S.L. Saraf vs M.S. Qureshi and Another

J.N. Bhat, J.—Shri Sham Lal Saraf, the Petitioner, seeks to challenge the election of Respondent No. 1 Shri Mohammad Shafi Qureshi to

the Parliamentary Constituency Anantnag, Kashmir in the last general elections of 1967. The Petitioner and the two Respondents M/s. Mohammad

Shafi Qureshi and Rughu Nath Vaishnavi Respondent No. 2 sought to contest this election. The petition recites that the Petitioner is a resident of

the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and is registered as a voter in the Parliamentary Constituency Srinagar District. The registered voters of the

Parliamentary constituencies in the State of Jammu and Kashmir were called upon to elect their representatives to the House of People. The

nomination papers were to be filed before the Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as R.O. in this judgment) between the hours of 11 O'clock

to 3 P.M. each day from 13th of January 1967 to 20th of January 1967. The Petitioner belongs to the National Conference party and the

Respondent No. 1 to the Indian National Congress party, both of which parties were recognised by the Election Commission. On 20th January

1967, accompanied by his proposer, the Petitioner went to file his nomination papers in the office of the R.O., who was the Deputy

Commissioner/District Magistrate Anantnag. He found the R.O. absent from his office. The matter was telephonically reported to the Deputy

Electoral Officer by the Petitioner's proposer. At about 2 P.M. the Assistant Returning Officer (hereinafter referred to as A.R.O. in this judgment)

of this Parliamentary Constituency, who was the Assistant Commissioner Anantnag, came to his office. The Petitioner along with his proposer

approached him to accept the nomination paper of the Petitioner and accept the necessary election deposit. This gentleman was not inclined to

accept the nomination paper of the Petitioner for a pretty long time and on the insistence of the Petitioner's proposer told the Petitioner and his

proposer that he would accept the nomination paper only if the R.O. would not come to his office till 10 minutes to 3 P.M. The A.R.O. accepted

the nomination paper of the Petitioner at 2-55 P.M. and recorded on the back of the nomination paper that he had accepted it because of the

insistence of the Petitioner. The A.R.O. signed it as Assistant Commissioner and he was persuaded by the Petitioner's proposer to put three letters

'A.R.O.' meaning Assistant Returning Officer, with the words Assistant Commissioner. The election deposit was made by the Petitioner and a

receipt obtained from the Assistant Returning Officer. During the night of the 20th January 1967 the Petitioner received a telegram from the A.R.O.

designating himself as R.O. informing the Petitioner that the scrutiny of his nomination paper would be taken up on 21st instant at 11 in the morning.

This telegram was unintelligible to the Petitioner but it confirmed the suspicions that the R.O. had earlier on the same day manoeuvred his absence

from his office according to a plan and there was something more up his sleeve for the 21st January 1967, the date of the scrutiny. The Petitioner's

proposer informed the Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi about the happenings till 2-45 P.M. on 20th January 1967. The Dy. Chief

Electoral Officer, Srinagar, was also informed on telephone. On 21st January 1967 the Petitioner reached the office of the R.O. much before 11

O'clock and waited along with his proposer and other friends and colleagues in his office. As soon as the R.O. entered the room the Petitioner's

proposer sought permission of the R.O. to allow the Petitioner to read and subscribe to the oath of allegiance as required by Article 84 of the

Constitution of India. The R.O. did not agree but surprised the Petitioner and his proposer by telling them that the scrutiny of the nomination papers

of the Petitioner would be conducted by the A.R.O. where the nomination papers of the Petitioner were lying at that time. The Petitioner's

proposer pointed out to the R.O. that the A.R.O. had no jurisdiction to conduct the scrutiny when the R.O. was present in Ms office and it would

be very strange that the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the Petitioner would be effected by the Assistant Returning Officer and that of the two

other candidates by the R.O. There was no warrant in law for such a procedure. Respondent No. 1, the candidate of the Congress party entered

the room of the R.O. and sought an adjournment of the proceedings before him for half an hour as he had to present himself before the A.R.O. for

the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner. The insistence of the Petitioner or his proposer before the R.O. for conducting the scrutiny of

his nomination paper by him proved of no avail and they therefore went to the A.R.O., whose room is adjacent to the room of the R.O. The

Petitioner, his proposer and other colleagues found the papers of the Petitioner before the A.R.O. and the Respondent No. 1 asked the A.R.O. to

conduct the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the Petitioner. It was pointed out by the Petitioner's proposer to the A.R.O. that he had no

jurisdiction to conduct the scrutiny and his action would be illegal and without jurisdiction. They demanded that the question of jurisdiction should

be decided first. The A.R.O. after hearing the parties overruled this preliminary objection of the Petitioner and his proposer pertaining to

jurisdiction and started conducting the scrutiny. The Petitioner and his proposer requested the A.R.O., to permit the Petitioner to make and

subscribe to the oath as required by the Constitution but he did not permit the Petitioner to do so. On a perusal of the nomination paper of the

Petitioner by the Respondent No. 1, the Respondent No. 1 raised an objection to the nomination paper of the Petitioner that as there was no oath

form attached with the nomination paper of the Petitioners the nomination paper was liable to be rejected. This found favour with the A.R.O. and

the A.R.O. verbally pronounced the order of rejection of the nomination paper of the Petitioner. The Petitioner further states that he is a citizen of

India and has been a member of the J and K Legislative Assembly for over a decade and was elected to the Lok Sabha in the year 1962 and

owed and owes unfaltering faith to the Constitution of India and regards every mandate of the Constitution as something which a citizen of India

should feel proud to live and die for. By rejecting the nomination paper of the Petitioner, the result of the election has been materially affected. The

order of the A.R.O. is without Jurisdiction and is baseless in law. Respondent No. 2 was also a duly nominated candidate, his nomination paper

was also improperly rejected by the R.O. and for that reason too the election of the Respondent No. 1 was liable to be set aside. As the A.R.O.

had no authority to conduct the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner it is prayed that the election of the Respondent No. 1 be declared

void and set aside, and appropriate costs be awarded. The Petitioner deposited Rs. 2,000 as security in terms of Section 117 of the

Representation of the People Act, 1951.

