S. HARCHARAN SINGH versus S. SAJJAN SINGH AND ORS.

S. HARCHARAN SINGH versus S. SAJJAN SINGH AND ORS.

Respondent No. 3 made appeals on grounds of religion through statements and actions—such as issue of Hukamnama, references at meetings, and writings in Akali Times—represented by leaders including the ex-Chief Minister. The matter was proved by oral evidence not rebutted, and there was absence of express denial. As such, respondent No. 3 was guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Parties
Appellant: S. Harcharan Singh; Respondent: S. Sajjan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
29 November 1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision in Election Petition No. 40 of 1980
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Respondent No. 3's election is set aside and seat declared vacant. Findings forwarded to President of India for appropriate action under section 8A of the Act.
Legal Topics
Corrupt Practice, Appeal to Religion, Secular Democracy, Electoral Process
Election Law Constitutional Law Corrupt Practice Appeal to Religion Secular Democracy Electoral Process

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S. Harcharan Singh

Appellant

S. Sajjan Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From the Punjab and Haryana High Court Decision in Election Petition No. 40 of 1980

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondent No. 3 indulged in corrupt practice under section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 by appealing to voters on grounds of religion.
  2. 2 Sufficiency and nature of evidence required to prove corrupt practice under section 123(3).
  3. 3 Implications of amendment removing 'systematic' from section 123(3), expanding scope of corrupt practice.

Ratio Decidendi

Respondent No. 3 made appeals on grounds of religion through statements and actions—such as issue of Hukamnama, references at meetings, and writings in Akali Times—represented by leaders including the ex-Chief Minister. The matter was proved by oral evidence not rebutted, and there was absence of express denial. As such, respondent No. 3 was guilty of corrupt practice under section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Respondent No. 3's election is set aside and seat declared vacant. Findings forwarded to President of India for appropriate action under section 8A of the Act.

Orders

  • Election of respondent No. 3 set aside.
  • Seat declared vacant.