ABDUL HUSSAIN MIR versus SHAMSUL HUDA & ANR.

ABDUL HUSSAIN MIR

SHAMSUL RUDA & ANR.

December 20, 1974

[A. ALAGIRISWAMl, V. R. KRISHNA !YER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]

Representation of the People Act {43 of 1951) Ss. 83, 123(1)(2) and (3) ·· Scope of.

The appellant is Muslim, whose mother· was tribal Hindu who was converted to Islam on the eve of her marriage to Muslim. In the efoction to the Assam Legislative Assembly from ronstituency which is tribal area of Assam wi•h heterogeneous composition of tribesmen vaguely Hindu by pemwion, plainsmen Hindus and nearly 80% Muslims, the appellant was declared elected. The respondent filed an election petition challenging the election inter a/ia on three grounds : (I) that the appellant offered Rs. 2,000/· to P.W. 12 Mu1la to collect votes for him, and though P.W. 12 rt,fusctl the offer the lllppeliant was gu.ilty of the corrupt practice under s. 123 ( 1) of guilty the of corrupt practice under Representation of the People s. 123 Act (3 )0 because 1951; (2) that the appellant he canvassed for votes was on the basis of his religion by asking for v1~tes on the ground of his bei~1g the '°n of tribal Hindu woman; and (3) that the appellant exercised undue inftuence by threatening that the persons who might vote for the respondent, ooultl be identified and would be subjected to the same treatment as peopie of Bangladesh were by the Pakistanis. thus violating s. 123(2). The High Court allowed the petition.

Allowing the appeal to this Court,

<Per Alagiriswami, J.)

(I) Regarding the first charge, P.W. 12 stated that the &ppellant offered him money if he would work for him in the election. in the two villages in which he hapixned to be the Mu.'la. Another witness stated that the ap:pellant told him that he had offered money to P.W. 12 for helping him :in the electi0n campaign but that P.W. 12 rejected the offer and, requeste(1 that witness to make over the money to P.W. 12 itnd prevail upon him to work for the appellant. These facts do not fall under s. 123(1). Therefore:, it is Uilllecessary to discuss whether, if money is paid or offered as consideration for votes promised to be secured by perscn using his influence it is bribery or not. because, the question does not arise ou.t of the facts of this ~ase. [108G-l 09AJ

(Per Krishna Iyer and Sark.aria, JJ.)

(!)(a) An appraisal of the evidenee and an overall view of it m~kes it doubtful whether the appel1ant even met P.W. 12 and therefore, the offer of the bribe had not been established. T123B; 126E-Fl

(b) Section 123 ( 1) requires (i) an offer or promise by the candidate etc .. of ~atification to any person. and (ii) the object must be directly or indirectly to mdu.ce an elector to vote or not to vote at an election. The purpose of the provision is to ensure poll puri<y and the exdu~ion of pollution by money power. If the' payment is to indu:;; an elector to vote, be it din:ct or vicarious[1]y, it is corrupt. If the money is paid as consideration for votes promised t? be secured by an important person of the /oca/itv using hi's sway it is bribery even though indirectly exercised. But, if the candidate pays money to use his good offices and canvass votes for him it would be border line case. In the present case, if P.W. 12 had b~en paid the money striking bargain for getting the votes in his ambit of influence it is electoral cormption. On the other hand, if It is money received for the purpose of arganising effectively the election campaign by hiring workers, going grou.nd to places iu car, meeting people and pcr.mading them to vote for the candidate it is

proper electioll expenses. The tou:h stone in all these cas·~s of paymc1:l 01 · gratification is to finJ out whether the money is paid in reasonable mea~ure for work to be done or services to be remlcrcd, and whether the servv.:c' so offered amount to bargain for getting votes or merely to Jo propa·ganda 01 hl p.:rsnade voters to vol·~ fur the candidate. The ~rucial point i·; the nexu-bctwccn the. gratification and the votes. one being the consideration for the. other. direct or indirect. In the present case. the facts as spoken do not even 1f true. come within the relevant clause namely s. 123( I), because the offer was made onlv to make P.W. 12 work for the candidate 1/wt is, to pcrsa11de l'Olcc.1· t<:· suprort the paying candidates. [124B-E, 125B·C. D-FJ

(Pt·r Alagiriswami, J.) :

(2) As far as the second charge is concerned sonic witnesses said that the appellant canvassed for votes claiming that he WJs Hindu and others said that he claimed votes on the basis 1hnt his mother was tribal woman. fo c:on~tituency where 80% of the vo~ers arc Muslims it is extremely unlikely truit the app~llant would have canvassed for votes on any 'uch basb .. The appellant being Muslim he could not be said to have canv:1sscd for votes 011 the bas:s of his religion, he not being Hindu. [109B-Cl

(Per Kri~hna Iyer :~nd Sarkaria, JJ.) :

( 2) (a) The appe:Jant is Muslim and his appeal, if at all, is on the basis that he was an inter-caste or inter-radal or inter-religiou5 product and as such symbol of unity or less communal Mussalman. · An appeal by candi~te that he personifies Hindu-Muslim interplay docs not cross the line iif corrupt practke. [114G-115B] ·

( b) The section rcqttires that the vote mwt be sought by the candidate exploiting Iris religion.· An appeal to Hindu'3 b¥ Muslim candidate on the ground of his religion is impossible under the present Indian conditions. [I 15E] (c) In the particular constituency, if one took up Hindu posture it would not b~ an advantage to him, and therefore, it is unlikely that the appellant scugth votes on the ground that he is Hindu. The ground of religious or communal appeal doos not stand in the light of the evid·~nce in the present c:ise and finding of the High Court is, therefore, wrong. The High Court had been far too easily persuaded by unsatisfactory oral evidence each of which is of an ad hoc character, uncorroborat~d by any testimony of (Ompelling value and is contradicted by the party affected. The cri'erion of proof beyond reasonable doubt was forgotten although verbal homage was paid to it. [119C·fl

[It is matter for profound regret that political commun~ !ism far from being rooted out r.; foli'ating and flourish,ing iargl!ly because r1~rtie<ll and politicians !'.ave not the will. professions apart, to give up the chase for power through politicising communal awareness and religious cultural identity.] [I 19F] ,,-

( Jly Full Court) :

(3) The election petition is vague in regard to the particulars in support of the -averment of undue inllucnce. More than one amendment was sought and sti'il neither the names of the per>0ns nor of the places so 'vital to induce credence and to show fairplay have been given, in spite of the appellant urging that the allegation was vague and bold. One cannot pick up witnesses. on route and march them iato the witness box without running the risk of their :1pparently consistent evid·~nc~ from being disbelieved. The charges are quasi-criminal anq have ·;.;:riou> consequences and all necessary particulars have to b~ furnished in the election petition as required by s. 83. This being absent and the entire ·case resting on shaky ipsi dixits .the version tendered by the respondent could not be believed. [109C-D; 122A'D]

(Per Krishna Tyer and Sarkaria, JJ.):

( 4) Certain bask legal guidelines cannot be lost sight of while adjudging an election di511ute. The verdict at the polls wears protective mantle in

·dcmucratic polity. The Court will vacate such ballot :ount return only 'n rr~of ·beyond reasonable Joubt of corrupt practices. Charg·:s, such :is lrn1~ heen imputed here, are viewed as quasi-criminal, carrying othe.r .Pe!1alttcs .tha!1 losing •;eat and sirong testimony is needed to subven Rctummp O_lltcct s declaration. ·At the same time, findings reached by the tnal iudge, w1H ~101 be r~apjlraised and reversed in appeal unbs palpable errors ''f m1sapprec1at1on arc writ large on them. [l ! 1H-l !2B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 915 of J 973.