This petition was sought to be amended by the Petitioner by means of his application dated 15-6-67. The amendment sought to be effected by

means of this application will be mentioned a little later after I summarize the written statements of the two Respondents.

Respondent No. 1 filed his first written statement on 26-5-1967. The pleas raised in the written statement of the Respondent No. 1 in reply to

the petition of the Petitioner are as follows:

The Petitioner was not a duly proposed candidate for election to the Parliament from the Anantnag Constituency because his nomination paper

was not accompanied by the requisite oath form. The Respondent No. 1 does not know what time the Petitioner reached the office of the R.O. on

the first day nor does he know about the telegraphic communication between the Petitioner and the Electoral Officer of the constituency. The R.O.

of the Anantnag Parliamentary constituency was also the District Magistrate of Anantnag. As far as the Respondent No. 1 knows, the law and

order situation in Tral was getting bad on 20th January 67 and the Returning Officer being incharge of the law and order in the entire District had to

go personally to Tral and for some time he was not in his office. He had duly authorised one of his A.R.Os.- there were more than one for this

Constituency- to receive the nomination papers for election to the Parliamentary constituency. The Petitioner did not go to the authorised R.O. and

insisted upon the unauthorised A.R.O. to receive his nomination paper. The nomination paper of the Petitioner was not accompanied by the

requisite oath form or a certificate to that effect as required by law. It was not a proper nomination form. The Petitioner had tried to magnify the

small matters which had no bearing on the election of the Respondent No. 1. The telegram alleged to have been sent by the A.R.O. to the

Petitioner on 20th January 1967 must have been issued in confirmation of the earlier information communicated to the Petitioner about the scrutiny

to be held on 21st of January 1967. On 21st of January 1967 the date fixed for scrutiny of the nomination papers the R.O. having had to deal with

the deteriorated law and order situation at Tral where there had been firing and some deaths as a result thereof; was not sure about his being able

to attend to the scrutiny personally. He had on the previous day authorised the A.R.O. who received the nomination paper of the Petitioner, to

start on 21st January 1967 the scrutiny of the nomination papers filed both before the R.O. and the A.R.O. in case the R.O. could not, due to

circumstances stated above, be personally present to do so. The R.O. had specifically authorised the A.R.O. to carry on with the scrutiny till such

time as the R.O. returned and the R.O. came to his office when the Petitioner's nomination paper had been duly scrutinized by the A.R.O. and the

order of rejection announced. The R.O. was not in his office till 11 A.M. on 21st January 1967. The A.R.O. started the scrutiny as authorised and

directed by the R.O. After that the R.O. came and called for the other unscrutinized nomination papers from the A.R.O. and scrutinized them

personally. When the R.O. was unavoidably absent to effect the scrutiny, the A.R.O. was justified to conduct the scrutiny. No permission to read

and subscribe to the oath was ever sought by the Petitioner. It is in the alternative pleaded that even if an attempt was made to make and subscribe

to the oath after the question of jurisdiction was decided against the Petitioner, that would not render the nomination paper of the Petitioner valid.

But as a matter of fact no offer to take and subscribe to the oath was made. Even when the Respondent No. 1 took the objection on account of

the absence of the oath forms, no offer was made to take and subscribe to the oath. The Petitioner's claim that he has been a member of the

Legislative Assembly for over a decade or of the Lok Sabha since 1962 has no bearing as the essential pre-requisite for being eligible to stand for

an election to the Lok Sabha is to make and subscribe to the oath which the Petitioner did not do. The fact that the nomination paper of the

Respondent No. 2 was wrongly rejected is denied. It is stated that the Respondent No. 2 also had failed to make and subscribe to the oath as

required by the Constitution nor had he filed any oath form with the nomination papers. The nomination papers of the Respondent No. 2 and of the

Petitioner were properly rejected. The petition deserved dismissal with costs.

The Respondent No. 2 in his written statement filed on 26th May 1967 admitted most of the contentions in the petition and added in reply to

Para 20 of the petition which is the paragraph pertaining to the rejection of his nomination paper in the petition as follows:

That he was a duly nominated candidate and his nomination paper was improperly rejected by the R.O. He stated that he took the oath and

read out the same and subscribed to it as prescribed by law in this behalf and each and every requirement laid down by the Constitution in this

respect was duly complied with by the Respondent No. 2 and the certificate to this effect was recorded by the R.O. on each one of the four oath

forms which the said R.O. took into his custody on 19th January 1967 along with the four nomination papers of the Respondent No. 2. It may be

stated that the Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 1 both filed their nomination papers before the R.O. on 19th January 1967. This

Respondent had shown to the R.O. at the time of the presentation of his nomination paper, the electoral roll of Srinagar Parliamentary constituency

containing the name of the Respondent No. 2 and he was asked to present it at the time of scrutiny. On the day of scrutiny he found that the four

oath forms presented by him on the 19th of January 1967 before the R.O. along with the nomination papers had been removed and his nomination

paper was rejected on the ground that he had failed to make and subscribe to the oath. No other ground was mentioned by the R.O. while

rejecting his nomination paper. The R.O. had later on falsely and fraudulently stated in his order that the Respondent No. 1 had failed to produce

the electoral roll. The Respondent No. 2 had complained to the Chief Election Commissioner of India about the tampering of the record and

making false and fraudulent additions in the said order of rejection. This Respondent also presented copies of letters sent by him to various

gentlemen and dignitaries.

The learned advocate of the Respondent No. 1 by means of his application dated 13th June 1967 presented on 14th June 1967 sought

permission to amend his written statement. The amendments sought were as under:

(a) The readiness to take the oath on the date of scrutiny or the refusal of the Returning Officer not to administer oath on the date of scrutiny is not

relevant to the scope of enquiry and does not constitute a ground for the improper rejection of the nomination paper.

(b) The rejection for the non-compliance of the provisions of Section 51 of the Constitution does not constitute improper rejection of the

Nomination paper.

The Petitioner also by means of his application dated 15th June 1967 presented on 16th June 1967 sought permission to amend certain

paragraphs of his petition. The Petitioner sought to amend paras 19, 20, 23 and 11 of the petition. In paras 19, 20 and 23 in substance the

following words were sought to be added:

The election of Respondent No. 1 is void because of improper rejection of the Petitioner's nomination paper, and noncompliance with the

provisions of Constitution and of the Representation of the People Act 1951, and the orders made under this Act by the Returning Officer and the

Assistant Returning Officer by which the result of the election in so far as it concerns the Respondent No. 1 who is a returned candidate has been

materially affected.

