SRI B. RAJGOPALA RAO & ANR.versusSRI APPAYYA DORA HANUMANTHU & ORS.

             SRI B. RAJGOPALA RAO & ANR.
                                                                              A
                           v.
        SRI APPAYYA DORA HANUMANTHU & ORS.

                        SEPTEMBER 29, 1989

[M.H. KANIA, S. RANGANATHAN AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.]                             B

      The Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 123(1)-
(A)(b)-Corrupt practices-Whether certain statements made and
published through the Publicity Department of the Govt. in newspapers
offering rice and dhoties on subsidised rates to the economically back-
ward classes of people amount to corrupt practice.
                                                                              c
      These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two Election
Petitions before the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the elec-
tion of respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from Srikakulam
No. 1 Parliamentary constituency in the 8th General Election to the
House of the Peopple on the ground that Shri N.1:. Rama Rao the Chief         D
Minister of Andhra Pradesh as well as respondent No. 1 gave certain
speeches and certain advertisements. were got published by Shri N.T.
Rama Rao through the Publicity Department of the Govt. of Andhra
Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are al-
leged to amount ·.to a corrupt practice within the meaning of Section
123(l)(A) of the Representation of the People Act 1951.                       E

      Dismissing the appeals, this Court,

      HELD: That these advertisements and speeches amount to no-
thing more than statements extolling the achievements of the Govern:
ment of the State f!f Andbra Pradesh under the Telegu Desham party            F
headed by N. T ..Rama Rao, Chief Minister and contaiR'normal election
promises and these advertisements donot amount to corrupt practices
falling within the scope of sub-clause (b) of clause (A) of sub-section (I)
of Section 123 of the said Act. [337H; 338A]

      Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh & Ors., [1968] 3 SCR 102 at pp. 109-110;         G
Bhanu Kumar Shastri v. Mahal Lal Sukhadia & Ors., [1971] 3 SCR 522
at p. 543 and Harjit Singh Mann v. S. Umrao Singh & Ors., [1980] 2
SCR 501 at p. 510, referred to.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil
                                   1
                                         Appeals Nos. 484
& 485'of 1987.                                                                H
                                   335
    336         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A        From the Judgment and Order dated 2.12.1986 of the Andhra
    Pradesh High Court in Election Petition Nos. 3 & 5 of 1985.

         P.P. Rao, P. Krishna Rao, V.A. Babu and K.R. Nagaraja for
    the Appellants.

B       Shanti Bhushan, G. Narasimhulu and T.V.S.N. Chari for th~
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

         KANIA, J. These two appeals arise out of the judgments in two
C Election Petitions in the Andhra Pradesh High Court questioning the
   election of respondent No. 1 as a Member of Parliament from
   Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency in the 8th General Elec-
   tion to the House of the People. The points raised in these appeals are
   common and so are the relevant facts; and, hence, they are being
   disposed of by this common judgment. We propose to take note of
I) only the few facts which are necessary for the appreciation of the
   controversy before us.

        The polling date for the said election along with other parlia-
  mentary elections in the State of Andhra Pradesh was December 27,
  1984 but in Srikakulam No. 1 Parliamentary Constituency the polling
E was countermanded and the date of polling was later fixed ·on January
  78, 1985. In both the Election Petitions the election of respondent No.
  1 was questioned mainly on the ground that Shri N.T. Rama Rao;the
  Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh as. well as the President of the
  Telugu Desam Party as well as responaent N. 1 gave certain speeches
  and certain advertisements were got published by Shri N. T. Rama Rao
F through the Publicity Department of the Government of Andhra
  Pradesh in the newspapers containing certain statements which are
  alleged to amount to a corrupt practice within the meaning of the said
  term in section 123(1)(A) of the Representation of the People Act,
  1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The main question
  canvassed before us is whether the statements contained in these
G aforesaid advertisements amount to a corrupt practice under section
  123(1)(A)(b) of the said Act. Section 123(1)(A)(b) of the said Act
  runs as follows:

