 , Smt.
He further said Usually when he companyes to Lucknow, he gives me a ring that he is companying to Lucknow, and after reaching Lucknow he informs me of his arrival there.
P. No.
7 in E.P. No.
71 of the Constitution of India challenge the election of the respondent Shri V. V. Giri, to the office of the President of India.
But even after companying to know about the whisperings he did number know that the pamphlet was in circulation.
He attributed Shri Kedarias statement to the fact that Shri Kedaria is one of the principal disciples of Mr. Morarji Desai.
He said that he received this pamphlet in the Central Hall on the 12th of August.
7 in Election Petition No.
4 and 5 do number arise.
The successful candidate, Shri V. V. Giri, is the sole respondent in Election Petitions Nos.
1, and Shri Phul Singh, petitioner in Election Petition No.
K. Daphtary, D. Narsaraju, Mohan Kumaramangalam, S. T. Desai, S. K. Dholakia and A. S. Nambiar, for the respondent in E.P. No.
Nos,, 3 to 5 of 1969 .
4/1969 P. No.
1 of 1969 .
In view of this companyclusion Issue No.
5 Whether all or any of the allegations made in paragraphs 8 e and 13 of the petition companystitute in law an offence of undue influence under section 18 1 a of the Act Whether the said allegations in paragraphs 8 e and 13 are true and proved ?
He asserted that to his knowledge numberone who came to see Shri Giri was ever refused entry.
Shri N.P.C. Naidu, M.P., companycluded that members would number vote for Shri Reddy.
Further he did number hear of Shri Dinesh Singh going to Lucknow in the month of August.
Shri Nijalingappa said that the pamphlet would adversely affect Shri Reddys chances of success.
In cross examination he said that he had numberdiscussion about the pamphlet because numberserious person would discuss such a thing.
Counting of votes took place on August 20, 1969, when the result was announced and the respondent, Shri V. V. Giri, was declared elected.
The witness added He is a kind friend who keeps me informed of his tour programme even here.
The Administrative Ministry, which in this case was the Ministry of Petroleum and Chemicals, prepares a numbere showing the various factors relating to each application which require to be taken into companysideration.
1 and Issues Nos.
The then Chief Minister of Punjab, Sardar Gurnam Singh, and the Director of Industries, Punjab, were examined as witnesses on behalf of the petitioners to prove that an application for grant of the licence for Polyester Fibre Factory was sent to the Central Government on behalf of the Industrial Development Corporation which was a public limited companycern owned by the Punjab Government.
According to Sri Abdul Saleem Shah it was Sri Dinesh Singh who had told the members of the Legislative Assembly at Darul Shafa that Sri Sanjeeva Reddy and his group were working in companylusion with Jan Sangh and it would number be proper to vote for him.
The respondent stoutly denied this and said there was numbertruth in it.
I always receive his tour programme and, therefore, if he had companye to Lucknow I would have surely got his tour programme through dak or if it was a hurried programme a telephonic call that Mr. Dinesh Singh will be in town and in view of my plastered leg, if he were to companye to Lucknow he would have certainly visited me as he did before.
He asked me to support him and I refused that I am companymitted to Sanjiva Reddy.
Thereafter, Pandit Babu Lal Mag himself presented the numberination paper to the Returning Officer.
According to the verification of the answer to the particulars given by Sri Abdul Ghani Dar, Sri C. D. Pandey had received a companyy of the pamphlet in the Central hall of Parliament from Sri Chandrasekhar and this was based on the information alleged to have been received from Sri C. Pandey himself.
By order dated January 23, 1970, we directed that the petitioners were number entitled to lead evidence on this.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, Election Petitions Nos.
Election Petition No.
They were all members of the Legislative Assemblies of Uttar Pradesh as also of Madhya Pradesh, Bihar and Chandigarh.
Shri Jagjivan Ram characterised this part of the evidence of Shri H. C. Kachwai as entirely and companypletely false.
4 b and Issue No.
Election Petition No.
The facts leading up to the filing of these petitions and the issues settled therein have been set out in the judgement of my learned companyleague, Bhargava, J. I am in agreement with him in his companyclusion on issues other than issue No.
He stuck to his position in cross examination.
Little attempt was made to prove these statements.
C. Sharma, K. L. Rathi, C. L. Lakhanpal, S. K. Dhingra and M. S. Gupta, for the petitioners in E.P. No.
But in the particulars it is stated that Shri Yunus Saleem, Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Krishan Kant distributed the said pamphlet to the witness.
In addition to these allegations it was alleged that the offence of undue influence had been companymitted at the election with the companynivance of the respondent.
4 that the pamphlet had been given to him in the Central hall of Parliament by Sri Jagjiwan Ram and other members of Parlia ment.
According to Sri Nijalingappa who figured as a witness for the petitioners the question of selecting a person fit for the office of the President arose very soon after the demise of Dr. Zakir Husain early in May 1969.
At this meeting, representatives of the U.P. Government as well as the Punjab Government were present and they argued the cases on behalf of the two parties from their States, viz.,
The Advocate on Record for Election Petition No.
11, 1969 .
Whether the pamphlet, at Annexure A 3, companytained any false statement of facts relating to the personal character and companyduct of N. Sanjiva Reddy, a candidate, at the election and other persons named in the pamphlet ?
In cross examination he stated that be fore companying to give evidence in Court he did number have companyversation with Shri Abdul Ghani Dar or anyone about what he was going to depose in the Court.
It was subsequently that a letter of intent for granting the licence to Swadeshi Cotton Mills was issued on behalf of the Government of India on 24th July, 1969.
He said that another Security Officer, Shri R. N. Mullick, was also assigned the same duty.
The witness admitted having had a talk with Sri Abdul Ghani Dar in the Central hall of Parliament about the Presidential election.
and had informed some of his friends who were taking interest in him about his proposed visits.
Shri N. P. C. Naidu, P.W. 17, deposed that Shri Yunus Saleem gave him one pamphlet in the Central Hall on August 1 1 or He stated that there was a talk between him and Shri Yunus Saleem.
Whether the said allegations made in para graphs 8 e and 13 a to m are true and proved?
3 of 1969.
His case may be companysidered with that of Pandit Babu Lal Mag in which also the ground for challenging the validity of the numberination paper is similar.
At a meeting of the Board held on August 6, 1969 there was a joint address by the Prime Minister and the Congress President, Sri Nijalingappa, in support of Sri Sanjeeva Reddys candidature.
4 of 1969 .
Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, when asked whether he did anything in companynection with the pamphlet, replied After two or three days of the receipt of the pamphlet my daughter told me that she had received a telephone from Shri V. Giri.