From the judgment and order dated the 30th April, 1973 of the Gauhati High Court in Election Petition No. 2 of 1973. . .

R. K. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, S.S. Bhatnagar, V. !. Franqis and S. N. Chaudhary, for the ·appellant.

D. N. Mukherjee, Prodyot Kumar Chakravarti and N. R. Chaudhl'y, for respondent No. 2,

The Jud1mwnt of V. R. Krishna Iyer and R. S. Sarkaria. JJ. was -delivered by Krishna Iyer, J. A, Alagiriswami, J. gave l! seJParate opinion. ALAGJRISWAMI, J. I agree with the conclusiQns of our le,amed brother Krishna Iyer. But I think it necessary to say something on my own. The appeal relates to the election to the As;am Legislative Assem-bly from Dhing constituency. The appellant was declared elected by majority of 1185 votes. The respondent filed an election petition making three charges of corrupt practices against the appellant. The 'learned Judge of the Gauhati High Court held that the charges were made out and alloweld the election p::tition. Hence this appeal.

The first charge was the offer of bribe to P. W. 12. Tl!e second charge was that the appellant was guilty of corrupt practice under sec•ion 123(3) of canvassing for votes on the basis of his re:ligion. The third charge was that he exercised undue influence by holding out the threat that the people who voted for the respondent would be identified and subjected to the same treatment as the people of Bangla-desh by the Pakistanis.

Regarding the first charge all that is necessary to do is to rder to the evidence of PW. 12 and 13. P.W. 1.2 stated that the appellant offered him Rs. 2000 if he worked for him in the election in the two villages in which .he happened to be Mulla. P.W. 13 stated that the appellant told him that he had offered Rs. 2000 to P.W. 12 for helping him in the election campaiirt but that he had rejected the offer and therefore requeste'd him (P.W. 13) to collect the money and make it over to P.W. 12 and prevail upon him to work for him ( aPpellant). Clearly this doPs not fall under section 123 (1). I con-sider it, therefore, unnecessary to discuss whether if money is paid or offered ns consideration for votes ])romised to be secured by person

using his influence it is bribery or not. It is good policy uot to dis-cu~s in judgment question which do not arise out of the facts of the case.

As far as the sccoIIU charge is concerned, it is said that the appel-lant's mother was 'Kachari', one of the tribes in Assam. But admit-tedly she was converted to islam before she married the appellant's father. Some witnesses say that the appellant canvassed for votes claiming that he was Hindu. Some others say that he claimed votes on the basis that his mother was Kachari. All that is necessary to say about this part of the case it that apart from he fact that in consituency . where 80 ·per cent of the voters were· Muslims it is not at all likely that the appellant would have canvassed the votes on any such basis, there is no doubt that the appellant being Muslim he could not be said to have canvassed for votes on the basis of his reli- · gion. he not being Hindu. · ·As regards the thi1tl charge, in spite of the three amendments made · to the election petition material particulars were not given on the basis of which the evidence regarding this charge could have been admitted. I agree with the conclusions of iny learned brother on the basis of the evidence which he has discussed that the case of undue influence is not satisfactorily establi~hed.

l agt'ee that the appeal should be allowed and the election petition · tlismissed with costs. ·

. KRISHNA IYER, J. In the current Indian socio-geographi:: context, with its delightfully and distressingly diverse, traditional and complex humanity, we have to appreciate the three grounds of corrupt practice levelled through this election appeal againSt the Congress candidate who secured lead of 1385 votes but was allegedly guilty of several malpractices at the polls of whi~}l three have found favour with the High Court an'd have been challenged before us. Briefly, they arc :

(a) that the petitioner offered Rs. 2,000/- to one Jabbar Munsni (P.W. 12) to collect votes for him which this right-eous soul spurned-and therefore the prefen;ed payment did not materialise althQugh the corrupt practice under s.123 ( 1 ) was . nevertheless comntltted; . · ·

(b) the petitioner, of the same Islamic faith as his opponent though, canvassed ~·otes using the potency of queer s.ort of mulatto religious or communal appeal,· thus getting caught within the coils of s. 123 ( 3) of the Representation of the People Act (hereinafter called the Act, for short); and

( c) he exercised kind of undue influence to which people of States of our country bordering on Pakistan and sizeable 'Muslim population may perhaps be peculiarly . susceptible, viz., subjection to the excrutiating torture suffered by the East Pakistanis if perchance. these voters dared to vote against

the Congress thus violating the basic guarantee of free and fair elections contained ins. 123(2) of the Act.

fhe High Court's holdings on those charges may, at the outsd, ·!Jc set out, to get hang of the controversy in this. appeal :

"According to the statement of Jabbar Munshi, which is. reinforced by that of Sahed Ali. the respondent No. 1 had offered Es. 2,000, to him for doing work fur him in the election in the two villages of Rowmari and Mariadhaj. Shri Choudhury laid emphasis on the word 'inducing' used in sub-clause (A) of Clause (I) of Section 123 and canvass-ed that we cannot spell out inducement by Jabbar Munshi vis-a-vis the voters putting up in Rowmari and Mariadhaj from his statement that he had been offered Rs. 2,000, to do work for the respondent No. l in the election in the said two villages. Here, again, it is not possible to agree with Sri Choudhury. If priest of village is pressed into service by candidate, who has offered to pay him handsomely, lo help him i11 the election work, it becomes patent that the priest is to use his influence as such in winning votes for the can-didate who had approached him. Hence all the ingredients of sub-clause (A) of clause (l) of section 123 are proved by the dependable testimony of Jabbar Munshi and Sahcd Ali with the consequence that the corrupt practice of bribery attributed to rcsponuent No. J is established."

"In view of the above discussion of the rc:cvant cvidcnc~ I conclude. that Kanak Doimari ;;nd Kahiram Dcuri have ,poken the truth with the consequence that the respondent No. l is proved to have solicited votes on the basis of his being the 'on of Boro Kachari woman. This appeal was made up him in village which were inhabited by tribals who may or may not be considered as Hindus but they arc certainly not Muslims. Therefore, .all the ingredients of Chtu'ic ( 3) of s. 123 arc established:·

"The statements of the relevant witnesses of the pcti-iicincr arc that the respondent No. I had told them that he is half Hindu and half tribal because of his maternal lineage. I bave aJr,~ady held the statements of those witnesses as ucccptable. Nothing said by the respondent No. I in th·: witness box has the effect of robbing the statement of those witnesses of their quality as held by me. of bcinir credible. Therefore, J hold that the allegations made in section C9 ( i ) C9(ii) of Part lil of the Anncxure arc proved beyond reasonable d:oubt and as such the respondent No. l is guilty of the corrupt practice mentioned in clause ( 3) of section 123 of the Act."

