INDER LAL versus LAL SINGH

INDER LAL versus LAL SINGH

The Supreme Court held that the allegation in the pamphlet that respondent no. 2 was a purchaser of the opponents of the Congress by means of money amounted to an allegation of bribery, which involves moral turpitude and unequivocally affects private character. Therefore, such a statement constitutes a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election of respondent no. 1 was accordingly set aside.

Parties
Appellant: Inder Lal; Respondent No. 1: Lal Singh; Respondent No. 2: Laxman Singh s/o Maharawal Sir Bijey Singh; Respondent No. 3: Chhogalal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 February 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave From Rajasthan High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; election of respondent no. 1 set aside.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, False Statement, Personal Character, Representation of the People Act, 1951
Election Law Corrupt Practices False Statement Personal Character Representation of the People Act, 1951

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

Parties

Inder Lal

Appellant

Lal Singh

Respondent No. 1

Laxman Singh s/o Maharawal Sir Bijey Singh

Respondent No. 2

Chhogalal

Respondent No. 3

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal by Special Leave From Rajasthan High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether false statements made in pamphlets constituted a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the allegation in the pamphlet that respondent no. 2 was a purchaser of the opponents of the Congress by means of money amounted to an allegation of bribery, which involves moral turpitude and unequivocally affects private character. Therefore, such a statement constitutes a corrupt practice under s. 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The election of respondent no. 1 was accordingly set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; election of respondent no. 1 set aside.

Orders

  • Election of respondent no. 1 is set aside.
  • No order as to costs, as respondent no. 1 did not appear.