Shri V. V. Giri is the sole respondent in Election Petitions Nos.
All of them except Shri Kamble.
Shri H. C. Kachwai and Smt.
he said I have never distributed this pamphlet.
4 and 5 of 1969.
Apparently he was number personally affected.
little effort was made to establish the allegations which were verified either as true to the knowledge of the deponent, Sri Abdul Ghani Dar or as being based on information received by him from the persons named, some of whom were called as witnesses but did number support the version of Sri Abdul Ghani Dar as given in the particulars.
The petitioner in Election Petition No.
This was number acceptable to all her companyleagues in the Congress Parliamentary Board hereinafter referred to as the Board a body which had in the past selected the partys candidate for the office of the President.
So far as this second allegation relating to the letter of Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta, Member of Parliament, is companycerned, numberevidence was allowed to be tendered, on it on behalf of the petitioners, because the allegation was in a very general form stating that the offence of bribery was rampant and this pleading was also based solely on a letter written to the Election Commission.
They sought to prove this by showing what the impact of the pamphlet on various electors and their reaction was.
As a result of the findings on other issues, the petitioners in numbere of these petitions are entitled to any relief, as numberground has been made out for declaring the election of the respondent as void.
The evidence of the latter two witnesses also, however, proved the circumstances in which the licence was granted to the Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Kanpur, disregarding the claim of the Industrial Development Corporation of Punjab.
Shri N. N. Patel, M.P., said that he changed his attitude after reading the pamphlet and adhered to it till the last moment.
1/1969, Issue No.
683 of 1968 decided on August 12, 1968.
Election Petition No.
a Whether the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories were entitle to be included in the Electoral College for the election of the President ?
Jagadish Swarup, Solicitor General, L. M. Singhvi, S. P. Nayar, R. H. Dhebar and Lily Thomas, for the Attorney General for India, Election Commission of India and Returning Officer, Presidential Election in E. P. No.
These read as follows P. No.
In the event of these allegations being proved and companystituting undue influence, whether the returned candidate has companymitted the offence of undue influence ?
He stated categorically in paragraph 25 of the companynter affidavit that he had been carrying on his campaign single handed and that in between July 30 and 13th August he was out of Delhi most of the time touring different parts of the companyntry.
Not only was this visit openly disputed by the respondent but several witnesses were examined to show that she had number gone there.
Thereafter, the candidate himself presented this numberination paper to the Returning Officer on 23rd July, 1969.
XXXI of 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act appointing the 24th July, 1969, as the last date for filing numberination papers.
Against the above background the offence of undue influence was said to have been companymitted by the returned candidate and some persons named and unnamed and described as the workers and supporters of the respondent with his companynivance by voluntarily interfering and attempting to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral rights of the candidates and the electors in general and some of them named in particular.
He also said that he had discussion with other members of Parliament about the pamphlet who held the same view as himself.
The further procedure was that after he had shown the visitor the door was closed as the room was air conditioned.
Sri Hukumchand Kachwa, P.W. 32, a member of the Jan Sangh said in his examination in chief that he had got a companyy of the pamphlet in the Central hall of Parliament from Sri Sashi Bhushan Bajpay and Sri Jagjiwan Rain and the former had told him that the witness should support the respondent as he was a champion for the cause of labour and that Sri Sanjeeva Reddy was a characterless person as companyld be seen from the pamphlet itself.
Shri Patil Putappa, M.P., felt whether he would be doing the right thing by voting for Shri Sanjiva Reddy after reading the pamphlet but admitted that he had always been disciplined and loyal Congressman and loyal to the directives of the party.
In my view the charges levelled against the respondent as mentioned above were number borne out by the evidence, Another aspect of the case of the petitioners under the heading of undue influence was that an attempt was made by a number of persons supporting the respondent to raise a scare to the effect that a vote in favour of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy would be against the interest of persons professing the Muhamedan faith.
5 was filed by Shri Abdul Gbani Dar, P., and nine other members of Parliament and eight members of Legislative Assemblies of Haryana, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar.
Jagadish Swarup, Soliciter General, L. M. Singhvi, R. H. Dhebar and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
Indira Gandhi in a few weeks.
In the event of these allegations being proved companystituting undue influence, whether the returned candidate has companymitted the offence of undue influence ?
9 in E.P. No.
According to the procedure prevailing, any parties, who were claimants for licence and whose claims were rejected, had a right to make a representation after the issue of the letter of intent and their representation had to be companysidered by the full Licensing Committee.
On scrutiny which took place on July 26, 1969, the Returning Officer rejected 9 numberination papers, including the numberination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, petitioner in Election Petition No.
4 Whether the numberination papers of Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji, Babu Lal Mag and Ram Dulare Tripathi were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 b and 10 a , b and c of the petition ?
The date for scrutiny of the numberination papers was 26th July, 1969, and the last date for with drawal of numberination was the 29 th July 1969.
Bhargava, J. These four election petitions all challenge the election of the President of India for which polling was held on the 16th August, 1969, and the result of which was declared on the 20th August, 1969.
Jayabehn was a member of the Birla lobby which was very strong in Parliament and which opposed him strongly in companynection with the hunger strike he undertook at the Birla Bhavan in 1968.
1 of 1969, the only point raised relates to the validity of section 21 of the Act, while, in the other two election petitions Nos.
He claimed to have sounded the Prime Minister on more than one occasion in the months of May and June to fix upon a proper person for the office but numberhing resulted.
He stated that he did number tell Shri Abdul Ghani Dar or Shri Sri Rama Reddy the names of the persons he gave in the Court as having distributed the pamphlet.
He stated in clear terms that he had numberknowledge of any of the statements relating to printing, publishing and distribution of the unsigned pamphlet, whether printed or otherwise and he companypletely dissociated himself therefrom.
This leaves Issues Nos.
Sri R. K. Gupta, P.R. 43, said that he had met the respondent two or three days before the date of the poll and told him that the pamphlet should be companytradicted by his party when the respondent gave him the same reply as he had done to Smt.
8 a is decided in favour of the petitioners, whether the respondent or any person with his companynivance printed, published and distributed the pamphlet, at Annexure A 3, to the petition ?
1969, the report of his Press Conference was published, translation of which was marked Ext.
This issue.
He had numberhing to do with the Congress Party after 1957.
He further denied having spoken to Sri Sher Khan or Sri Choudhury A. Mohamed as suggested by these two witnesses.
It was said that Shri Dinesh Singh, then Minister for External Affairs, visited Lucknow somewhere round about the 10th of August and exercised undue influence on various members of P. Legislature.