It is mentioned in Section that Lhc respondent threa-tened the Muslim voters that in case thcv voted against the Congress, whose nominee he was, it would be possible

this time in view of the new system o( voting introduced, to dete<;t that fact and that in such an event they sh<J.ll be severely dealt with. According to the new voting system introduced in 1972, it may be stated, each elector, to whom . ballot paper was issued, had either to make his signature or place his thumb mark on the counter-foil of the ballot paper. That fact, it is mentioned in Section B, was pro-minently brought to the notice of the electors by respon-dent No. 1, The threat held out to them, besides that they shall be scvc:n:ly dealt with in case tky voti:d against the Congress, was that they shall be considered and treated as Pakistanis and supporters of Yahya Khan and having worked against the Congress Government which meant and implied that they wcr1~ voting against Srimati Indira Gandhi and as· such were anti-national. 1n Section of Pan VI it was stated that the respondent No. 1 and the men working with him had propagated that if the electors voted in favour of candidate other than that of the Congress 'the Con~ress would carry out tortur anl'.ingst the Muslims as was done in suppression by Pakistan"."TI1e up-shot of the discussio11 of the evidence of large number of witnesses examined by the petitioner and tile respondent No. l bearing on the aliegations set out in Scci-tions and of PJrt VI is that those allegations arc proved to the hilt." Hearing this appeal. we realised that there was an endemic sc11>i· tivity to election propaganda and method in certain regions which would be wasted strategy else-where because human responses difkr according to the socio-political conditioning of groups and commu· 11itics. Herc we are concerned with tribal area of Assam, border State with heterogenous composition of tribesmen, vaguely Hindu hy persuasion. plainsmen Hindus and considerable number of ".'luslims. Mulla or Muslim minipriest may have sway over his c•rthodox flock here while elsewhere his voice may be ignored. t hrcat of East Pakistan type terror or pro-Pakistan branding is prone to frighten many here while in Central lndia or the South such bogey may have less minatory impact. Religious appeal or communal appetite in bigoted and backward population is stronger than in an enlightened or indifferent or other area with Jong traditio1i of peace-ful co-existence of variegated reli.gious groups or cosmopolitan peopk . .It all depends . on the socio-political pathology or sensibility of each province or constituency. We cannot dog:matisc univcrsallr without hcing convicted of social inexperience or lack of political rcafom. Shri · Mukhericc, counsel for the respondent, is right in stressing the interplay of divergent kinks making up the mores of the Dhing Asscm bly constituency. Before we can competently judge human nature we must educate ourselves about the behaviourism of the concerned group avowedly pluralist in this case. Law, after all, is ::i specie~ uf sociology.

Even so, certain basic legal guidelines c.annot be Jost sight nf while adjudging an election dispute. The verdict at the polls wears ::i

protective mantle in democratic polity. The Court will vacate such ballot count return only on proof beyond reasonable doubt of corrupt practices. Charges, such as have bcrn imputed here, arc vicwc:d as quasi-criminal, carrying other penalties than losing seat, and strong testimony is needed to subvert Returning officc•'s declaration. On the other side of the scales, findings reached by the trial Judge will not be reappraised and reversed in appeal unless palpable errors or misapprcciation arc writ large on them. Such being our broad . perspective, let us come to g:rips with the facts and the law arising in this case.

declaration. On _ the trial Judge will palpable errors or being our broad .

We will first deal with thi.: second charge-held proved by the High Court but hardly easy of solution in the legal connotation of the pro-l'ision [s. 133 ( 3) I or the factual complex of forces-and it relates to what may naively be called 'religious appeal'. For an intelligent understanding ()f this translusccnt provision the best beginning is to reproduce the sub·scction and then search for the soul of this wholc->omc legal man 011 communalism in elections-a ban of Indian poli-tics which uics hard, defiant of Jaw and our secularist creed. Liib-wisc. the voluminous testimony in this case, bearing on the spectrum of appeals attributable to variety of shades and hues from crude Islamic to plain ancestral kinship and tribal fellowship, baffies identi-fication, being curiously psychic and sociological. In these areas of evidence judicial navigation towards the port of truth is not so simple as the homing instinct or habitual test of judges whereby they break through false and doubtful depositions. Local obsessions and sub-j.:ctiw exaggerations have to be kept in leash and objcctiv.; tuuch->toncs and safe \>roccdurcs relied on if' we arc not to get lost in mere bulk of evidence or cynical negation of good and bad. To judge is in part an esoteric art, not rule of thumb and this case is .a real challenge to our ability to feel our way to veracity through univeraci:ty. When elections arc challenged on grounds with criminal taint, the benefit of doubt in testimonial matters belongs to the returned candli-datc.

Section 123 ( 3) of the Act reads :

"Corrupt practices.-The following shall be deemed to be corrupt pracl;iccs for the purpose of this Act :-

(3 J The appeal by candidate or his agent or by any other person with the consent of candidate or his election agent to vote or refrain from voting for any person on th1.; grounc.l of his religion, race, caste, community or language or the use of, or appeal to religious symbols or the use of, or appeal to, nat,ional symbols, ·such as the national flag or the national embkm, for the furtherance of th!! prospects of the election of that candidate or for prejudicially affecting the election of any candidate." ·

The conscience of . this clause-'-and the core of the legal inhibition-i,; to impart penal incarnation to the secular mandate commonly ex-pressed in biblical language :

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's;

·And unto God the things that are God's."

The founding faith of our poll process is to ostracise the c0mmunal vice from the campaign, having suffered from this virus during the Raj. This great idea must brighten the legal phrases so that the pur-pose, the whole purpose and nothing but the purpose may be .carried into effect.

The gravamen of the charge as covered by sec. C(i) and C(ii J of the petition is that the 1st respondent sought support from tribal> on the score that he was half-tribal, half-Muslim-:his mother was of Kachari tribe-while the petitioner was unmitigated· hundred-per-cent Muslim, and amongst Hin'dus settled from the plains he pleaded that he was after all halfHindu and so, obviously, more acceptable than are undiluted Muslims like the petitioner. The facts of parenta)!c are that the l st respondent's mother was tribal Hindu who wa~ converted to Islam on the eve of marriage to Muslim. The refuta-tion by the respondent has taken two forms. Firstly, no such half· tribal or like propaganda was· done and secondly, such Hindu· Muslim hybridisation in parentage, even if urged tactically before the relevant communities, did not fall within the obnoxions provision reg:irding religious or communal appeal. At best it was sentimental sop based on ancestry or kinship, religious rivalry in appeal being out of the ring since both candidates were apparently full-b'ooded Muslims. We are free to agree that, what with mixed marriages and change of religion and the .i!amut of beliefs and unbelief and like social phonomena. viewed against the backdrop of dymmic policy of secuiarism and national integration. the correct construction of the sub-section is fraught with difficulties. ·