And in para 11 the words ""a little before 11 A.M."" were sought to be added after the words ""the Returning Officer entered the room.

These applications were opposed by the other side but ultimately were disposed of by my order dated 26th June 1967 which is a detailed one. I

permitted the Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 1 to make the amendments as prayed for by them. Consequently amended pleadings were

put in.

Another application was moved by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 on 6th of June 1967 that the name of the Respondent No. 2

be struck off from the proceedings under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC but this application was not seriously pressed by the Respondent No. 1

subsequently.

An application was moved by Syed Mr. Quasim on 23rd of May 1967 for being added as an Intervener. This was opposed by the Petitioner

and the Respondent No. 2 but ultimately by my order dated 1st of June 1067 I permitted Syed Mir Quasim to be added as an Intervener for the

limited purpose of arguing the law points raised in this case. But in view of the subsequent developments and the authority of the Supreme Court as

that point has lost importance it is not mentioned in detail.

Respondent No. 1 further put in an application on 3rd of July 1967 for review of my order dated 26th of June 1967 but that application was

rejected by me on 11th of July 1967.

The Respondents filed their written statements to the amended petition of the Petitioner on 4th July 1967 and 27th June 1967. After this

chequered career issues in this case were struck on 11th of July 1967. Issue No. 8 was recast by means of my order dated 11th of August 1967.

The final issues on which evidence was led by the parties, which arose from the pleadings of the parties, are as under:

Was not the A.R.O. empowered to receive the nomination papers of the Petitioner? O.P.R.I.

Whether the R.O. was unavoidably absent from his headquarters on 21st January 1967 on account of law and order situation in Tral and had

therefore authorised the A.R.O. to start the scrutiny of the nomination papers in case the R.O. could not be personally present on spot on 21st of

January 1967 at 11 A.M.? O.P.R.I.

(a) On proof of issue 2, whether the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner by the A.R.O. was without jurisdiction? O.P.P.

(b) If issue No. 2 is not proved, is the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner by the A.R.O. valid and proper? O.P.R.I.

Whether on 21-1-1967 on entry of the R.O. into his office a little before 11 A.M. the proposer of the Petitioner got up and sought permission

of the R.O. for allowing the Petitioner to read and subscribe to the oath of allegiance as required by Article 84 of the Constitution of India? O.P.P.

Whether on the request of the proposer of the Petitioner to allow the Petitioner to make and subscribe to the oath of allegiance, the R.O. did not

permit the Petitioner to make and subscribe to the oath, and directed the Petitioner to present himself for scrutiny before the A.R.O.? O.P.P.

If issues 4 and 5 or both are proved, what is the effect on this election petition? OPP

Did the R.O. on 21-1-1967 adjourn the scrutiny of the nomination paper of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for half an hour on the request of

Respondent 1 to enable him to be present at the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner by the A.R.O.? O.P.P.

When after the A.R.O. had rejected the contention of the Petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the A.R.O. to conduct the scrutiny of the

nomination paper of the Petitioner, did the Petitioner's proposer seek permission of the A.R.O. for enabling the Petitioner to read and subscribe to

the oath as required by the Constitution of India?

Whether the A.R.O. rejected this request of the Petitioner's proposer? If so, what is its effect on the election petition? O.P.P.

Was the nomination paper of the Petitioner improperly rejected by the A.R.O.? O.P.P.

Was the nomination paper of Respondent 1 improperly accepted by the R.O.? O.P.P.

Was the nomination paper of Respondent 2 improperly rejected by the Returning Officer? O.P.P.

Whether the rejection of the nomination paper of the Petitioner being based on a constitutional disqualification is a valid ground for rejection of

the Petitioner's nomination paper? O.P.R.I.

After the issues were framed the parties filed their list of witnesses, the Petitioner on 29th of July 1967 and the Respondent No. 1 on 28th of

July 1967. The Respondent No. 2 did not produce any evidence nor furnish any list of witnesses, nor did he intend to do so, vide his statement

dated 13th of September 1967. He did not after some time follow or attend the proceedings even. Evidence of the Petitioner started from 9th of

August, 1967.

Before I discuss the evidence or record my finding on various issues, I have to offer an explanation for the delay in the disposal of this election

petition. The interim orders passed in this petition are detailed and self-speaking. But what was mainly responsible for the length of time that this

case took was that the evidence of the Petitioner was closed on 13th of September 1967. The Respondent No. 1's evidence started from 29th of

September 1967. Then there were some disturbances In the Valley which did not permit the Respondent No. 1's witnesses to be examined in

Kashmir, the witnesses being the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner and Station House Officer who were reported to be busy

with law and order situations. Later on the case was taken to Jammu where the witnesses could not turn up because of bad weather, the Banihal

road being blocked for a pretty long time. The evidence of the Respondent No. 1 could not be finished in Jammu, as the Respondent No. 1, who

is a Deputy Minister in the Union Cabinet had gone out of India. The evidence of Respondent No. 1 however was recorded on 13th and 14th of

May 1968. An adjournment was sought for arguing the case.

The Petitioner produced three witnesses, M/s. Piary Lal Handoo, Syed Nizum-ud-Din, Raghunath Vaishnavi Respondent No. 2 and appeared

himself as his own witness. Similarly the Respondent No. 1 produced three witnesses namely Syed Muzaffar Indrabi Assistant Commissioner

Anantnag. A.R.O., Mr. M.A. Khaliq Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Anantnag, R.O., and Hakim Ghulam Rasul Station House

Officer, Awantipora and himself also appeared as his own witness. The statements of witnesses are very very long and no useful purpose would be

served in summarizing these lengthy statements. The statements of different witnesses will be discussed while discussing the relevant issues that

would both save time and duplication of labour.