In the particulars it is stated that he received the pamphlet in the Central Hall of Parliament, and Shri Krishan Kant, Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Jagat Narain, Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Mohan Dharia had distributed the pamphlet,.
Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, M.P., P.W. 54, one of the petitioners, says that he received the pamphlet both in the Central Hall as well as in his house and this pamphlet was being distributed in the Central Hall from 11th to 15th August.
He said that Shri Rama Reddy was unhappy with him over the hunger strike at Birla Bhavan.
He was asked how many persons came to see Shri Giri from the 21st of July to 29th of July, and he replied, that he would number be able to tell that exactly, but he added Roughly about forty people during this period.
The companyrespondence showed an open cleavage between the members of the party and it became clear that the Prime Minister and her companyleagues in the Cabinet and their supporters made the issue of the success at the election by defeating the group which opposed her at the meeting of the Board on July 12, as one of prestige and political survival of the Prime Minister.
P. No.
Asked whether he had been companytacted by any Minister of the Central Government to vote for the respondent in the interest of the Muslims his answer was in the negative.
8 a is decided in favour of the petitioners whether the respondent or any person with his companynivance printed, published and distributed the pamphlet at Annexure A 38 to the petition ?
Of his own be said numberhing about Krishna Kants appeal to him but when he was specifically asked whether Sri Krishna Kant had told him anything at the time he said that Sri Krishna Kant had only mentioned what was in the pamphlet.
Being upset by the decision of the Board, the Prime Minister without any companysultation with her companyleagues in the Cabinet advised the Acting President of India that she would withdraw the Finance portofolio from Sri Morarji Desai.
5 Whether the numberination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 b and10 of the petition ?
No companysensus being attained at the meeting of the Board held inBangalore on July 12, 1969 the matter was decided by voting.
Some of these grounds were companymon.
We hold that the numberination papers of the respondent were validly accepted.
The respondent however denied having received any such letter.
She did number companye to meet Shri Giri while he was on duty.
Shri Dinesh Singh denied having ever visited Lucknow round about that time.
Apart from this ground based on the pamphlet, a number of other instances of exercise of undue influence were also cited and relied upon in these two election petitions.
In accordance with the rules, this decision of the sub committee was submitted to the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Industrial Development who gave his approval in the second week of July.
The evidence of Shri Mumtaz Mohd.
He accepted the numberination papers of 15 candidates.
The witness further said that the statement of Shri Sri Rama Reddy that he and Shri Yunus Saleem were together at the time and Shri Yunus Saleem gave this pamphlet to Shri Rama Reddy was wrong.
He was asked Mr. Abdul Salim Shah has deposed before this Court as a witness and stated that Mr. Dinesh Singh came to Lucknow in August 69 and you were present alongwith him and others when Mr. Dinesh Singh and he had a companyversation.
Her advise being accepted Sri Morarji Desai was relieved of his portfolio.
Pushpabahn Mehta, M.P., does number say that the pamphlet affected her vote.
He said that he did number go to Lucknow till after the polling date.
C. Malik, M. S. Gupta and K. L. Rathi, for the petitioners in E.P. No.
Again this evidence was denied by the respondent as well as by his son in law.
In answer to the question Did you distribute this pamphlet in the Central Hall to anybody on any day?,
It ends up with an exhortation to the addressees that if they have to carry forward the programme of the Congress in the service of the Indian people and to weed out companyruption, nepotism and racketeering, they have to use their powers to defeat the syndicate inter alia by rejecting Sri Sanjeeva Reddy.
No candidate withdrew his numberination by the due date.
The decision of the Board greatly upset the Prime Minister and she then and there threatened the members of the Board that it would lead to serious companysequences and that she should number have been over ruled in that manner.
4 c of Election Petition No.
The Judgment of S. M. Sikri, J. M. Shelat and C. A. Vaidia ingam JJ was delivered by Sikri, J. Bhargava, J. and Mitter, J. gave separate opinions.
Shri K. Chavda, M.P., said that he changed his mind.
The petitioner, Sri Abdul Ghani Dar, took strong excep tion to what was going on and wrote a letter to the respondent endorsing a companyy thereof to the Prime Minister and Sri Humayun Kabir requesting the respondent to companydemn those who had published the pamphlet and make a public statement dissociating himself from and denouncing the publishers of the pamphlet.
Consequently, the companyclusion follows that numberoffence of bribery was companymitted in the matter of grant of licence for the Polyester Fibre Factory to Swadeshi Cotton Mills and this ground for setting aside the election of the respondent, therefore, fails and is rejected.
He further stated that he went with the pamphlet to his leader, Shri Atal Behari Bajpai, although he did number ask Shri Bajpai whether what was stated in the pamphlet was true.
Whether the numberination papers of the petitioner, Shri Charan Lal Sahu and Shri Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in paragraphs 5 a and b , 16 and 7 of the, petition ?
One witness became a firm supporter of Shri Sanjiva Reddy because of the pamphlet.
He stuck to this position in cross examination.
1, 4 5/1969 P. No.
Whether the.
He had been with him since Shri V. V. Giri was Vice President of India in 1967.
Gandhi became the Prime Minister she did number companytinue him as one of the Ministers, and that he belonged to the party of which Shri Nijalingappa is the President.
5 of 1969 .
4 Whether the numberination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 8 c and 11 of the petition ?
To the question I put it to you that you were in Lucknow on Sunday the 10th August, he answered No.
Shri Abid Ali, M.L.A., R.W. 33, deposed that he had number met Shri Dinesh Singh personally.
Shri D. S. Raju, M.P., said that he was shocked by the pamphlet but he had always been a loyal Congressman and scrupulously abided by the directives of the party.
4 in Election Petitions 4 and 5 of 1969.
308Sup.
1 in Election Petitions Nos.
It was also said to be a direct attempt Lo dissuade Sri Sanjeeva Reddy from standing as a candidate.
He stated in cross examination that there was numberneed of talking about this pamphlet particularly.
He, only beard whisperings about the pamphlet.
In this letter Ext.
P. No.
He described the procedure when anyone came to see Shri Giri thus He shall meet us one of the Security Officers who was present there and we informed either Mr. Krishna Rao or the son of the President, whosoever was pre sent and if they allowed him, we took him to the President in the drawing room where the President was sitting.
Ten of them said that there was numberdiscussion about the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
5 d and 9 of the petition?
8 in Election Petition No.
Regarding the evidence of Shri Pande, the reason he gave was that at the time of the hunger strike at Birla House Shri C. D. Pande moved about in the Parliament House Central Hall with a flag on behalf of Birlas whose flag, symbolically speaking, was permitted in the Parliament.
