Corrupt practices

2017 SCMR 664 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 70(b)Corrupt practicesElection materialSeals of bags containing election material found broken

Plea of appellant (election petitioner) that seals of several bags containing election material were found to be broken, which demonstrated that rigging took place

Validity

Any careless or deliberate act on the part of any functionary of the Election Commission whereby the election record could not be adequately preserved and seals were broken would not result in nullifying the election result

Election petitioner had to place on record some reliable material to reach the conclusion that the winning candidate indulged in illegal and corrupt practices otherwise every losing candidate after managing to get the seals of the bags containing election material broken would seek re-polling or re-election

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2017 SCMR 292 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 55, 78 & 79Contents of election petitionCorrupt practicesProofLack of particular details of corrupt practicesVague, generalized and non-specific allegationsEffect

Election petition read with the statements of witnesses did not fulfil the mandatory requirements of S. 55 of Representation of the People Act, 1976, in so far as it failed to give detailed and complete particulars of the alleged corrupt or illegal practices or other illegal acts alleged to have been committed by the returned candidate

Further, a full statement of the names of the persons accused of corrupt or illegal practices or illegal acts and the date and place of commission of such acts or practices were not available on record

Affidavits of all 10 witnesses of the petitioner were almost completely identical, in that only the names of the deponents varied between them

Sequence of events at nine different polling stations being exactly the same, down to the small details, was not a tenable fact

Petitioner did not produce any elector/voter who may have been harassed, intimidated or bribed by the returned candidate as alleged in the petition

No independent evidence of any nature, documentary or otherwise, was produced to substantiate the allegation that returned candidate provided transportation facilities throughout his constituency to bring voters to the polling stations and take them back

No transporter was summoned or examined, nor were their particulars or those of the vehicles allegedly used by them furnished at any stage

To substantiate allegations of connivance and bias on part of election staff not a single member of the election staff, including the Polling Officer or Returning Officer, was summoned or put in the witness stand

Documentary evidence, which could have helped to substantiate the allegations of violation of election laws in counting of votes and compilation of result, made in the election petition, was conspicuously absent

Allegations made in the election petition were vague, generalized and non-specific, and did not meet the requirements specified in S. 55 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976

Election petition had been rightly dismissed by the Election Tribunal

Appeal was dismissed accordingly with the observation that in a democratic state, free, fair and transparent elections were sine qua non for the success of the system; that the will of the electorate had to be respected and unless there was irrefutable evidence to show that the election was systematically rigged by a candidate through the use of illegal or corrupt practices, the will of the people could not and should not be interfered with.

2017 PLD 70 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 12(2) & 78(3)(d)Corrupt practicesNomination papersFalse statement or incorrect declaration of assets

Trivial error induced by reliance placed upon information furnished by a government functionary would not fall within the pale of S.78(3)(d) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, rather said section constituted a false statement or incorrect declaration made by a contesting candidate in respect of a 'material' particular, inter alia, about his assets and liabilities, to be a corrupt practice

Error or omission that was neither intentional nor pertained to a material particular in relation to the assets or liabilities of a contesting candidate would not constitute a corrupt practice

Any plausible explanation that exonerated, inter alia, mis-declaration of assets and liabilities by a contesting candidate should be confined to unintended and minor errors that did not confer any tangible benefit or advantage upon an elected or contesting candidate

Where assets, liabilities, earnings and income of an elected or contesting candidate were camouflaged or concealed by resort to different legal devices including benami, trustee, nominee, etc. arrangements for constituting holders of title, it would be appropriate for an Election Tribunal to probe whether the beneficial interest in such assets or income resided in the elected or contesting candidate in order to ascertain if his false or incorrect statement of declaration under S.12(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, was intentional or otherwise.