According to me issues 2 to 7 are connected. They pertain to the alleged absence of the R.O. from his Headquarters on 21st of January 1967

at 11 A.M., the time of his coming to office that day, and the matters upto the time the nomination paper of the Petitioner was taken up for scrutiny

by the A.R.O. Issues 8, 9 and 10 pertain to the part played by the A.R.O. in this case and his competence to hold the scrutiny and rejection of the

nomination paper of the Petitioner by him, Issue No. 11 pertains to the improper acceptance of the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 1 and

issue No. 12 pertains to the improper rejection of the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 2 by the R.O. Issue No. 13 is more or less a

constitutional issue. Therefore these issues will be discussed according to the grouping above mentioned.

Now beginning with issue No. 1, this issue was not seriously pressed by the Respondent No. 1's learned Counsel at the time of arguments. But

the basis of this issue is the endorsement of the A.R.O. on the back of the nomination paper of the Petitioner wherein he has stated that he was not

one of the officers mentioned in Column 6 of the Notification issued to receive the nomination papers, but it was on the insistence of the Petitioner

that he had received this nomination paper. This endorsement which is marked as Ex. PW1/5 is entirely misconceived. It is admitted by the R.O. in

his statement of 6th March 1968 that a notification was issued on 2nd of January 1967 by the Election Commission wherein the Deputy

Commissioner Anantnag had been designated as the R.O. of this Constituency and another notification of the Commission dated 29th of

December 1966 had mentioned the Assistant Commissioner as the A.R.O. Mr. Pearey Lal Handoo, the Petitioner's witness also states that there

was a Notification making all the R. Os. of the Assembly Constituencies as the A.R.Os. for the Parliamentary Constituency. Mr. Indrabi A.R.O.

also admits that there was a notification that all the R. Os. of the Assembly constituencies would be A.R.Os for the Parliamentary Constituency.

This A.R.O. was undoubtedly and admittedly R.O. for some Assembly Constituencies of Anantnag. Therefore this issuers decided against the

Respondent No. 1 and it is held that the A.R.O. was legally competent to receive the nomination paper of the Petitioner, because admittedly

according to the case of both the parties the R.O. was not present at the relevant time in his office.

Out of the next group of issues which comprises issue Nos. 2 to 7 certain factual findings have to be recorded and then in the light of those

findings it can be possible to record findings on the different issues in this group. In fact this group is according to me, on ultimate analysis, the

storm centre in this case. According to the Respondent No. 1 the R.O. was unavoidably absent from his headquarters on 21st of January 1967 on

account of the law and order situation in Tral. He had authorised the A.R.O. to conduct the scrutiny of the nomination papers in his absence and

until his arrival in office. He did not return to his office till about 12 noon. By the time the R.O. arrived in his office, the A.R.O. had conducted the

scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner and finding that no oath had been taken and subscribed to he had rejected this nomination paper.

At the time the R.O. came to his office the scrutiny of the two other nomination papers of the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had not yet been effected

by the A.R.O. The R.O. called back the papers from the A.R.O. and completed the scrutiny of the nomination papers of the Respondents.

According to the Petitioner the R.O. purposely kept himself away from his office till some minutes before 11 A.M., the time fixed for scrutiny

of the nomination papers; came to his office 3 or 4 minutes to 11 A.M. The Petitioner and his proposer went to him and asked him to administer

the oath to the Petitioner and permit him to make and subscribe the same but the R.O. directed the Petitioner and his proposer to go to the A.R.O.

for the scrutiny of his nomination paper. This was objected to by the Petitioner and his proposer. It was pointed out to the R.O. that as the R.O.

was present in his office, the A.R.O. had no jurisdiction to conduct the scrutiny of the nomination papers. Respondent No. 1 entered the office of

the R.O. and asked him to adjourn the scrutiny of his nomination paper for half an hour during which time he would attend to the scrutiny of the

nomination paper of the Petitioner before the A.R.O. The R.O. rejected the contentions both of the Petitioner's proposer and the Petitioner and

directed them to appear before the A.R.O. for scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Petitioner.

Before discussing the evidence produced by the parties in this case, I would like to remark that more evidence could have been produced by

either party to prove their contentions but that has not been done. The result is that I have to confine my findings on the evidence produced by the

parties whatever it is. I might further incidentally remark that it is settled law that if no or insufficient evidence is given, the party who has to prove

his case in order to succeed in an action, must fail. In election matters there are numerous authorities for the proposition that a returned candidate

should not be unseated unless the Petitioner proves the case very very clearly. Reference may be made to Doabia's Election Cases 1966 page

192, Case No. 24 Rajinder Singh v. Manga Ram and Ors. etc.

21-28. (Then after discussing the evidence His Lordship proceeded:)

The finding on issue No. 2 is returned in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Part (a) of the issue No. 3 cannot be held in favour of the Petitioner.

The scrutiny was performed by the A.R.O. of the nomination paper of the Petitioner under proper authority of the R.O.

About part (b) of Issue No. 3 Mr. Bhasin's argument is that the scrutiny conducted by the A.R.O. of the nomination paper of the Petitioner is

entirely without jurisdiction and on that ground alone the election of Respondent No. 1 should be set aside. In support of this contention Mr.

Bhasin has cited two au thorities, one known as Agra District Case, Case No. 3 reported in (1864-1935) 1 Doabia's Ele Cas 45, Peara Lal v.

Amba Prasad known as Manipuri (H. M. R.) Case No. 22 reported in ""Reports of the Indian Election Petitions, 1927 by ELL Hamond, Vol. 111

at p. 178. In the Agra District case Babu Barn one of the candidates presented his nomination paper at the Bungalow of the Returning Officer Mr.