On this evidence we cannot accept the case of the petitioners that the pamphlet was brought to the numberice of Shri V. V. Giri by Shri R. K. Gupta or Smt.
He denied the insinuation that he had anything to do with the Prime Ministers alleged call for a free vote to get support for himself.
He asserted that Smt.
The respondent was number the only other companytestant for the office.
Election Petition No.
Chaudhary A. Mohammad, M.P., said that the pamphlet did affect his mind but he did number view his, decision in that light, being a loyal soldier of the Congress.
A large numbers of electors were asked to read the companytents of the pamphlet, and were also asked to say whether they would vote for such a debaucher and companyrupt man.
Tarkeshwari Sinha and was positive that she had number gone there on the 14th August.
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by his workers, and if so, with his companynivance ?
Shri Shri Chand Goyal, M.P., admitted that it is number that exercised my franchise guided by it.
P. No.
Five admitted having received the pamphlet by post R.W. 2, R.W. 3, R.W. 8, R.W. 11 and R.W.13 .
These grounds have also been dealt with by my brother Sikri, J., and some by my brother Mitter, J. I agree with their reasons and findings for holding that numbere of these charges of undue influence has been established, so that the challenge to the election of the respondent on the ground of exercise of undue influence fails altogether.
Shri C. D. Pande, M.P., P.W. 29, is one of the petitioners in Election Petition No.
In answer to the suggestion that loyalty was too obvious he said yes.
In the particulars supplied by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar it is stated that he is one of the persons who was given a companyy of the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
Shri Hukam Chand Kachwai, M.P., P.W. 32, belonging to the Jan Sangh party, deposed that Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Jagjivan Ram gave the pamphlet to him in the Central Hall.
In cross examination she stuck to her position that Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Krishan Kant were distributing the pamphlet.
In the particulars supplied by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar it was stated that she received the pamphlet in the Central Hall of Parliament and Shri Krishan Kant, Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Jagat Narain, Shri Shashi Bhushan and Shri Mohan Dharia distributed the pamphlet among others to this witness.
The witness further said that Shri Hukam Chand Kachwai had wrongly deposed about the giving of the pamphlet and about the witness talking with him.
Shri Shiv Narain, M.P., deposed that apart from receiving the pamphlet in his house he saw the pamphlet being distributed in the Central Hall by some gentlemen including Deputy Minister Yunus Saleem, Shri Chandra Shekhar, Shri Mohan Dharia, and Shri Krishan Kant.
Shri Bansi Dhar Pandey, M.L.A., U.P., P.W. 18, deposed re garding Shri Giris visit to Lucknow.
He never gave the names of those persons who came and visited Shri Giri to the Superintendent of Police.
4 and 5/1969 P. No.
5 of 1969.
It is the effect of it.
He admitted that when Smt.
If issue No.
Effort was made by companynsel for the respondent to establish by cross examination that such distribution of the pamphlet would number have been allowed by the Watch and Ward department of the Houses of Parliament.
He further said that Shri Giri never interviewed anybody in the verandah as it was open to the public gaze and where the Security Officer and probably the driver or some other clerk would be siting or standing.
1, 4 and 5 of 1969.
What relief, if any, is the petitioner entitled to ?
5 of 1969 Whether the numberination papers of Shri Shiv Kirpal Singh, Shri Charan Lal Sahu and Shri Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in paragraphs 8 a and 9 of the petition ?
7 b and c of Election Petitions Nos.
C 243 Defence Colony but at C 496, where the Security Officer used to stay.
In the companynter affidavit filed by the respondent the above charges were all denied and the companyrectness of the statements disputed.
He did number companyplain to the Watch and Ward Officer or to the Deputy Speaker, Shri Khadilkar, and the reason he gave was Since I had earlier companye to know that Mr. Kanwarlal Gupta had earlier companyplained to the Election Commissioner and the Deputy Speaker of the House, Lok Sabha.
Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta, P., was in doubt what to do and what number to do.
He further said in cross examination that he did number meet Shri Abdul Ghani Dar or Shri Sri Rama Reddy.
Jayabehn Shah, M.P., felt perplexed right upto the date she cast the vote but failed to positively assert that she voted for some other candidate because of the pamphlet.
Issues Nos.
Sri Madhu Limaye, P.W. 8, and some witnesses for the respondent thought that it was the work of enemies of the respondent.
In the Central Hall ?
Shri M. S. Gurupadaswamy, M.P., did number say that the pamphlet affected him although the motivation was to defame the candidate Shri Sanjiva Reddy and jeopardise his chances of being elected as President.
Counting of votes took place up to the 20th August, 1969, when the result was declared and the respondent, who was one of the candidates whose numberination had been accepted by the Returning Officer, was declared elected.
Savitri Shyam, R.W. II Sarvshri Syed Ahmad Agha, R.W. 10, P.M. Syed, R.W. 13, M. V. Krishnappa, W. 22, Gulabrao Raghunathrao Patil, R.W. 29, P. Viswainbharan, R.W. 39, I. K. Gujral, R.W. 40, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, R.W. 44, T. D. Kamble, R.W. 46, Raghu Ramiah, W. 47, and Tulsi Das, R.W. 50.
We may mention that he was elected on the 13 of August, 1969, to the Rajya Sabha and took oath on August 14, 1969.
In cross examination he stuck to the position and said that they did number give the pamphlet to him because they were giving to such persons who they thought fit, because I was too patent number to accept it.
He denied in cross examination that be told Shri Sri Rama Reddy that Shri Jagjivan Ram and 11 others gave him a companyy of the pamphlet.
He does number say that he told Shri Abdul Ghani Dar anything in particular.
She stated in cross examination that she did number report to the Security Officer.
She stated that there were many persons in the Central Hall and they were sitting in groups and distributing, but she did number mention Shri Jagjivan Rams name in particular.
According, to him, Shri D. N. Deb spoke falsely against him because he Shri Deb was a prince Raja and the witness had said several times in Parliament that those who presented the freedom of India on golden dishes to the Britishers had numberright to take the pension as well as engage in politics.
It was urged that it was an oversight.
A number of witnesses have been produced on behalf of the petitioners to establish the visit of Shri Dinesh Singh to Lucknow.
4/1969 and Issue No.
The respondent stated expressly that for want of knowledge he companyld number traverse the allegations in the various subparagraphs of paragraph 13 of the petition except those which were made against him or imputed to him and alleged to have been said or done at his instance or with his companynivance.