What is religion? What is communal or caste appeal? (We do not have to deal with the thorny problems relating to appeal to language, in this appeal) .. Some of the inherent conft:si011 bcscttiug ':ippeal to religion' have been indicated qv this Court in R'1hiin Kli:m case.([1]) ·There are orthodox and heterodox wings in all reiigions-schooJ<;, sects. protestant .!!roups and so on-more <o i'l or'~ Iii<~ Hinduism with hundred strands ranging from pantheism to atheism. We are here concerned not so much with theology as with soc'ologv, not with intra-religious feuds as with the divisive use of re!iei0us foith by projecting them into and polluting. politics and social life. Strangely enough, both the candidates arc professing Muslim<., speak· ing in formal terms, the petitioner being ;i revolutionarv c0mm•.nist to boot. Judicial insight into practical politks. mc1!'ming the d~"ree of con•amination, through injection of religious, radal, caste or com-munal poison. of the blood-stream of healthv electoral pwcs<e~ is ~' socio-legal essay. as is discernible in this Court's ruling in Kui'i1r Si11g,h v. lv!ukhti;1r S!ngh(~l that religion~ appeals can ·conceivably play even ;n s:tuat1011 where both cand1d:ltes swear by the same dcnomi1ntion or faith. Within the fold, variable:' on2ntc :cnrl bh1n.[0]d areas ni,t. fanatic may seek votes castigating his co-rc1igionist

(1) [1974] IT S.C.C. 660.

(2) A.l.R. 1965 S.C. 141.

9-L 379 Sup. CT75

rival with reforming zeal as de faco apostate. But to delve m~ticu­lously into th1;se Qi;l,rk mines of divergent opinions and clashing prac-tices and hold that 'religious appeal' has been invoked is to cNerdo legality and hamper social advance. Without being obsessed by pro-cedents and freeing ourselves from theological inhibitions we proceed to interpret s. 123 ( 3) of th~ Act in the social setting of this case. We cannot countenance, in the name of narrow Jaw, push ba1;k to movements blending of religions, races, castes and communities if it will homogenise the people into national unity, social solidarity and secular mentality. If the rule of law must run close to the rule of life, this sociologkal view-point stands vindicated, since elections politi-cally expose the social inside in the raw.Taking this stance is to read legal realism into the expression 'religious appeal' used in the relevant provision. To exhort the masses-assuming the appellant's facts to test the legal thrust of his argument-to vote for himself because his mother was tribal or Hindu, is perhaps prone to excite the clan feeling in vicarious way, though the appeal is by Muslim. Does this sympathy potential of the appeal to the electorate vitiate the election as an appeal to reli-gion to get votes ? To sensitize ~he voting masses on every politically irrelevant appeal is bad but not yet illegal. Law lays down practical norms, not prohibitions of intangible injuries. In pluralist sodety like ours, certain irremovable residum of 'minority complex' will haunt the polls, as it may, perhaps in lesser measure, in the United States or even the United Kingdom. Jew, black, Catholic or an Indian or woman will, without special appeals in that behalf, rouse prejudices for and against in some countries. Even in India, th<! religion or caste or community of the candidate may exude through his name, dress, profession or other external indicium. Does it mean that his candidature is imperilled by the inscription of his name or caste suffix in posters or pamphlets ? Something more substantial, intentional and oblique is necessary. Similarly, mere reference to one's tribe, ancestry or genetic commingling may not be tainted with the legal vice of religious or communal appeal, exceptional situations apart. It may well be that strong secularist candidate may plead with the electorate to be non-communal and therefore vote for him ·on the basis that he was an inter-caste or inter-racial or inter-religiious product and as such symbol of communal unity. Indeed, mixed marriages mav accelerate national integration and candidate cannot be warned off by the Jaw from stressing this non-communal merit: of his. That would be perversion of the purpose of the i)rovision. The substance of the appeal, if at all is-not the delicate, legal concoction for Court consumption-that being of Hindu and Mm.Jim extraction he i:; less communal Mussalman. If some mis-under-stand, ·the bulk understand and the masses have an uncanny political sense. Viewed from another angle, the hortative exercise is relatable to parentage, vaguely sounding in sub-conscious clan feeling-too remote, too attenuated to be plain, or even indirect appeal on grounds of religion or community. Those who urge, in some roundabout manner 'Hindu Muslim Ek Ho' are doing no violence to law but promote its object. We disagree with any contrary reasoning or

finical approach and- hold that an appeal by candidate that he per-sonifies Hindu Muslim interplay does not 1.:ross the line of corrupt practice. The sharp edge of the appeal, not its elitist possibility or over-nice imrlication, is the crucial, commonsense test.

Now fo the factual conclusion. Did the 1st respondent project Hindu profile or, more plainly, did he articulate Hindu communal appeal ? Religious, it cguld not be. How .could the son of woman, who made pre-matrimonial switch from Iswara to Allah, app~al to his religion, while himself wearing the Islamic inscription in his name? To declare oneself an offspring of religious renegade is not to appeal to religion. It is unlikely because it does not socially pay. Even Hindu tril;mls may probe beneath the skin and politically discover he is not Hindu. Moreover is it strategy in fevered situation like hotly cO;ntested election, to propagate, in one part of the constituency which is predominantly and backwardly Muslim, that one is half-Hindu ? You can:not insulate such , appeals to specified villages as no iron curtain halts election campaigns. Counter-productive would have been the result. Whispers may have succeeded, not public meet-ings, if the object was discreetly to spread communal propaganda in secluded area put prudently to i;irohibit its diffusion into other areas of the same constituency. But here the case is one of public meetings and drama stage with loudspeakers and other publicity and wedding gathering, not nocturnal sub silentia circulation of injurious facts appealing to communal feeling.

Before we 'proceed directiy to deal with the evidence we shall refer to one more dimension of the law of corrupt practice based on communal and allied appeals. The vote must be sought by the candi-date exploiting his religion. Here the 1st respondent is avowedly Muslim. An appeal to Hindus by Muslim candidate on the ground Of his religion is impossible under the Indian Sun, things as they stand. Nor is there any i:;eligion or tribe for hybrids, something like 'Hindu-slim'. The finer shades, minor tenets or avant garde movements pre-sent in all religions are not the target of the sub-section which seeks . _to ~~trike at the cruder, baser, divisive trends being fostered by casteism. co¢ffiunalism and the like. All great religions speak basicaUy the same truth and converge towards the Religion of Man. Science itself is tending to be spiritual and religions arc turning towards science. Man and his Maker are the profound theme of the maior religions but some men pervert this deeper urge to make gods go to war against each other by forming hostile camps. Indian history, particularly under the British, is tainted with godly blood of humans and the cun-ning manoeuvres of candidates to resurrect that spirit during electoral battles is anathema for the law. We have no hesitation in takin£ the view that here was no relil!ious exploitation by the candidate of his religion or community, legallv or factually. Tribalism may perhaps be stretched to embrace communalism but the accent in the cvidc1Kc is on half-Hindu bias, not tribal identity. The ground fails and the clever twist in the evidence seems to be too sophisticafed an attempt to pasmuster.