Williamson, on the 3rd Sept. 1930 along with the amount of security some time before 3 P.M. The Returning Officer however, returned his

nomination paper for presentation to Mr. Han Shanker Babu Barn presented his nomination paper at 3-5 P.M. to Mr. Hari Shankar. On the date

of scrutiny that is on the 4th September, 1930 the Returning Officer rejected the nomination paper of Babu Ram, accepted those of others. It was

argued that the Returning Officer not being unavoidably prevented from performing his functions, the nomination papers could not be received by

Mr. Hari Shanker. This contention was upheld in this case the Returning Officer being present had taken the nomination paper and then returned

for presentation to Mr. Hari Shankar, the finding that it was not proper presentation is very well justified (sic). In the Manipuri case (T. Gulab

Singh v. Raj Bahadur Karagjit Misra) the Petitioner T. Gulab Singh, Rai Bahadur Kharagjit Misra and one Bhagwan Dial were candidates for

election and filed their nomination papers. On 23-10-1926 owing to the illness of the District Magistrate, Mir All Raza, Senior Deputy Collector

Mainpuri performed the scrutiny of nomination papers. He declared that the nomination paper of the Petitioner was invalid on certain grounds and

accepted the nomination paper of the two other candidates. The officers competent to receive the nomination papers were the Joint Magistrate or

the Senior Deputy Collector Mainpuri. It was discovered that Mir Ali Raza was not, a joint Magistrate and therefore the Tribunal held that Mir Ali

Raza was not capable of performing the functions of a Returning Officer which relate to the acceptance of a nomination paper or to the scrutiny of

nomination. His acceptance of the nomination paper of Rai Bahadur Misra was held improper. This case also is distinguishable. Although in view of

my finding on issue No. 1 this question, which is more or less academic in nature has lost its importance and does not arise for consideration in this

petition yet I would like to make the following remarks:

As will be clear from my finding on other issues the nomination paper of the Petitioner had to be rejected under the Constitution and the law

because the Petitioner had not made and subscribed to the oath upto 21st of January 1967 i.e the date of the scrutiny. The A.R.O. was not an

officer entirely without jurisdiction. He had authority from the R.O. to conduct the scrutiny vide Ex. D.W 1/2. u/s 22 Representation of the People

Act, 1951 an A.R.O. is competent to perform all or any of the functions of the A.R.O. subject to the control of the R.O. Before the amendment in

this Sub-section in the year 1956 by Section 10 of Act 27 of 1956, the A.R.Os. were not permitted to accept the nomination papers or to conduct

the scrutiny of the nomination papers or to count the votes but after that amendment the only prohibition remains with respect to the scrutiny of the

nomination papers. That, can be done only when the R.O. is unavoidably prevented from performing such functions. But as I said earlier, the

A.R.O. is not an officer completely devoid of authority, he has authority to do all acts even to scrutinize the nomination papers subject to certain

limitations, When the nomination paper of a particular candidate suffers from an inherent defect which is apparent on the face of the no nomination

paper, its rejection by the R.O. or even by A.R.O. is not, in my opinion at all improper. I am fortified in this view of mine by (1955 Ed) Doabia's

Ele Cases p. 186. case No. 34 R.B. Biswaswarlal Halwasya v. Babup Rang Lal Jajodia, in which the Election Tribunal has held while dealing with

issue No. 3 as follows:

There was no returning Officer on the 8th October 1923 in this constituency. Under Schedule I of the Regulations, however, Jatindranath Banerjee

was empowered to do all the duties of the Returning Officer. It is pointed out that under the control of the returning officer and that he could not

receive nomination papers and hold a scrutiny under regulation 3 he could only act unless the Returning Officer was 'unavoidably prevented' from

performing these functions. The words in an English case were 'incapable of acting' and Lord Campbell thought that they might cover a case of this

kind. (Queen v. Owens. Vol. 121 English Reports, p. 36). The Personal Assistant had not usurped the office. He took up his duties when the

Returning Officer became incapable of acting"". Want of title in the person acting as Returning Officer will not vitiate an election which is otherwise

valid"". Parker, p. 61. ""Elections made under usurping Returning Officers when there has been the form of an election have been uniformly

supported"" (Heyw Bo. 62). Turning to the Bengal Electoral Rules it would appear that noncompliance with the rules and regulations is not enough.

The Petitioner has to show that the result of the election has been materially affected by such non-compliance. If the Petitioner's nomination was

bad, his name goes out on that ground. If his nomination was good he succeeds on that ground and not by reason of the fact that the Personal

Assistant acted as the Returning Officer.

Issue No. 4. As I have held that the R.O. was not in his office at 11 O'clock on 21st January 1967, the question of the Petitioner or his proposer

seeking permission for the Petitioner to make and subscribe to the oath does not at all arise. This issue is decided against the Petitioner.

Same applies to issue No. 5 and that also is decided against the Petitioner.

In view of this finding, issue No. 6 does not arise in this case. Issue No. 7 also does not arise and both these issues are decided against the

Petitioner.

(After discussing evidence (Prs. 33-34) on record His Lordship proceeded:)

The A.R.O. has refused to permit the Petitioner to make and subscribe to the oath on 21st January 1967. Issue No. 8 is found in favour of the

Petitioner.

I must now take up issues 9 and 10 together. So far as the question of fact is concerned. I have held that the A.R.O. rejected the request of

the Petitioner and his proposer to allow the Petitioner to make and subscribe to the oath more than once before the scrutiny. But the question still

remains whether the nomination paper of the Petitioner was wrongly rejected which is the subject matter of issue No. 10. It appears that the

Petitioner and most other people had an idea that oath could be made and subscribed to even upto the time of scrutiny. For this there seems to be

sufficient justification as will presently appear. First let us see on what date the Petitioner sought to make and subscribe to the oath Nizam-up-Din

P.W. states that no attempt was made by the Petitioner or by his proposer to make and subscribe to the oath before the A.R.O. on 20th January

1967 because the A.R.O. had refused to receive the nomination paper vide his statement dated 8th September 1967. Mr. Saraf, the Petitioner in

his statement dated 11th September 1967 states ""since it was open to me to make and subscribe to the oath even immediately before the scrutiny

started and secondly the attitude of A.R.O. who was so hostile towards me that prevented me from making an attempt from taking an oath. I did

not make any attempt to take the oath before the authorised officer at Srinagar because I was otherwise busy and I knew ""the procedure...

Similarly Mr. Vishnavi states in his statement dated 11th Sept. 1967 while this argument was on. I read out the relevant section to the A.R.O. to

the effect that as the question of jurisdiction was being discussed and the scrutiny had not started yet, the Petitioner was within his right to seek

permission to take and subscribe to the oath. So it is common ground or rather proved from the evidence of the Petitioner himself that he offered

to make and subscribe to the oath on the morning of 21st January 1967. I said earlier that there seems to be some justification for this belief in the

mind of the Petitioner and his well-wishers and even other people. A publication entitled ""General Ejections 1967""-Hand-book for Returning

Officers 1966 at page 19 contains:

The oath or affirmation should be made and subscribed before the R.O. takes up the scrutiny of nomination papers at the election on the date fixed

by the Election Commission for scrutiny of nomination papers at that election. The candidates however, would be well advised to do it at the time

of presenting their nomination papers to you.

