PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC. versus HARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC

PROF. RAMCHANDRA G. KAPSE ETC. versus HARIBANSH RAMAKBAL SINGH ETC

The Supreme Court held that the noticees were entitled to independently deny, plead, and prove that the constituent parts of the corrupt practice alleged were not made out, and could not be denied opportunity to lead evidence to this effect. The refusal of the High Court to permit such evidence was erroneous. There were no implied admissions in the written statements, as there was clear denial of consent and involvement. The party manifesto, absent evidence of use by the candidate in the campaign, could not by itself amount to corrupt practice. There was no legal or substantive evidence to prove an appeal for votes on the ground of religion or to constitute corrupt practice under Sections...

Parties
Appellant / Returned Candidate: Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse; Respondent / Election Petitioner: Haribansh Ramakbal Singh; Noticee: Pramod Mahajan; Noticee: Sadhvi Reethambara
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court's Judgment in Election Petition No. 6 of 1991
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment declaring election void and naming noticees as guilty of corrupt practices set aside.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Appeals, Representation of the People Act, Election Petitions, Legal Evidence, Pleadings, Constitutional Law
Election Law Corrupt Practices Appeals Representation of the People Act Election Petitions Legal Evidence Pleadings Constitutional Law

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse

Appellant / Returned Candidate

Haribansh Ramakbal Singh

Respondent / Election Petitioner

Pramod Mahajan

Noticee

Sadhvi Reethambara

Noticee

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 / Supreme Court Appeal From Bombay High Court's Judgment in Election Petition No. 6 of 1991

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether noticee has an independent right to plead and prove the want of any constituent part of the corrupt practice alleged under the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether implied admission of averments by non-traverse in written statement was made out.
  3. 3 Whether the manifesto of a registered political party could itself form the basis for holding a candidate guilty of corrupt practice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the noticees were entitled to independently deny, plead, and prove that the constituent parts of the corrupt practice alleged were not made out, and could not be denied opportunity to lead evidence to this effect. The refusal of the High Court to permit such evidence was erroneous. There were no implied admissions in the written statements, as there was clear denial of consent and involvement. The party manifesto, absent evidence of use by the candidate in the campaign, could not by itself amount to corrupt practice. There was no legal or substantive evidence to prove an appeal for votes on the ground of religion or to constitute corrupt practice under Sections...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court's judgment declaring election void and naming noticees as guilty of corrupt practices set aside.

Orders

  • Appellant Prof. Ramchandra G. Kapse and noticee Pramod Mahajan to get costs throughout from the respondent (election petitioner).
  • Noticee Sadhvi Reethambara to bear her own costs.