It is not out of place to point out that if we stretch semantics out of context the appellant may, by calling his rival revolutionary

communist (which he claims to be), com111it corrupt practict; be- · cause to be communist, nearly means, as good Marxist, to be materialist disawoving all religious faiths. Such obviously cannot be the connotation. Words of wide and vague import, like appeal to religion, must receive restricted construction lest law run dot and up-set accepted political standards. For, certain political parties~-and therefore their candidates-have mild commurial overtones and Courts must confine themselves to clear mis-direction of voters grounded on plain religious or communal appeal. Again, to claim to be an Assamese or Bengalee is not necessarily communal appeal--may even be declaration of minority status of the group. In certain cir-cumstances such"-<t vote-catching technique may be violative o[ Article 123 ( 3). If'aJI depends on. the over-all factors and setting. ·

THE FACTS

If the appellant had placated the Hindus by communa!ly pala~ table version of his ancestry, the news of the meeting would have taken wings and the Muslim voters would have avenged themselves on him--a risk he was unlikely to take, the contest being close and damag,e by inflammatory recoil from the Islamic and being incalculable. We are inclined to think that the probabilities are against the alleged half· Hindu story.

Let us examine the oral evidence bearing 011 this issue. But since this branch of the case is builit on lip testimony, judicial scepticism has lo be activised before upholding this species of alleged corrupt prac-tice. Witnesses may lie with counterfeit candour, and judicial hunch may not successfully X-ray the unveracity ot apparentlv disinterested· persons. While it may be hazardous to stake conclusion . on so· serious and undetectable matter as an election result because ~1 single witnes~ or more swears that way, no rule of. thumb will work, since Courts weigh, not count, witnesses. Broad probabilities. corroboration, circumstantial or oral, the non"production of the best evidence and host of like factors have .tC' be taken note of; even if not elaborately documented in the judgment. The screening and test-ing processes will also give due weight to the ·Hal Judge's sense of credence. Ultimately. the appellate Court has to have an appraisal of the witnesses' truthfulness and accuracy, the Jud~'s experience of men and matters and careful reflection being the lie-Getector.

The pleadings of the petitioner leave much to be desired from the point of view -of precision and particularity, especiallv specification of persons and places so essential to fair-play in the legal process in such matters. Even if one winks at this blemish. there must be strict proof otherwise. The general criticisms made bv Mr. Garg, counsel for the «ppel!ant. have force and we will deal wi.th them in the light of the explanation offered by Shri Chatterjee for the petitioner.

The apocllar\t has denied havin!l: made anv such Hindu or trih:il apoeal to the voters and the burden of proof rests on the responden.•.-pctitioner. We may also discard the new case casually set up through sn111e witncsse<; that the Congress candid1t<' had declared hims~Jf "a Hindu (not half hut full) and asked at public meeting<; for supoort on that footing. Equally adventitious is the emergence of the evidence

that the appellant campaigned on the basis of his being a~ Assamese: While abs~nce of particulars does not stand in the way of the Court considering the evidence led _on ground of corrupt practice if such evidence had been admitted without objection and no prejudice has been caused (vide AIR 1960 SC 200) still case, departing from the pleading has frail prospects of acceptance. The failure to plead is blow to the credibility of after-thought testimony. In the present instance, although some witnesses have lent up support to , the story that the appellant urged that he be regarded as Hindu ·and other P.Ws. that, being Assamese, the voters should back him, we do not give credit to such belated ipse dixits. . May be, as earlier observed, the Assamese appeal, or tribal sentiment, may in certain situations savour of communal appeal and on other occasions be request by member of weaker or backward or minority section to the people for voting help-a democratic gesture-we need not examine such possibilities here, the evidence on the point being naked assertions unfounded in pleadings and unconvincing on probabilities. The Hindus or Assa-mese or tribals were small numerically, about 80% of the voters being Muslims and the balance sheet would show more loss than gain if one took up Hindu posture. Nor is there any force in the submis-sion that witnesses R. Ws. 30, 8, 9 and 12 themselves had admitted the holding of the alleged meetings because they do not agree on the religious or communal appeal at all.

The heap of half-Hindu. evidence may be analysed, not meticu-lously but. applying commonsense tests. P. Ws. 53, 54, 55, 57, 65, 66, 67, 68, 79, 80 generally testify to the case of public appeal in tribal and non-Muslim areas that the petitioner has part-Hindu blood flowing in his veins and must be voted for on that basis. Impressive in numbers they are but the phalanx breaks down on closer exami-nation. We will eshew the impressionistic approach to the credibility of witnesses but look out for interestedness, lack of corroboration .and either unnatural features. By similar token we will examine the half-tribal appeal. The learned trial Judge has genera!ly chosen to believe these witnesses and we will have that in mind while apprais-ing their testimonial worth. P.W. 53 testifies to the appellant's visit to village library and asking for votes pleading that he may be taken as Hindu 'because his mother is Kachari Hindu'. He admits that the appellant is Mohammedan and still states that 'nobody raised any objection to what he said'. From his evidence it is seen that there ·were three persons Puran, Padmaram and Dharani who were workers of the present respondent sitting in the library. Although they are interested witnesses their corroboration could have added some weight to the testimony of P. W. 53. ' Moreover the same witness deposes 'A polling Officer was also sitting with us when respondent No. 1 talked'. Obviously the evidence of such witness would have rein~ forced the credibility of P. W. 53. We are unable to take at its face value the testimony of this easy witness particularly because he g0es beyond the half-Hindu theory trotted out in the pleadings. /

P. W. 54 is no better. He also speaks to the request by the appel-lant that he be taken as Hindu by the voters of the village since

maternal Hinduism flowed through his veins. However, he agrees that the appellant bears Muslim name and it is unlikely that he would have visited Hindu wedding to claim himself Hindu. The surprising thing about this witness is that he swears 'I took the res-pondent No. 1 to be Hindu as well as Muslim'. That unami-. mous decision to vote for the election-petitioner was reversed unani-mously the next day after the aforesaid appeal to vote on the basis of Hindu maternity is liable to be rejected even by the gullible. We feel P. W. 54 is speaking with his tongue in his cheek.

P. W. 55 also fares ill although he apparently corroborates P. W. 54. Strangely enough this gentleman admits that notwithstanding the Hindu appeal 'the respondent No. 1 gave out his name as Abdul Hussain Mir which is Muslim name and so we take him as Muslim'. He proceeds to state that he met the candidate on later occasicm but 'on this last mentioned occasion, res,pondent No. 1 asked me cast my vote in his favour and nothing more'. He hardly convinces us. It is significant that P. Ws. 54 and 55 do not speak of any corrobo-rating persons apart from Sri Neog, the supporter of the appellant. communal appeal made at wedding party could easily have be1en · corroborated by the bride's father or other important persons of the village. This is lacuna and the story itself can easily be woven with-out fear of contradiction.

P. W. 57 repeats his predecessors, but the very appeal made is self-contradictory because the words attributed to the candidate are 'that though be is Muslim . . . his mother is Kachari Hindu and so he may be taken as Hindu'. He mentions the names of certain others who were present on the occasion as 'leading persons viz. Bud-E dheswar, Bhogram .and Baliram'. But they have not been examined. P. Ws. 67 and 68 depart from the type design by asserting that the appellant asked for votes as he happened to be an Assamese. The former continued 'I joined issue with him for the reason that he bore Muslim name' and whent on to assert 'I told, the respondent No. 1 that he is Bengalee and not an Assamese ·. ~ . Today also I con-sider the respondent No. 1 as Mymensinghia of East Bengal' that is, Muslim. F'. W. 67's evidence cannot carry conviction. Nor are we impressed with the testimony of P. W. 68. We have perused the deposition of P. Ws. 79 and 80 anq for the sake of brevity we may say that their testimony is weakened by improbabilities and much oral evidence, served in heapfuls, cannot help induce judicial certitude.