Then in para 6 on the same page it further lays down:

...If the oath or affirmation is not made and subscribed before the scrutiny of a candidate's nomination paper, the candidate will be held by you as

not qualified to stand for the election. You will reject his nomination paper at the time of scrutiny. The onus of proving to your satisfaction that the

candidate has made or subscribed the oath or affirmation prior to the time of scrutiny of the nomination paper is on the candidate himself.

Reading of these paras would indicate that the Election Commission contemplated that the oath could be made and subscribed to even immediately

before the scrutiny. This belief misled the Petitioner in not making and subscribing to the oath before the date of scrutiny. The point to be

determined now is when should an oath be made and subscribed to or in other words can it be made on the date of scrutiny or should it be done

before the scrutiny. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 relied upon the latest Supreme Court authority Pashupati Nath Singh v. Harihar

Prasad Singh, Civil Appeal No. 1692 of 1967 decided by the Supreme Court on 22nd of January 1968 : Pashupati Nath Singh Vs. Harihar

Prasad Singh, . This point came up for consideration in that case and their Lordships remarked as under:

The short question which arises in this appeal is whether it is necessary for a candidate to make and subscribe the requisite oath or affirmation as

enjoined by Clause (a) of Article 173 of the Constitution before the date fixed for scrutiny of nomination paper. In other words is a candidate

entitled to make and subscribe the requisite oath when objection is taken before the Returning Officer or must he have made and subscribed the

requisite oath or affirmation before the scrutiny of nomination paper commenced? The answer to this question mainly depends on the interpretation

of Section 36(2) of the Act.

Then their Lordships after reproducing some provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, held:

It will be noticed that u/s 36(2) of the Act, one of the grounds on which a nomination paper can be rejected is that on the date fixed for the scrutiny

of nominations, the candidate is not qualified for being chosen to fill the seat under Article 173 of the Constitution.

Further on their Lordships held that:

The words ""having been nominated"" in this form clearly show that the oath or affirmation cannot be taken or made by a candidate before he has

been nominated as a candidate.

Then repelling a further contention on behalf of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Gokhale, their Lordships held that:

It seems to us that the expression ""the date fixed for scrutiny"" in Section 36(2)(a) means ""on the whole of the day on which the scrutiny of

nomination has to take place"". In other words the qualification must exist from the earliest moment of the date of scrutiny....

And then after quoting some English authorities their Lordships have finally held:

In this connection it must also be borne in mind that law disregards, as far as possible, fractions of the day. It would lead to a great confusion if it

were held that a candidate would be entitled to qualify for being chosen to fill a seat till the very end of the date fixed for scrutiny of nominations. If

the learned Counsel for he Petitioner is right, the candidate could ask the Returning Officer to wait till 11-5 P.M. on the date fixed for the scruiny

to enable him to take the oath.

Further on their Lordships observed:

This in our view does not mean that the oath or affirmation can be taken and subscribed on the date fixed for scrutiny. It seems to us that the

nomination paper does not provide for the statement about the oath because the oath or affirmation has to be taken after a candidate has been

nominated.

In this authority their Lordships have clearly laid down that oath should be made and subscribed to before the date of the scrutiny. They have

further held that the Petitioner must be qualified i.e. he must have subscribed to the oath from the very earliest moment of the day of scrutiny. Mr.

Bhasin tried to distinguish this authority on the ground that the facts of the case before their Lordships of the Supreme Court were different. In that

case even up to the time of scrutiny a candidate had not made, or subscribed to the oath. When at the time of scrutiny an objection was raised, the

candidate had not made or subscribed to the oath, he offered to do so but that request of his was rejected. Mr. Bhasin says that in this case the

scrutiny had not started. Therefore the Petitioner was in law authorised to make and subscribe to the oath before the scrutiny started. In fact he

tried his best to do the same before the A.R.O. many times right from the time he appeared before him at 11 A.M. He further relied on a Mysore

authority reported as AIR 1968 Mys 18 which deals with this point. But I am afraid in view of the clear pronouncement of the law by their

Lordships of the Supreme Court, portions of which have been quoted In extenso above, I cannot accept the interpretation sought to be put either

by Mr. Bhasin or by the Mysore authority however eloquent and cogent the reasoning of the Mysore High Court authority might be in the words of

Mr. Bhasin. Mr. Bhasin tried to address and further argument that under Article 324, the supervision, direction and control of the preparation of

the electoral rolls for, and the conduct of, all elections to Parliament and to the Legislature of every State... vested in the Commission i.e. Election

Commission and according to him the Election Commission had issued the instructions under this Article in the form of the Hand-book; the relevant

passage from page 19 of the said book have been quoted above. Therefore, according to Mr. Bhasin the law as it existed on the 21st of January

1967 was that oath could be taken and subscribed to at any time before the scrutiny. This argument is ingenious but is not legally sound. The law

was not different on 21st January 1967 from what it now is after January 22, 1968 when the Supreme Court decided the case Pashupati Nath

Singh Vs. Harihar Prasad Singh, . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court only interpreted the law as it stood then and as it stands now, there was

no amendment in the law. Under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law laid down by the Supreme Court shall be the law of the land and

shall be binding on all of us. Further under Article 327 of the Constitution of India the Parliament is empowered to make provisions with respect to

elections to Legislature ""subject to the provisions of this Constitution Parliament may from time to time by law make provisions with respect to all

matters relating to or in connection with elections to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the Legislature of a State..."" The

Representation of the People Act has been enacted under this provision of the Constitution by the Parliament and therefore that would be the law

governing the subject. Any other interpretation put upon the law by the Election Commission or for the matter of that by any other authority against

the interpretation put on the law by the Supreme Court is of no consequence. Moreover this Hand-book is only as a sort of administrative guide

and has not the force of any law. If on the authority of this Supreme Court judgment, the Petitioner had not made and subscribed to the oath till

21st of January 1967, the date of scrutiny, his nomination paper was rejected; it was rightly rejected because he had not fulfilled the requirement of

law as laid down in Article 84(a) of the Constitution of India. Therefore issue No. 10 is decided against the Petitioner and it is held that as the

Petitioner had failed to make and subscribe to the oath before the day of scrutiny, his nomination paper was rightly rejected by the A.R.O. This

was an inherent defect in his nomination paper and the A.R.O.'s action in rejecting his nomination paper was legally right though in arriving at this

conclusion recourse has been taken to untruths and falsehood.