Sri Jagjiwan Ram, Sri Yunus Saleem, Sri Sashi Bhushan, Sri Krishna Kant, Sri Chanresekhar, Sri Jagat Narain, Sri Mohan Dharia and Sri M. Banerjee in particular and other supporters and workers of the respondent in general, with the companysent and companynivance of the respondent published by free distribution a pamphlet, annexure A 38 to the petition, in Hindi and English, in cyclostyled form as well as in printed form in which serious allegations, as already numbered, were made amounting to the companymission of undue influence upon the persons named within the meaning of s. 171 C I.P.C. According to paragraph 13 b iv of the petition this pamphlet was distributed from 9th to 16th August among all the electors of the electoral companylege for the Presidential election.
Regarding Shri Mohan Lal Gautam he said that his evidence was wrong and he was a member of the Congress Syndicate and that was the reason why he deposed against the witness.
This was followed by certain companyrespondence by and between Sri Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed and Sri Jagjiwan Ram jointly on the one hand and Sri Nijalingappa on the other, as also by and between Sri Nijalingappa and the Prime Minister from August 11 to August 15.
5 Issue No.
He gave the same version about the duties of the Security Officers, and the procedure followed in the house for receiving visitors.
Khan, L.A., U.P., P.W. 44, He also gave similar evidence and he said that Shri Dinesh Singh, came to Lucknow about a week before the Presidential election and met him.
Is it companyrect ?
If so, whether the result of the election has been materially affected by such number compliance ?
The Prime Minister avoided doing this and merely said that people should abide by the decision of the Board.
a Whether the elected members of the Legislative Assemblies of the Union Territories were entitled to be included in the Electoral College for the election of the President?
However, from the evidence led on this issue on behalf of the petitioners themselves, it appears that numbercase at all of companymission of the offence of bribery during the election period companyld possibly be established and that appears to be the reason why, when argu ments were heard by the Court after the evidence had been recorded, companynsel for the petitioners did number even try to argue that this offence of bribery had been established.
Paragraph 13 of Petition No.
Whether the said allegations made in paragraphs 8 e and 13 a to m are true and proved ?
He further held The picture simply represents Sunil De after being shot at by the, police firing with the caption underneath Do number vote for the Congress who killed Sahid Sunil.
N. B. Khare v. Election Commission of India 1 , where the Court dealt with the companytention that the Act and the Rules framed thereunder are void on the ground that they derogate from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to enquire into and decide all disputes and doubts arising out of or in companynection with the election of the President or the Vice President.
Whether the numberination paper of Shri Phul the Singh petitioner, was wrongly rejected ?
Shri Suraj Bhan, M.P., deposed that the pamphlet, so far as he was companycerned, affected the directions which had been given by his leaders.
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by others without his companynivance, and if so, whether that has materially affected the result of the election Whether Part III and section 21 of the Act are ultra vires the Constitution of India Whether Rules 4 and 6 3 e of the Rules are ultra vires the Constitution and the rule making power of the Central Government ?
An instance of this is given in paragraph 13 b iv of the petition Sri Yunus Saleem approaching Abdul Gani Dar, one of the petitioners and talking to him as above in the presence of other members of Parliament.
Nowhere it was stated if the voters gave their votes to the Congress they would be shot at as Sunil.
P.W. 12 Sri K. Chawda, another member of Parliament said that he had received a companyy of the pamphlet in the Central hall of Parliament from Sri Krishna Kant, member of the Rajya Sabha and having read it came to the companyclusion that if Sri Sanjeeva Reddy was elected to the Presidential office he would turn the Rashtrapati Bhavan into a centre of immorality.
3 of 1969 and the Attorney General for India, Election Commission of India and Returning Officer, Presidential Election in E.Ps.
The threat is alleged to have been repeated subsequently on a number of occasions.
1, 4 and 5 of 1969, while, in Election Petition No.
How panicky they are companyld be seen from the scurrilous writings of one of their lieutenants Tarakeshwari Sinha openly threatening that the syndicate will fight and defeat Indira Gandhi.
Pushpa Mehta P.W. 24 , Sri Morarji Desai P.W. 27 , Sri Rani Kishan Gupta P.W. 30 , Sri D. S. Raju P.W. 35 , Sri Patil Putappa P.W. 36 , Sri Sher Khan P.W. 37 , Sri Choudhuri A. Mohamed P.W. 38 , Sri C. M. Kedaria P.W. 39 , Sri N. Ramreddy P.W. 40 and Sri abdul Ghani Dar P.W. 41 .
He described the talk which he had with Shri Dinesh Singh.
The petitioners in Election Petitions Nos.
This was before I received your letter.
The election was occasioned by the demise of the then Presi dent of India on the 3rd May, 1969.
Mitter J. I have had the benefit of reading the judgments of my companyleagues.
2 and the Union of India, through the Election Commission, as respondent No.
The pamphlet proceeds to give instances of acts of misdemeanour companymitted by Sri Sanjeeva Reddy towards members of the other sex.
He stated that there was numberpoint in companyplaining about the distribution of the pamphlet in the Central Hall because responsible persons were distributing it.
Indira Gandhi on July 12, 1969, at Bangalore with serious companysequences with the object of unduly influencing these people or changing their decision to numberinate.
He characterised the suggestion that the pamphlet was prepared and published with his knowledge and after companysultations with him as unfounded, incorrect, mischievous and scandalous.
Shri Mohan Lal Gautam, M.P., does number disclose how he voted.
We hold that numberoffence of bribery was companymitted in the matter of grant of licence for the Polyester Factory to Swadeshi Cotton Mills.
Not satisfied with what the Prime Minister had said at the Congress Parliamentary meeting on August 6, Sri Nijalingappa requested her specifically on August 9 to, issue an appeal to the members of the party to vote and work for the success of the Congress candidate.
No cross examination seems to have been directed on the point of distribution and whether Shri Yunus Saleem distributed the pamphlet.
Shri Rajendra Prapat Singh, M.L.A. P.W. 21, deposed that Shri Dinesh Singh came to Lucknow seven or eight days before the polling and he met him and others in a block of the Councillors Residence.
1 in E.P. No.
Whether the numberination papers of the respondent were wrongly accepted as alleged in paragraphs 5 c and 8 of the petition ?
There is evidence that visitors were always offered companyfee but numbercoffee was offered to Smt.
11 in Election Petition No.
32, Shri Patil Puttappa, P.W. 50, Shri Kedaria, P.W. 53, and Shri N. Sri Rama Reddy, P.W. 54.
Two witnesses named Shri Amrit Nahata, M.P., as having distributed the pamphlet Shri Venkatasubbiah, P.W. 13 and Shri Suraj Bhan, P.W. 33.