P. Ws. 17, 21, 22, 82 and 83 specifically swear that the appellant urged the tribals to cast their votes in his favour because his mother was: Kachari. The pattern is the same but surrounding defects mak1~ it difficult to upset an election on doubtful yarn orally spun.

There is mix up regarding the communal appeal spoken to by P. W. 17 beeause the allegation in the petition is that the appellant'u !Ilother did the propaganda in Saharia village while the witness fathers . it on the candidate himself. Of course, he is polling agent of res· pondent-petitioner and is willin~ to swear as directed. Not only is there no corroboration but R. Ws. 7, 8 and 15 deny the imputation.

P. Ws. 21 and 22 speak to communal representation soliciting votes on the strength of maternal Hinduism, the propaganda being done in Batabari village. It would appear from their evidence that the candidate turned up when drama show was 011., !persuaded the stop-page of the play and talked to them asking for votes because he be-longed to them 'his mother being Bora Kachari woman'. The evi-dence is vague, unlikely and denied by the appellant RW 1 and by RW 5 another man of the village. Iu this state of dubiety, it is high risk to run to rely on the testimony of these two witnesses. P. Ws. 82 and 85 speak to .a similar propaganda in village Nijdhing. Both of them go beyond the case in the pleadings and put forward the story that the appellant urged that the villagers 'should vote for him as he is Hindu'. This evidence is contradicted by R. W. 8, the candidate. We are far from· satisfied that such glib · oath of casually picked up witnesses· speaking to circumstances more ambi-tious than the pleading sets forth should from the basis for proof of corrupt practice.

To sum up, the ground of religious or communal appeal hardly commends itself to us in the light of the evidence in the present case and we are constrained to reverse the findit~g of the High Court. We · are inclined to observe that the learned Judge has been far too easily persuaded by unsatisfactory oral evidence each of which is of an ad hoc character, is uncorroborated b:. any testimony of compelling value and is contradicted by the party affected. Proof beyond reason-able doubt seems forgotten criterion, although verbal homage is paid at the start by the Judge. The dictionary research into the meaning of religion, race, caste and community and the ethnic enquiry into tribal life launched by the tribal Judge may be useful but not conclu-sive and is legally elusive, Myriad forms of rubbing home communal appeal exist but if intangible, has to be ignored in the work-a-day world, law being pragmatic, not .perfect. '

It is matter for profound regret that political communalism far from being rooted out is foliating and flourishing largely because parties and politicians have not the will, professions apart, to give up the chase for power through politicising communal awareness-and religio-cultural identity. The Ram-Rahim ideal and the secular ideo-logy are often the Indian politician's election haberdashery, not his soul-stuff. Micro- and mini-communal fires are stoked by some candi-dates and leaders wh_ose over-powering love for seats in the Legisla-ture is stronger than sincere loyalty to secular elector'al processes. Law can efficientlv regulate and control if wider social legitimation is forthcoming. And thi~ key factor is absent, so much so wrong methodology becomes rampant. Small wonder, even revolutionaries, imbued with realism, often prove 'boneless wonders' when pitted against communal politics in elections. Courts can act only if cogent proof is adduced. The charge fails. ·

We now move on to the terrorising tactic allegedlv resorted to by the appellant. We have earlier noticed that the politics and prac-tices of electioneering may vary from area to area and what is good in Tamil Nadu may be foolish in Nagaland, such being the cultural

mosaic that is India. We will transport ourselves to this constituency, respond to its sensitivity and_ seek the truth of the charge of threat of voters in that milieu.

The pleading in this behalf casts the net too wide and vague and the complaint of the appellant that particulars have not been forth-coming is not without force. The trial Court itself has negatived some of the grounds relied on by the petitioner under the broad head of undue influence, tabooed by s. 123 (2) of the Act. What has survived and has been upheld is all that falls for our consideration. The drift of the charge i$ that the Congress candidate who, undoubtedly, had the propaganda backing of even Ce.ntral Ministers who landed in heli· copters, .that the voters were told about change in the method of voting which required the affixture -0f signature or thumb impre~slon on the ballot and the likelihood of detection of the identity of the votes cast, with' reference to the ·voter. The next step in the threat is that if anyone was found to Jiave voted for the communist-petitioner he would be subjected to the same torture the East Pakistanis suffered under the Pakistan regime. The macabre picture of the blood-bath in Bangladesh before it was born was perhaps the psychic content of the threat held out against anti-Congress electors. Making margin for the ultra sensitiveh nathu!e of the constituency to this grin\b threat we have to see whet er t 1s awesome propaganda has really een made. Proof must be clinching, before grave charges can be made good. Oral evidence; oridinarily, is inadequate especially if it is of indifferent quality or easily procurable.

P. Ws. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 56 and 58 have been relied on by the petitioner to press home the charge of threat of torture or undue influ-ence by that means. Of course, the villages assigned to the witnesses vary and the appellant has not only denied by his testimony but has pressed into service other witnesses to repudiate the intimidatory im-putation. They ;)re R. Ws. 28, 31 and 35 in regard to Salkathi Pathar village, R. Ws. 30 and 35 in regard to Palastho!i village; R. Ws. 9, 12:, and 38 relating to the alleged meeting at Rowman; R. W. 28 in regard to palaswli Panbari village; R. w. 36 with reference to Jarabari and R. Ws. 38 and 42 negating the story in relation to Doomdoomia.

brief and insightful survey of aU this testimony may now be undertaken. P. W. 3 swears that the appellant visited his house on March 10, 1972 accompanied by R. ws: 31 and 35 and others. When asked he mentioned that as before he intedded to vote for the peti-tioner-respondent whereupon the appellant told him that according to t1ie latest system of election 'my thumb mark shall be taken on the ballot paper and if it was fountl that I had voted for candidate otht:r than nominee of the Congress, I shall be killed in the manner of East-Bengalees. I was also apprised that all those voting against the Congress nominee shall be set up in line and killed in the way the East Bengalees had been done to death by the West Pakistanis'. This threat turned his vote towards the Congress candidate, says the wit-ness. He had kept this 'terrible fact secret ·till after the defeat of the election petitioner. The gruesome version is too terrifying to be trm: in the conditions prevailing in India in 1972. It must be re-membered that the election-petitioner is man of consequence bein~;

the President of the Managing Committee of Madrasa in that area and former M.L.A. Of course, the substantial vcte he has polled also shows the poor deterrence the alleged threat has had on the consti-tuency. P. W .. 5 encores this case of threat and mentions the names of R. Ws. 30 and 35 as ·having accompanied the appellant. The witness admits that at the 1967 General Elections he voted for the communist candidate, i.e., the election-petitioner, and that he never disclosed the present frightful threat having been made to him to any-one before the election. perusal of the evidence of these witnesses just referred to, in the light of the contradiction by the concerned R. Ws., makes us extremely hesitant to act on their deposition. In-deed we discount their credibility.