An alternative argument has been advanced on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 for rejection of the nomination paper of the Petitioner. It has

been argued that the refusal by the R.O. or the A.R.O. would be a non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or the Representation of

the People Act or Rules and orders made thereunder and therefore unless it is proved by the Petitioner that the result of the election in so far as the

returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected, the election of the Respondent No. 1 cannot be set aside. In my opinion this argument

deserves to be mentioned simply to be rejected. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 entirely ignores the provisions of Section 100(1)

(c) of the Representation of the People Act, which lays down that an election should be declared void on the simple ground that any nomination

paper has been improperly rejected. If the nomination paper of the Petitioner on facts had been held to be improperly rejected, that by itself would

be sufficient to declare the election of the Respondent No. 1 as void.

Issue No. 11. This issue was not at all pressed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondent No. 1 has been properly nominated. He

is a registered voter in the Srinagar Parliamentary Constituency, has presented a copy of the electoral roll of that constituency along with his

nomination paper, has paid the requisite election deposit of Rs. 500/- before filing his nomination paper, has made and subscribed to the oath and

got a certified copy from the R.O. to that effect. No objection was taken by anybody to his nomination paper. Therefore his nomination paper has

been rightly accepted and therefore this issue is decided against the Petitioner.

Then we come to another contentious issue i.e. rejection of the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 2. In para 20 of the petition, the

Petitioner has made a simple statement that Respondent No. 2 was also a duly nominated candidate and his nomination paper was also improperly

rejected by the R.O. etc. etc. When the Respondent No. 2 filed his written statement on 26-5-1967, he narrated certain facts in reply to this para

in his written statement. The case of the Respondent No. 2 briefly put is that on 19th January 1967 he presented four nomination forms of his

which are Ex. P.W. 4/6, 4/7, 4/8 and 4/9 along with these he presented four oath forms. On the day of scrutiny the oath forms were missing from

his nomination forms. After some controversy with the R.O., his nomination paper was rejected because no oath form was found attached to them.

This was the only ground of rejection conveyed to this Respondent at that time. Later on the R.O. had fraudulently and falsely added another

ground that the Respondent No. 2 had failed to present the Electoral Roll of the constituency wherein he was registered as a voter for rejecting his

nomination paper. In support of this case of the Respondent No. 2, the only evidence on record is the statement of the Respondent No. 2. It is

admitted by him that Ghulam Mohamad Genai, a candidate for the Assembly Constituency of Devsar was also with him when he presented the

nomination papers. That Ghulam Mohammad Genai, has not been produced. As against this testimony of the Respondent No. 2 there is the

statement of the R.O. The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has argued that there is a presumption u/s 114, illustration (E) of the

Evidence Act that all official acts will be presumed to have been regularly performed. There is a statutory presumption in favour of the version of

the R.O. that there was no oath form present at the time of the scrutiny of the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 2. The presumption in law

shall be that no such oath forms were presented. This is further strengthened by the positive statement of the R.O. On the other hand it is argued

that Respondent No. 2 is an Advocate of the Supreme Court and his statement should be believed as against the R.O. whose conduct has been

most shady and doubtful in most of the election matters conducted in his District. It has been argued that this gentleman, Mr. A.K. Malik has

managed to see the ruling party candidates returned uncontested in most of the seats in his District, and therefore his statement should not be

believed. I do not mean to express any opinion on these arguments because the conduct of this officer will be discussed in the election petitions

which are admittedly pending in this very Court before other Hon'ble Judges. My comments shall be strictly confined to the credibility or otherwise

of this R.O. to the facts of this case. Each case will have to be decided on its own merits and circumstances. Therefore I shall not very much draw

upon the legal presumption so much relied upon by learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 but shall consider the other pieces of evidence

produced by either side in this case. As I stated earlier that Ghulam Mohammad Genai who could be expected to throw light on this contention of

the Respondent No. 2 has not been produced. Further the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has put in the cross-examination of the R.O. the two

certificates issued by this R.O. one to Ghulam Mohammed Genai and the other to Shri Manoharnath Kaul which are marked as Ex. D.W. 2/18

and 2/19. If Ghulam Mohamad Genai could secure a certificate from the R.O. about his having made and subscribed to the oath, there is

apparently no reason why the Respondent No. 2 should not have secured the same. The Respondent No. 2 states that he was the legal adviser of

Ghulam Mohammad Genai. The Respondent No. 2 should have insisted on this certificate being issued to him. Oath forms were not removed from

Ghulam Mohammad Genai's nomination papers; according to Respondent No. 2 they were removed from his nomination papers although all the

nomination papers of the Respondent No. 2 and Ghulam Mohammad Genai were presented on the same day. Respondent No. 1 has also been

given the certificate of his having made and subscribed to the oath by this R.O. which has been produced in this case and is Ex. D.W. 4/1.

The learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 has cross-examined the Respondent No. 2 at length about his political convictions and

activities. In cross- examination Mr. Vaishnavi has stated that he was a member of the political conference and its aim was not to make Kashmir

accede to Pakistan. The Policy statement was made in June 1953. Kashmiries should be given the right to decade the question of accession by the

exercise of their free will as was contained in the resolution of the Security Council and other commitments made by the two States of India and

Pakistan and Respondent No. 1 was also an active member, of this conference. The political conference still considers the question of accession

undecided even up to the present moment because Government of India has been carrying on negotiations with the Govt. of Pakistan. The