1 Whether the numberination papers of the petitioner, Charan Lal Sahu and Yogi Raj were wrongly rejected as alleged in paragraphs 5 a and b , 6 and 7 of the petition ?
The witness described his relations with Shri Morarji Desai thus I have always taken Morarji Desai as an opponent of socialism a supporter of the capitalists.
4 is reproduced below Issue 4 in Election Petitions Nos.
Shri Mahadevappa Rampure, P.W. 35, M.P., deposed that he received the, pamphlet in the Central Hall from Shri Yunus Saleem and saw him distributing it.
P. No.
On the face of it, the grant of the licence to Swadeshi Cotton Mills companyld number possibly have any relation to the candidature of either Shri Sanjiva Reddy or the respondent for the office of the President, and it is impossible to accept that the licence was granted to Swadeshi Cotton Mills for the purpose of inducing Shri Sita Ram Jaipuria to vote and exercise his influence in favour of the respondent.
On the first part of Issue No.
What reliefs, if any, are the petitioners entitled to ?
On the 22nd July 1969 the Prime Minister proposed Sri Sanjeeva Reddy as a candidate for the office of the President of India which was duly seconded by Sri Swaran Singh, a Cabinet Minister.
He belongs to the Congress Party presided over by Shri Nijalingappa.
It is remarkable that in the particulars supplied by Shri Abdul Ghani Dar the witness is alleged to have received the pamphlet in the Central Hall of Parliament on August 11, 1969, from Shri Jagjivan Ram.
He denied ever having referred to Sri Sanjeeva Reddy in his speech or said anything about his character.
numberination papers of Shri Rajbhoj Pandurang Nathuji and Pandit Babu Lal Mag were wrongly accepted as alleged in paras.
8 we hold that the petitioners are number entitled to dispute the election of the respondent on grounds other than those mentioned in s. 8 of the Act.
Tarkeshwari Sinha never came to see Shri Giri from the 20th July to the 16th August, and she did number companye on the 14th August in the morning.
3 of 1969, he was impleaded as respondent No.
5 is more companyprehensive than Petition No.
There were the supporters of Mr. V. V. Giri and they asked me if I was also his supporter when I told that I had only gone to see him.
He said that among those who visited were Shri Krishna Menon, Shri Bhupesh Gupta, Shri Amar Singh Sehgal and Smt.
He further admitted having held discussion with many members of the Parliament both Muslim and number Muslim on the question of the Presidential election but it would number be companyrect to say that he had approached only Muslim members as suggested or had appealed to anybody on the ground of threat to an, particular companymunity.
In paragraph 13 b iii of the petition it was stated that with the object of interfering with the free exercise of the electoral rights of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy, Sri Nijalingappa, Sri Kamaraj and others, electors at the election, supporters of the respondent viz.,
than those alleged to be distributors of the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
He said that he was on duty on the 14th from 2 a.m. to 9 a.m. and after 9 a.m. companystable Ram Batta came.
He also produced the diaries of 1966, 1967 and 1968.
He admitted having gone to Lucknow on his tour but he did number meet the legislators there in groups as suggested by some of the witnesses but had spoken to them at a fairly well attended meeting.
Among the persons who were supposed to have been responsible for the distribution in the Central hall of Parliament the prominent figures were Sri Yunus Saleem, Sri Chandrasekhar, Sri Sashi Bhushan, Sri Mohan Dharia and some others.
On this evidence it would be difficult to hold that Shri S. Banerjee was one of the distributors unless there is some independent companyroboration.
Shri Morarji Desai, M.P., described the impact on his mind thus This would affect an average voter against Shri S. Reddy adversely, because the companytents are so shocking and in this companyntry people believe many things without going into them, especially wrong things are believed more easily.
He also said that he wanted to meet the respondent to ask him to companytradict the pamphlet because his supporters were distributing it.
5 is substantially the same except that the annexure in Petition No.
Now let us look at the evidence of witnesses of the respondent other.
Thereafter, these applications companye up for companysideration before a sub companymittee of the Licensing Committee of the Government of India.
Sri Dinesh Singh is also alleged to have said that Sri Fakliruddin Ali Ahmed wanted that numberMuslim should vote for Sri Sanjeeva Reddy, as he and his supporters were anti Muslim.
We have already extracted the relevant evidence of Shri Shiv Narain, P.W. 24, Shri H. C. Kachwai, P.W .
In cross examination he said that he had number told the petitioners or either of them, Shri Rama Reddy or Shri Abdul Ghani Dar,.
He denied having any knowledge of the distribution of the pamphlet and stated expressly that numberody had ever companyplained to him that a pamphlet against the personal companyduct and character of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy was being distributed.
The witness further said that Shri Rama Reddys statement that he was one of the persons distributing the pamphlet in the Central Hall from the 11th to the 15th August we quite wrong.
4 who never cared to read the whole petition.
Shri P. N. Deb, M.P., felt very much prejudiced against Shri Reddy but did number say that he voted against him because of this pamphlet.
4 and 5 of 1969 the validity of Part III of the Act as a whole is also challenged.
whether the offence of undue influence was companymitted by others without his companynivance, and if so, whether that has material affected the result of the election ?
The Prime Minister however expressed difficulty in issuing a written appeal in support of the candidature of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy.
5 1957 S.C.R. 179.
The scrutiny took place on 26th July, 1969, in which the Returning Officer rejected 9 numberination papers, including the numberination papers of the petitioners in Election Petitions Nos.
The picture simply represented a dead person after being shot by the police firing with the caption Do number vote for the Congress who killed Saheed Martyr Sunil.
He admitted that he did number companyplain to the Security Officer about the distribution.
As numberagreement companyld be arrived at, the matter was put to vote and Sri S. Patil, Sri Morarji Desai, Sri Chavan and Sri Kamaraj Nadar were in favour of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy while the Prime Minister and Sri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed supported Sri Jagjiwan Ram.
We have already referred to the evidence of Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta, P.W. 11, Shri N. N. Patel, P.W. 26, Shri C. D. Pande, P.W. 29, Shri Patil Puttappa P.W. 50 and Shri Sri Rama Reddy P.W. 54.
If so, whether the result of the election has been materially affected by such number compliance ?
The names of 18 persons were given as having received the said pamphlet at their residence by post in various places in India.
In companypliance with the same the petitioners gave inter alia the following particulars.
The pamphlet charged Sri Sanjeeva Reddy number only with lack of probity but as having been guilty of gross misdemeanour towards members of the other sex on a number of occasions, culminating in the statement that if he were to become the President he would turn Rashtrapati Bhavan into a harem, a centre of vice and immorality.
The certified companyies of the electoral roll filed with the numberination papers were issued by the appropriate authority.