P. W. 6, the headman of village and President of Madrasa, deposes to public meeting in the Madrasa compound at which the appellant and his supporter Shri Neog spoke. The theme was the same except the ruddy embroidery that if anyone voted for the commµnist candidate everything would be bloodied like the communist flag. There was reference also to Bangladesh brand of ill-treatment. In cross-examination the witness refers to Abdul Khalek and Abdul Quaddus as having be~n present, but neither of them is examined. It is surprising that till the poll was over this witness did nol divulge the threat of violence for getting votes to any one and this strikes us · as improbable remembering that the witness is headman of village. The appellant .as well as Shri Neog have contradicted this version. R. Ws. 12 and 38 have also denied the holding Qf threats at that meeting. Of course, their evidence by itself may not be compelling .. P. W. 9 speaks in the same strain as P. W. 6. So also P. W. 14 who claims to be Congressman while deposing anti-Congress, not surprising phenomenon in election case evidence. It looks odd that this witness should say that 'excepting Shri Neog aforementioned, no . other Hindu participated in the meeting. Such an open threat is likely to counter-productive in predominently Muslim area, parti-cularly when we remember that the petitioner-respondent is also man of considerable influence. There is reference by P. W. ·14 to 'some bustle in the meeting', when the threat was uttered 'but I cannot say whether it was one of approval or disapproval' says P. W. 14.

P. Ws. 7 and 8 have given evidence of domestic delivery of the threat. Both of them speak to the visit at night of the appellant and his revealing the change in the election rules which would require thumb impression or signature to be appended to the ballot paper and the further shock to those who voted for the communist party that they would be shot dead. The possible corroboration could have come only from one Abdul Ghani and Isomuddin Master neither of whom is examined by the petitioner but the latter figures as R. W. 28 to _ deny the story.

P. W. 56 refers to similar threat held out in village J erabari by the candidate himself and the possibility of detection of the candidate to whom .the vote was cast. This Homeopathic Doctor owns the presence of Sahed and Anwar but neither of them has entered the witness box to corroborate this case.

P. W. 58 was not even mentioned in the witnesses' list although he repeats the true-to-type case of threat. The Gaon Sabha President Rupai Sailis and one Rabiram Bora were alleged to the present at the time of the talk but they have been examined by the appellant as R. Ws. 38 and 42 and have denied the whole case of threat.

We have to remember in assessing the evidence of these witnesses that the election petition has ·been· blissfully vague in regard to the particulars in support of the averment of undue influence. More than one amendment was sought and still neither the names of the persons nor of the placc:s so vital to induce credence and to show fairplay have been given. We need hardly emphasize that one cannot pick up witnesses en route and march them into the witness box without run-ning the. risk of their apparently consistent evidence from being disbelieved. After all we are dealing with quasi-criminal charge with serious consequences and all necessary particulars have to be furnished in the election petition. This being absent and the entiire case resting on shaky ipsi dixits we are unable to go by the version tendered by the election petitioner. The upshot of the discussion is that we are far from satisfied about the conclusive varacity of the case of undue influence and have therefore to find against the election-petitioner respondent. Before taking leave of this part of the case it is necessary to emphasise that the wisdom of the law of pleadings bearing on election petitions has set down strict provisions to ensure that fairness of oppor-tunity is given in fastening corrupt practices on the successful candi-date. Section 83 significantlv insists on all material facts and full particulars being set forth at the earliest stage. To avoid this duty is to play foul and we as umpires will not easily reckon the goal scored. The rules of the game, in this decisive democratic game where power corrupts even the techniques of proof, will be enforced in Court. Precedants are profusion on· this issue and the law is so settled that we do not cite case-Jaw in support. Here, three amendments were sought and made, of the petition by the election petitioner and objection about bold, vague, twilight allegations were urged by the opposing party. And yet the election petition remains bereft of specificity on vital matters. The penalty will, in any case, be stricter, more sceptical scrutiny of the testimony brought bv the delinquent party. We frown on tactics of keeping material particulars up one"s sleeves. That is neither cricket· nor court process. The testimonial assessment exercise bv us in the present case has been influenced by this blemish in the election petition, and after.

The last surviving corrupt practice of bribery may now be examin-ed from the legal and factual angle. The former, simpliutic on _the surface, is blurred and beffling in certain practical situations. Brieffv. the charge is that the appellant offered to P. W. 12, Jabber Munshi, mulla or mosque functionary with religious influence over his fold, the expi:essed object being 'to collect votes' for ·him. In evidence, the mulla crystallised the case thus :

"The respondent No. 1 approached me and said that he wanted to have talk with me. Then respondent No. 1 took me inside one of the rooms of Johuruddin's house and

there offered me Rs. 2,000/- if I worked for him in the election in the two villages of which I happened to be the Mulla. I turned down the proposal since it was unbecoming of me and then came out of the room."

critical appraisal of the evidence on this part of the case has lead us to conclude that the facts deposed to are altogether untrustworthy. Facts failing, law becomes otiose. Even so, having regard to the importance of the subject and largely out of deference to the counsel who have addressed long arguments and highlighted the High Court's reasons on the peint we think it proper to express our opmion. For an incisive understanding of the import of s. 123- ( 1) we will assume the facts to be correct. Precision in thought being essential, we will set out the provision itself :

"123. Corrupt practices.-The following shall be deem-ed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act :- ·

( 1 ) 'Bribery, that is. to . say,-

(A) any gift, offer or promise by candidate or his •· agent or by any other person with the consent of candidate or his election agent of any gratification, to any person, whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly, of induc-ing-

(al person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being candidate at an election, or

( b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an elec-tion, or as reward to--

( i) person for having so stood or not stood, or for having withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or

(ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting;

(B) the receipt of, or agreement to receive, any gratifi-cation, whether as motive or reward-

( a) by person for standing or not standing as, or for withdrawing or not withdrawing from being, candidate; Qr

(bl by any person whomsoever for himself or any other person for voting or refraining from voting or inducing or attempting to induce any elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any candidate to withdraw or not to withdraw his candidature.

Explanation.-for the purposes of this clause the term 'gratification' is not restricted to pecuniary gratification or gratifications estimable in money and it includes all forms of entertainment and all forms of employment for reward but it does not include the payment of any expenses bona fide incurred at, or for the purpose of, any election and duly entered in the account of election expenses referred to in section 7 5."

(emphasis ours)

One thing is clear. mere offer_is enough, given the other in-gredients. An attempt to commit crime is as bad as the commission, if proved infallibly. To pay money 'to work for him in the election' -does it become illegal gratification of the corrupt species ? We may slur over the min9r gap between 'collecting' votes as pleaded and 'working' for the candidate, as deposed, since what counts is the 8 evidence. break down of the sub-section yields the f91lowing com-ponents : /

(i) An offer or promise by the candidate etc., of gratifi-cation to any person,

(ii) The object must be directly or indirectly to induce an elector to vote or not to vote at an election.