Constitution of India does not recognize the accession of Kashmir with India as final because of Article 370 and some other sections. So far as my

personal view is concerned legally speaking Kashmir is a part of India, but as a political issue it is very much on the nerves of Government of India,

and Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. I resigned from Political Conference in June or July 1964. The object of the political conference was that

the will of the people should be ascertained"". The objective of the political conference was always to allow the people of Kashmir to express their

views"". ""I was detained in Jail for about 51/2 years with intermediate periods on parol."" In reply to another question Mr. Vaishnavi states ""one of

my objectives after being elected was to demand the release of Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and other prisoners which was part of my demand

for grant of civil liberties and secondly there should be a round table conference of Government of India, Pakistan and people of Kashmir to have

the issue of accession settled"". Vide statement of the Respondent No. 2 dated 13th Sept. 1967. It is suggested that the Respondent No. 2 did not

believe in the accession of Kashmir to India and therefore he did not purposely make and subscribe to the oath. I need not go into all these

questions. I am deciding this election petition on the evidence before me. Mr. Rughnath Vaihnavi's charges against the R.O. are very grave. They

constitute a corrupt practice also u/s 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act. These allegations disclose the offence of a very serious

nature under the ordinary penal law besides disclosing an offence u/s 129 of the Representation of the People Act. It is settled law that the

standard of proof for establishing a corrupt practice should be that of a criminal case. Reference be made to Doabia's Election Cases 1964 page

218 D. Murlidhar Reddy v. Prafulla Reddy Special Appeal No. 34 of 1963 decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court Another authority

Doabia's Election Cases 1961, page 14, V.B. Raju v. Ramachandra Rao Special Appeal No. 8 of 1958 decided by the Andhra Pradesh High

Court Another judgment of the Kerala High Court Gopala Kurup v. Samual Arulappan Paul Election Petition 1 of 1960, reported in Doabia's

Election Cases, 1961 page 185. A Division Bench of that court held that:

The burden of proving the alleged corrupt practices is on the election Petitioner and the allegations should be proved beyond any reasonable

doubt. If any reasonable doubt arises after the evidence has been scrutinized the benefit thereof should go to the person charged.

See also Doabia's Election Cases, 1962 page 181, Election case No. 2/3 of 1961, Nanda Kishore Rath v. Himanshu Sekhara Pandhi.

Keeping the pronouncements on this subject by the various Courts in view, I think without straightway disbelieving Mr. Vaishnavi or accepting

the testimony of the R.O. Mr. A.K. Malik it will not be safe and proper for me to hold the story related by Mr. Vaishnavi as proved. In fact this

story is not proved. It is important to note in this behalf that the Petitioner, who must have known about these facts which according to Mr.

Vaishnavi were very much advertised by him, did not make any specific allegations about this matter in his petition. He contented himself by

making a brief reference to the improper rejection of the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 2. A legal argument has been raised on behalf of

the Respondent No. 1 that as these allegations of Mr. Vaishnavi are the allegations of a serious corrupt practices, they should have been

specifically mentioned in the election petition. They should not have been enquired into because Mr. Vaishnavi in his written statement has made

these allegations after the time for filing an election petition had expired. Mr. Vaishnavi, as already stated, filed the written statement on 26th of

May 1967. The result of the election was declared on 21st of January 1967. The limitation for filing the election petition is 45 days from the date

the election of a returned candidate is announced u/s 81 of the Representation of the People Act. This written statement was filed much after the

time fixed for filing an election petition. In view of my finding on the factual side, I need not go into this legal argument at all. The other contention of

Mr. Vaishnavi is that the R.O. rejected his nomination paper only on the ground of absence of oath forms, but later fraudulently and falsely entered

another ground of non-presentation of the electoral roll of the Constituency where this Respondent was entered as a voter at the time of scrutiny in

his order, copy whereof was supplied to this Respondent. In this behalf an attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to cross-

examine the Respondent No. 1 by confronting him with a newspaper cutting of Khidmat the official organ of the Congress party, dated 22-1-

1967. In this paper Mr. Qureshi Respondent No. 1 is alleged to have addressed a Press Conference. According to the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner the address that he made to the newspaper people is reproduced within inverted commas and the learned Counsel, for the Petitioner

tried to suggest that this ground of rejection namely the non-presentation of the relevant electoral roll by the Respondent No. 2 at the time of

scrutiny does not find place in that statement. Mr. Qureshi has not admitted the correctness of this press statement. There is no proof adduced by

either the Petitioner or the Respondent No. 2 that this statement was actually made by the Respondent No. 1. Therefore nothing can be made out

of this statement Similarly Respondent No. 1 tried to put in a statement alleged to have been made by the Petitioner along with M/s. Trilochan Dutt

and G.L. Dogra on 2-2-1964, in Jammu in the statement of the Respondent No. 1 a copy whereof has been placed on the file and is Ex. DW 4/2.

In my opinion neither the alleged press conference of Respondent No. 1 nor this alleged statement of the Petitioner, can be used in evidence, the

first as not having been proved, the second has neither been proved nor put to the Petitioner, Therefore I ignore both these statements. However I

need not go into this allegation because in my opinion this is also as serious a charge as the first namely removal of oath forms and is criminal in

nature. The same remarks will apply mutatis mutandis to this part of the case also.

With these findings, I have no option but to hold that the nomination paper of the Respondent No. 2 was not improperly rejected. Therefore

this issue is decided against the Petitioner. I would however like to make a suggestion to obviate such disputes in future. The nomination paper

should at a proper place have a column for the enclosure attached with the same. If the authorities consider this suggestion worthwhile, the

necessary addition may be made in the nomination forms.

Issue No. 13. In view of my landings on issue No. 10 this issue does not require any specific finding.

The result is that this election petition fails and is dismissed.

Before concluding I have to place on record my highest appreciation, for whatever it is worth, for the great ability, dexterity, with which this

case was argued by Mr. Bhasin, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the hard labour he has put in.

The last point to be considered is about the costs. In my opinion the Petitioner had a very good case but for the exposition of the law in the

latest authority of the Supreme Court referred to above. In my opinion he has only exaggerated the part attributed to the R.O. on 21st January

1967. Therefore in my opinion he should be made liable for nominal costs. I therefore direct that while I dismiss this petition of the Petitioner, he

will pay only the costs incurred by the Respondent No. 1 on his witnesses. The rest of the costs will be borne by the parties in view of the peculiar

features of the case.

The substance of this order shall be intimated to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Lok Sabha immediately and an authenticated

copy of this judgment shall be sent as soon as possible to the Election Commission as per terms of Section 103 of the Representation of the

People Act.