M A I N   N E W S

SC: poll mudslinging not corrupt practice
S.S. Negi
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, May 20
An unsubstantiated attack on the character of a rival candidate during poll campaign by a contestant “does not amount to a corrupt practice” until fully established with supportive evidence, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The question for defining the provision of Section 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), which deals with the menace of character assassination during poll campaign, was brought before the apex court in an election appeal by Mr Mahendra Singh, who had challenged the election of Mr Gulab, an MLA in the previous Maharashtra Assembly. He had defeated Mr Mahendra Singh during the 1999 election from the Erandol seat.

Mr Mahendra Singh, in his petition, alleged that during the poll campaign, Mr Gulab and his poll agent had attacked his character on four counts — that when he was MLA earlier, he had taken money while voting in the Rajya Sabha election (statement attributed to his agent), distributed money to voters during his earlier election, was a drunkard and had indulged in unfair practice in school examinations.

A Bench of Chief Justice R. C. Lahoti, Mr Justice G. P. Mathur and Mr Justice P. K. Balasubramanyan ruled that the Bombay High Court had examined the matter thoroughly by taking into account the available evidence and came to the conclusion that these statements attributed to the elected MLA would not amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section 123(4) of the RPA as they were vague and ambiguous.

“We find it not possible to disagree with that finding of the high court,” the Bench ruled.

Mr Mahendra Singh had claimed that all those statements made by Mr Gulab and his agent were “false” and not only amounted to his character assassination but violated the provisions of Section 123(4) of the Act.

Sub-section 4 of Section 123 says that publication of a false statement by a candidate or his election agent about the character or conduct of any candidate, his candidature, or withdrawal of a contestant, which reasonably calculated to be prejudice to the prospects of his election, amounted to a corrupt practice.

Endorsing the high court ruling that the statements about the distribution of money to voter, taking money during the Rajya Sabha election and unfair practice during exams against Mr Mahendra Singh were “ambiguous”, the apex court said that to establish a foolproof case of “corrupt practice” as defined under Section 123 of the Act, the allegations should be “beyond reasonable doubt” and substantiated with facts.

On the allegation of his being drunkard and promoting drinking habits, the apex court though admitted that it could bring down the reputation of a person in the eyes of the public but then there should be sufficient proof to support such serious charges to attract the provisions of Sub-Section 4 of Section 123 of the Act.