The purpose of the provision is to ensure poll purity and exclusion of pollution by mi;mev power. All elections involve expenses and that is why s. 77 sets ceiling on such expenses and impliedly contem-. plates expenditure on election work. Such lay-out of money may be for legitimate items. Any offer or promise by candi~ate (or other person specified in the section) to any person whosoever, of money is anathems for the J,aw, if the object be to induce, directly or indirectly voter to cast or refrain from casting his ballot. Here there is the offer by the candidate to person viz., P. W. 12. What is the speci-fic object ? To make him work for the candidate, viz., to persuade voters to support the paying candidate. There is legal line to be drawn here, which is fine b_ut real. The payment of offer as the case may be, may be to any person, but it must be linked with the object predicated in the section. If the payment is to induce an elector to vote, be it direct or vicarious it is corrupt. If it is any other oblique object, it may be evil, not necessarily corrupt in the eye of the law. The language of the provision can be stretched wide to cover even paymnets to do propaganda or print posters or hire transport sincti they are calculated to induce voters to vote. narrow connotation is conceivable where only payments to the voters is hit by the legal stick. pragmatic construction, inhibiting corruption but permitting electioneering expense is the right one, although many tricky projects may get through the legal mashes which law cannot help and only public vigilance can arrest.

Reading s. 77, dealing with the ceiling on election expenses and s. 123 (i) which strikes at liberty, harmoniously and realistically., we reach few well-defined semantic conclusions. To widen is to be idealists and ineffectual. To shrink 'is to fail in the goal of the law. Mr. Garg rightly 1~mphasised that in the light of the precedents of this Court what the law aims at is blow on the purchase of the franchise by direct or indirect methods. You may buy influence of important persons which is bad in morality but not yet in law. You may over-spend to create enthusiasm to the workers which produces professional electioneers waiting for the season to please candidates and parties. This vitiates the smooth wheels of the democratic process but cannot be stanched by the tourniquet of the law. The rulings in

Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh([1]) and the one at Om Prabha Jain v. Abnash Chand(2) have been cited at the bar and they make out that the vice is the bargain for the ballot and what is obnoxious in the quid pro qua for the vote, however accomplish.

If the candidate pays money to V.I.P. of the locality to use his good offices and canvass votes for him, it is borderline case, but if the money is paid as consideration for votes promised to be secured by him using his sway, it is bribery even though indirectly exercised ... If the Mulla had been paid the money striking bargain for getting the votes in his ambit of influence, it is electoral corruption. On the other hand, if it is money received for the purpose of organising effectively the election campaign by hiring workers, going round to places in car, meeting people and persuading them to vote for the canc11date, it is proper election expense. In between these two extremes lies the ·case of man who just receives large sum of money, pockets it himself and promises to use his good offices to secure votes. This is gray area. We are not called upon to pronounce on it in this case. We have no doubt that mammoth election campaign cannot be car-ried on without engaging number of workers of hierarchical sort. Many of them may be man commanding influence through goodwill in the locality. Some of them may be village VJ.Ps. social or reli-gious, our country being still feudal in many rural areas. The touch-stone in all these cases of payment or gratification is to find out whether the money is paid in reasonable measure for work to be done or services to be rendered. Secondly, whether the services so offered amount to bargain for getting votes or merely to do propaganda or to persuade voters to vote for the candidate, it being ,left to the voters not to respond to the election. It is plain case if voter is paid for his vote. It is direct. It is equally plain if the payment is made to close relation as inducement for the vote. The same is the case if it is paid to local chief on the understanding that he will get polled the votes in his pocket borough. in consideration for the payment. The crucial point is the nexus between the gratifu. cation and the votes, one being the consideration for the other, direct or indirect. Such being the contours of the corrupt practice of bribery, let us consider the facts of the case bearing on this question. The allegations are that the appellant and RW 33 called PW 12 the Mulla to the house of RW 33 at Dhing Bazar on February ~8. 1972 and offered to pay Rs. 2,000/- for collecting votes. PW 12 and PW 13 have been examinetl. to affirm this case while the appel-G lant as PW 8 and RW 33 have refuted this story, on oath. The version is inherently improbable as it is unlikely that such corrupt offer would be made to comparative stranger by one conversant with election proorieties. It is particularly noteworthy that RW 33 has no special influence over this Mulla and his house need not have been the venue for the offer of bribe. Sahed Ali, P. W. 13 is also not shown to have anv closeness to PW 12 and wbv he should get mixed 110 with this matter is not ea<ilv 1111cln<t~nrlable. pw 1?. has sworn that he had neither worked nor canvassed for any candidate at

(I) [\963] 3 ~.C.R. 102, 110. (2) [1968j 3 S. C.R. 111, llf.

any time and could not have been therefore pressured this time by the appellant who is likely to know the implications of ~s dangerous move himself being an Advocate. Before the poll, P. W. 12 c11d not mention this matter /to anyone but it was divulged only fortnight after the election. The graphic description of the appellant not pro-ducing the cash along with the offer but suggestively opening his long cost without showing the money is more dramatic than true. fl. W. 13 who corroborates in part the Mulla also is too virtue to prevail upon Jabbar Munshi to work for the appellant, as requested by the latter, as his evid(mce ,runs. This witness would say that the occurrence was around 10-30 a.m., but we have the evidence of Shri Moinul Haque . Chowdhury who came in helicopter to address public meding on behalf of the appellant that he and the appellant together landed in the place aqbut mid-day. If really the appellant was keen on hiring the services/ of the Mulla at fancy price he would have put more pressure or,/ PW 13 than is discernible in the dicerent answer of the witnes~ :

"Resp0ntlent No. 1 asked me this much that I should previal upon Jabbar Munshi to accept the money and work for him. He did not ask me anything more though he told me that he had offered Rs. 2,000/- to Jabbar."

In this context it must be stated that in the original election peti-tion the source of information regarding the allegation contained in . section of Part I that bribery of Rs. 2,000/- was not mentioned. By al). amendment, Kabir is mentioned as the source but in the affida-vit filed in support of the amended election petition the informant is m~ntioned as Salkia and neither of them has been examined. Nor are ~e told how they came to know about the secret offer. The over-all view of the evidence bearing on this aspect leaves us in grave doubt as to whether the Mulla had met the appellant at all. We have alres.dv !held that the facts as spoken Io by the former, even if true do .. not come within the relevant clause [ s. 123 (l)].

'The evidence is pw:ely parol, the accusation one of reprehensible corruption and so, however attractive an offer of payment to Mulla for Muslim voters being influenced may appear to be, the court has to be circumspect to degree. In our country where marshy areas of religious fanticism survive into late twentieth century politics and candidates, regardless of secular and even revolutionary faiths, suc-cumb to methods of vote-catching inconsistent with democratic scruples, approaching Mullas, priests and pujaris may not be un-familiar. But this vicious proclivity cannot be combated by courts except when (a) clinching proof is adduced and (b) the facts come within the clutches of the legal definition. After all, poll purity is preserved not bv law alone but by critical electoral climate.

The mere word of the Mulla, denied by the appellant, is alto-gether insufficient to bring home the guilt, corroborated though it is by P. W. 13.

Summing up our conclusions, we hold none of the grounds pres-sed have been proved to the point of judicial certituC:e. All that

All that

judges, fallible instruments, and cacooned by the record can hold in all conscience is that by human insight and judicialised procedures, with all the limitations they in practice imply, the truth is what our lights tell us it is, no more.

The appeal is allowed and the election petition dismissed with costs throughout.

Appeal allowed.