               "123. Corrupt practices

H                    The following shall be deemed to-be corrupt practises
               for the purposes of this Act:
             B.R. RAO v. A.D. HANUMANTHU [KANIA, J.[                     337

           ( 1) 'Bribery', that is to say-
                                                                                A
           (A) any gift, offer or promise by a candidate or his agent
           or by any other person with the consent of a candidate or
           his election agent of any gratification, to any person
           whomsoever, with the object, directly or indirectly of
           inducing-                                                            B

                 (a) x                           x

                 (b) an elector to vote or refrain from voting at an
           election, or as a reward to-

                 (i) a person for having so stood or not stood, or for having   C
                 withdrawn or not having withdrawn his candidature; or

                 (ii) an elector for having voted or refrained from voting."

      The advertisements very shortly stated, refer to the auspicious D
gifts made by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the poor people
on the eve of New Year and Sankranti. In the said advertisements, it is
stated that the said Government which was formed by the Telugu
Desam Party' was giving to the poor people whose income was below
Rs.6,000 per year, a kilo of rice at Rs.2 per Kg. and the said advertise-
ments refeired to a new scheme of selling sarees and dhoties at half E
prices to the poor people in the State of Andhra Pradesh having
Green-cards. Green-cards were directed to be issued to all the persons
whose annual income was below Rs.6,000. The supply of the rice at
subsidised rates as aforesaid was also to be made to the Green-card
holders only. The scheme to sell sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates
was to be operative from January26, 1985 to March 31, 1985.               F

       In considering the question whether the said advertisement and
the said speeches amount to a corrupt practice, we are of the view that
the provisions of section 123 of the said Act which deal with corrupt
practices have to be interpreted, keeping in mind that dictates of com-
monsense require that they never could have been intended to treat G
normal election promises made in election manifestoes or usual elec-
tion speeches by members of various political parties aspiring to power
and by different candidates aspiring to get elected to legislative bodies
concerned as corrupt practices. We are of the view that these
advertisements and speeches amount to nothing more than statements
extolling_ the achievements of the Government o! the State of Andhra H
    338          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A    Pradesh under the Telugu Desam Party headed By N.T. Rama Rao,
    .the Chief Minister and contain normal election promises and these
     statements do not amount to corrupt practices falling within the scope
     of sub-clause (b) of clause (A) of sub-section (1) of section 123 of the
     said Act.

B         It was urged by Mr. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants that
    in the impugned judgments, the High Court has incorrectly taken the
    view that in order to amount to bribery within the meaning of the said
    term in section 123(1)(A), the transaction must amount to a bargain by
    the candidate with a view to get votes. It was pointed out by him that
    the said view has been taken in the impugned judgments, relying upon
C   the decision of a Bench comprising two learned Judges of this Court in
    Ghasi Ram v. Dal Singh and Others, (1968] 3 SCR 102 at pp 109-110.
    We have gone through to the relevant portioin of that judgment (at
    page 109 and 110 of the said report). A careful perusal of the said
    judgment shows that what has been really held in that case is that if the
    promises given or made amount to a bargain entered into by a candi-
D   date for a vote or votes, that would amount to a corrupt practice; but it
    has not been held there that unless the act alleged amounts ·to such a
    bargain, it could not amount to a corrupt practice. In our view, that
    judgment does not lay down that in order to amount to a corrupt
    practice, the transaction must amount to a bargain for getting a vote. It
    was pointed out by Mr. Rao, however, that such a view seems to have
E   been taken in two other decisions rendered by two Benches, each
    comprising \WO learned Judges of this Court in Bhanu Kumar Shastri ·
    v. Mohan Lal Sukhadia and Others, (1971] 3 SCR 522 at p. 543 and
    Harjit Singh Mann v. S. Umrao Singh and Others, (1980] 2 SCR 501 at
    p. 510 and these judgments need to be overruled. We do not propose
    to go into the correctness or otherwise of this view because, even on
F   the footing that in order to amount to a corrupt practice under the
    aforesaid provision the alleged acts need not constitute a bargain, the
    acts established in the present case, in our opinion, do not amount to a
    corrupt practice.

