CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL versus SOHAN SINGH JODH SINGH KOHLI

CHANDRAKANTA GOYAL versus SOHAN SINGH JODH SINGH KOHLI

A candidate can only be held vicariously liable for corrupt practices committed by others if there is a finding of consent and after compliance with Section 99 (notice and inquiry). The High Court erred as it did not establish consent or comply with Section 99. Speeches prior to the candidate becoming a candidate and innocuous speeches by candidate herself do not constitute corrupt practice under Sections 123(3) or (3A).

Parties
Appellant: Chandrakanta Goyal; Respondent: Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 December 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court
Outcome
appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; election petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Candidate Consent, Role of Agent, Statutory Compliance
Election Law Corrupt Practices Candidate Consent Role of Agent Statutory Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chandrakanta Goyal

Appellant

Sohan Singh Jodh Singh Kohli

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Judgment by Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether speeches by political leaders supporting a candidate constitute corrupt practice under Sections 123(3) and 123(3A) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  2. 2 Whether consent of the candidate to speeches made by others must be pleaded and proved for vicarious liability under Section 100(1)(b).
  3. 3 Whether statutory requirements under Section 99 (notice and inquiry) must be complied with before holding a candidate guilty for corrupt practice by others.

Ratio Decidendi

A candidate can only be held vicariously liable for corrupt practices committed by others if there is a finding of consent and after compliance with Section 99 (notice and inquiry). The High Court erred as it did not establish consent or comply with Section 99. Speeches prior to the candidate becoming a candidate and innocuous speeches by candidate herself do not constitute corrupt practice under Sections 123(3) or (3A).

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; impugned judgment set aside; election petition dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's election stands; costs throughout to appellant; election petition dismissed.