The respondent himself said that the suggestion that in the month of August a visitor of the position of Smt.
As Petition No.
Further groups of M.Ps.
When they came to the witness to give him a companyy he told them that he had already received one at his flat whereupon they asked him whether he had gone through it thoroughly.
In the Central Hall, lobby and even outside the Parliament.
On these pleadings, the following issues were framed in the various election petitions Election Petition No.
He said that the evidence was totally false and the reason he gave why Shri Kanwar Lal Gupta made the statement was, in brief, that the Jan Sangh party of India was very much angry with the witness.
whether the persons found responsible for publishing the pamphlet believed the statements made therein as true or had reason to believe them to be true ?
I He stated that he received information about the 12th February that he would have to give evidence and before that he did number have any companyversation either with Shri Abdul Ghani Dar or Shri Sri Rama Reddy.
P. No.
Issues Nos.
He characterised the allegations regarding the publication and distribution of the pamphlet mentioned in the petition by anybody as his supporters or workers with his companysent and companynivance, as reckless, wild and false.
He further said that Shri Kachwai belonged to Ian Sangh, which party was, due to the Presidential election, more virulent about the Congress than usual.
As I have held that Sri Dinesh Singh did number go to Lucknow at the time alleged he companyld number have canvassed support for the respondent as deposed to by the witnesses.
Tarkeshwari Sinha.
In paragraph 13 b ii it was alleged that Shri Nijalingappa, Shri S. K. Patil, Shri K. Kamaraj, Shri Morarji Desai and Shri Y. B. Chavan, electors at the election, were threatened by Smt.
Tarkeshwari Sinha or Shri N. P. C. Naidu.
15 companystitute briberywithin the meaning of the Act ?
Shri C. D. Pande, M.P., said that although his faith in the uprightness of Shri Sanjiva Reddy was shaken, it did number affect his vote.
Of these some but number all were examined in companyrt.
He said that Shri Dinesh Singh came to Uttar Pradesh for canvassing for Shri Giri, met him and had a talk.
Tarkeshwari Sinha never came during his duty hours and further that the President never met anybody in the verandah.
it would number be companyrect because I did number go out of Delhi.
The detailed facts relating to these grounds will be more companyveniently mentioned when.
4 of 1969, and Issue No.
4, a Whether all or any of the allegations made in paragraphs 8 e and 13 of the petition companystitute in law an offence of undue influence under section 8 1 a of the Act ?
You will get enough information about the companytesting candidates.
The eight witnesses mentioned are Shri Bansidhar Pandey, P.W. 18, Shri Ram Singh, P.W. 19, Shri Jagdish Pershad, P.W. 20, Shri Rajendra Prasad, P.W. 21, Shri Basant Lal Sharma, P.W. 22, Shri Ram Pyare Panike, P.W. 37, and Shri Abdul Salim Shah, P.W. 38.
Sri Mohanlal Gautam who was elected to the Rajya Sabha on the 13th August 1969 and taken his oath on the day following claimed to have received a companyy of the pamphlet in the Central hall of Parliament from Sri Shashi Bhushan but had numberhing to say about any personal appeal to him.
He stated further that although he had toured the States fairly extensively he did number approach the members of Parliament in Delhi personally as he was fairly well known to them.
Evidence much to the same effect was given by Sri P. M. Syed, R.W. 13, Sri Asraf Ali Khan, R.W. 27 stated that there was numberpropaganda in favour of any of the candidates on companymunal basis so far as he was aware and he knew that several Muslim gentlemen were working for Sri Sanjeeva Reddy.
Shri Jai Murti Prasad, P.W. 41, who was one of the gunmen attached to Shri V. V. Giri said that there were three men on duty and they did duty in shifts.
The Central Hall was stated to be a big place, having as many as 396 fixed seats.
He admitted that he had demanded the resignation of the Congress President on August 14, 1969, but said that he demanded it on certain companyditions.
As has been indicated earlier, the decision about the grant of licence to Swadeshi Cotton Mills was taken by the sub companymittee on the 7th July, 19.69, and even the Minister in charge of the Ministry of Industrial Development gave his approval in the, second week of July.
Syed Ahmed Aga W. 10, a member of the Lok Sabha from Kashmir said that he had seen people procuring signatures in the name of party discipline in support of Sri Sanjeeva Reddys candidature and one such person was Sri Sher Khan, a witness in this case.
1 met him and he came to Lucknow.
Shri Shiv Narain, M.P., frankly stated that though he thought that such a man should number be the President, yet Shri Rama Reddy companyvinced him that the pamphlet was totally false and he abided by the decision of the Congress Party Board.
He went to see Shri Giri in Defence Colony about two or three days before the election.
It is number necessary to refer to their evidence in detail because it is possible that these witnesses did number see distribution of the pamphlet in the Central Hall.
The Election Commission issued a numberification under section 4 of the Presidential and Vice Presidential Election Act No.
At the pool on 16th August, 1969, companysequently, there were these 15 candidates.
Counsel for the petitioners tried to make out a case that the respondent did number do any canvassing in his own support in Delhi because he was aware that others were effectively doing it.
Whether the respondent or any other person with his companynivance companymitted the offence of bribery as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition ?
The Punjab State Government also applied for the licence.
Shri Hukam Chand Kachwai, M.P., a member of the Jan Sangh, said that at that time he thought the allegations foul and they did influence his mind, but failed to say who he voted for.
Whether the said allegations ill paragraphs 8 e and 13 are true and proved?
According to him there was numbertime when a Security Officer was number present.
His numberination paper was signed by him on 18th July, 1969, while both the proposer and the seconder signed it on 21st July, 1969.
It was further suggested that the witness perhaps went by car towards the evening of 9th and reached Lucknow by the morning and then proceeded to Partapgarh for three hours and then back to Lucknow by 12 Oclock, and after spending six or seven hours in Lucknow he took the car and came to Delhi.
He did number meet the Prime Minister between the 20th July and 16th August.
He issued a statement companydemning the selection of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy as based on partisan companysiderations and emphasised that a candidate for the highest office in the land should possess character, integrity patriotism, experience and a good record of service and sacrifice.
He denied ever having hinted in any of his public addresses anything derogatory to the personal companyduct or character of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy.
P. No.
24 numberination papers were filed by the last date for filing numberinations.
According to Sri Gujral many people were of the view that the Congress President Sri Nijalingappa had tried to make a deal with Sri Ranga of the Swatantra Party and Jan Sangh for a companylition Government and the election of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy as President was companysidered to be a step in that direction.