          Our attention was drawn by Mr. Rao to the fact that in this case
G   the said. advertisements and the speeches had to be viewed in the
    co.ntext of the fact that the advertisements were issued and the
    speeches were made after respondent No. 1 filed his nomination
    papers on January 4, 1985, for the election and before the election was
    held in the aforesaid constituency. It was further pointed out that the
    offer made for the sale of sarees and dhoties at subsidised rates was
f1. limited to the period from J_anuary 26, 1985 to March 31, 1985. It
              B.R. RAO v. A.D. HANUMANTifU [KANIA, J.]             · 339


  cannot be denied that these factors are relevant factors. We cannot,
                                                                            A
  however, lose sight of the fact that this offer was made not only in this
  constituency but throughout the State where the elections to the
  House of the People were scheduled to be held, and were, in fact, held
  on December 27, 1984. It was only in case of this constituency that the
  election to be held on the scheduled date was countermanded and later
  held on January 28, 1985. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, as far B
  as the said speeches and the said advertisements, which were issued by
  the Publicity Department of the State, are concerned, they deal in the
  main with the achievements of the Government of Andhra Pradesh
  which, of course, was being run by Ministers belonging to Telugu
  Desam Party to which respondent No. 1 also belonged. Moreover, the
  offer in the advertisements for the sale of dhoties and ·sarees at dis-
  count rates was in the nature of a benefit offered to poor persons in c
  that State. When a Government announces the measures which are
  intended for the benefit of any of the classes for whose the Govern-
  ment can normally be expected to work like the poor or the economi-
  cal backward classes, it is only in rare circumstances that such a pro-
  mise can be said tp amount to a corrupt practice withiin the meaning of D
  section 123(1)(A) even though such a promise might be made on the
  eve of elections. Keeping this in mind, in our opinion, although. the
  offer to sell dhoties and sarees at discount rates was of a limited dura-
  tion as aforestated, it cannot be regarded as a corrupt practice. Such
  an offer was bound to have financial repercussions and it is quite
  possible the diiration of the offer was limited to enable the Govern- E
  ment to study the financial repercussions rather than from any impro-
  per motive. We find support for this view from the decision of this
  Court in H. V. Karnath v. Ch. Nitiraj Singh, [1969] 1SCC601. In that
  case an Ordinance was passed by the Government of Madhya'Pradesh
  as a result of which a large number of agriculturists, namely, those
  holdings of plots of land of less than 7 .5 acres area of paying land F
  revenue not exceeding Rs.5 were exempted from the payment of the
  land revenue. It was held that such a concession does not amount to a
  gift, offer or promise of any gratification within the meaning of section
  123(1)(A) of the said Act nor does the announcement of the declara-
  tion made at a meeting shortly before the election or the issue of a
· pamphlet containing that declaration at that time carry the matter any G
  further. It was held that neither Shri D .P. Misra who was the Chief
  Minister nor Shri S.K. Dixit who acted as his agent were guilty of any
  corrupt practice within the meaning of the aforesaid provision.

      It was next contended by Mr. Rao, although very faintly, that the
_High Court was in error as it had not dec!~"._d all oth~i:_issues which ._H
    340         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [ 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   were raised in the election petition. In this regard we cannot lose sight
    of the fact that the term of the present Lok Sabha is likely to be over
    within a few months and fresh elections are likely to be held and it
    would, therefore, be an exercise in futility to remand the matter to the
    High Court for deciding the remaining issues.
B
          In the result, the appeals fail and are dismissed. Looking to the
    facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

    R.N.J.                                               Appeals dismissed.