JAGDEV SINGH SIDHANTI versus PRATAP SINGH DAULTA

JAGDEV SINGH SIDHANTI versus PRATAP SINGH DAULTA

Appeals and promises made to conserve a language for the electorate, or criticism of government language policy, do not constitute corrupt practices under s. 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Use of the 'Om Dhwaj' flag was not proven to be a religious symbol used as defined by the Act, nor was it shown that appeals were made on the candidate's personal language. The right to conserve language under Article 29(1) is absolute and making political appeals for language conservation is not prohibited.

Parties
Appellant: Jagdev Singh Sidhanti; Respondent No. 1: Pratap Singh Daulta
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 February 1964
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab High Court Decision in First Appeal From Order No. 2/3 of 1963
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practices, Use of Religious Symbols, Language Rights, Fundamental Rights
Electoral Law Constitutional Law Corrupt Practices Use of Religious Symbols Language Rights Fundamental Rights

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jagdev Singh Sidhanti

Appellant

Pratap Singh Daulta

Respondent No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Punjab High Court Decision in First Appeal From Order No. 2/3 of 1963

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether use of a religious symbol by candidate or agents constitutes a corrupt practice under s. 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
  2. 2 Whether appeals to electorate based on language amount to corrupt practice within the meaning of s. 123(3) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

Appeals and promises made to conserve a language for the electorate, or criticism of government language policy, do not constitute corrupt practices under s. 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Use of the 'Om Dhwaj' flag was not proven to be a religious symbol used as defined by the Act, nor was it shown that appeals were made on the candidate's personal language. The right to conserve language under Article 29(1) is absolute and making political appeals for language conservation is not prohibited.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the Tribunal restored
  • Order of the High Court set aside