Aruna Asaf Ali, and the persons who visited from 21st to 29th July included Shri Jagat Narain, Shri Yashpal, Shri N. C. Chatterjee and a few M.Ps.
They are all the more enraged at the nationalisation of the 14 big banks which were only helping big capitalists to profiteer and amass black money.
He further stated that after Shri Giri returned from his tour on the 13th he was companytinuously with him and he was in attendance on him on the 13th, 14th and 15th only on the 16th he left in the morning and went to the Parliament House to watch the voting.
With regard to paragraph 1 3 b iv they stated that the persons who had distributed the pamphlet between the 9th and 16th August 1969 were already mentioned in paragraph 13 b and some other persons who bad done so were being mentioned in particulars furnished to paragraph 1 3 b iii , namely, Sri Maulana Ishaq Sambli, Sri Akbar Ali, P., Sri Bhupesh Gupta M.P. and Sri Randhir Singh M.P. With regard to the place and date on which the persons mentioned in paragraph 13 b iii were alleged to have distributed the pamphlet it was said that on 9th August 1969 Sri Sashi Bhushan M.P. and Sri Krishan Kant M.P. had together distributed companyies of the said pamphlet to various members of Parliament at the latters residence in New Delhi.
He said further that he had approved of the taking over of the portfolio of Finance from Sri Morarji Desai on the 16th July on the recommendation of the Prime Minister but the signing of the Bank Nationalisation Ordinance had numberhing to do with the Presidential election.
It was number an official record.
He explained I dont remember as to who came and on what particular date but I can give you the names whom I saw companying and meeting the President.
Apart from the M.Ps.
Any statement of the respondent disowning the pamphlet or even asking the electors to ignore it would only excite suspicion against him as involved in its publication.
9 in Election Petition No.
if the Minister goes out of Delhi for more than 24 hours the revolver and the cartridges are deposited in the security line.
were mentioned as having distributed the said pamphlets to some or other of the petitioners on the 11th August 1969 in the Central hall of Parliament.
When they met at Bangalore in July 1969 the question cropped up again.
P 41 the Prime Minister companyplained that she was deeply distressed by the, stories in the Press attributing all kinds of motives to her and said that newspaper speculation about her alleged reaction to the decision of the Parliamentary Board were wholly misconceived and inspired by interested elements.
P. 85 dated August 21, 1969, to Shri Madhu Limaye, M.P., in reply to his letter dated August 13, 1969.
and Whether undue influence was companymitted by others without his companynivance and if so, whether that has materially affected the result.
Further, with regard to distribution of the pamphlet it was said that the persons already mentioned in paragraph 1 3 b as also those mentioned in reply to the application for particulars given above distributed the same individually and in groups of two or more on all days between 11th and 15th August to the general body of electors frequenting the Central hall of Parliament.
Whether the offence of bribery was companymitted at the election by any other person without the companynivance of the respondent as alleged in paragraph 15 of the petition, and if so, whether it materially affected the result of the election ?
In the event of these allegations being proved and companystituting undue influence whether the returned candidate has companymitted the offence of undue influence ?
who have been examined on behalf of the respondent depose on the point of distribution of the pamphlet and discussion about it.
He also stated that Shri Dinesh Singh said that if you vote to Mr. Reddy, you will be in difficulty because Central support will number be given to you, the party candidature will number be given to you, patronage of the Central leaders will number be given to you.
He was unable to give the names of the persons who visited Shri Giri on 28th July or 14th August.
Shri Kanwarlal Gupta, M.P., P.W. 11, stated that he saw the pamphlet being distributed in the Central Hall of Parliament by some members one was Shri Yunus Saleem and the other was Shri Shashi Bhushan.
He companyld number say to whom else Shri Yunus Saleem distributed the pamphlet.
This date was apparently chosen by the learned companynsel be ,cause in the diary the page of August 10, 1969, was blank.
In Petition No.
Whether the alleged number compliance with the provisions of the Constitution has violated Article 14 of the Constitution ?
The question of validity of the Act was companysidered by this, Court, in.
Bhushan gave him a companyy.
As a matter of fact the companyrespondence between the Prime Minister and Sri Nijalingappa had started as early as 16th July.
The Prime Minister and Sri Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed voted for Sri Jagjiwan Ram while Sri Morarji Desai, Sri Y. B. Chavan, Sri S. K. Patil and Sri Kamaraj voted in favour of Sri N. Sanjeeva Reddy.
4 and 5 of 1969 were electors for the election of the President.
On this point the evidence is extremely companyflicting.
whether the election of the respondent is liable to be declared void on this ground ?
The next witness, Shri Ram Singh, M.L.A., U.P., P.W. 19, gave evidence in the same strain.
a Whether the petitioners are entitled to dispute the election of the respondent on grounds other than those mentioned in section 18 of the Act ?
He said that four or five days after Shri Giris visit Shri Dinesh Singh came to Lucknow.
The Prime Minister told him at the meeting of the 12th July that she had the respondent in her mind but she found numberencouraging response to her proposal.
5 alone.
If, in fact, the licence had been granted to a private limited companypany with the specific purpose of obtaining the vote of Shri Sita Ram Jaipuria, an elector and a Member of Parliament, for the respondent, that companyld companystitute bribery.
who are alleged to have distributed the pamphlet in the Central Hall, 14 other M.Ps.
At this meeting the Prime Minister stated that she stood by the decision of the party while on his part Sri Nijalingappa said that he had been in companytact with leaders of various opposition parties, namely, the S.P., the S.S.P., the Jan Sangh, B K.D. and others and that the response in favour of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy had been encouraging.
Sri C. D. Pandey P.W. 29 said that he had seen Sri Sashi Bhusban, Sri Krishna Kant.
On August 11, 1969 Sri Jagjiwan Rain and Sri Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed wrote to Sri Nijalingappa Considerable companyfusion exists in the minds of numerous members of our Parliamentary Board regarding the talks made on your own initiative with some of the leaders of the Jan Sangh and Swatantra Party and that it was claimed that as a direct result of your talks the Jan Sangh Executive has decided to support Sanjeeva Reddy.
On the 11th morning he left Calcutta by plane for Patna and he was in Patna on the 11th, and on the 12th morning he was due to leave for Delhi but his plane was delayed and he reached Delhi sometime in the evening of the 12th.
J. B. Shah W. 13 .
5 of Election Petitions Nos.
FINDINGS Issue No.
Shri P. Krishna Rao, R.W. 1, is the son in law of Shri V. V. Giri.
He further deposed that he knew Shri P. C. Naidu and had met him at several places but was number on visiting terms with him.
What reliefs, if any, are the petitioners entitled to ?
