Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.N. Bhagwati and R.S. Sarkaria

JUDGMENT

P.N. Bhagwati, J.

1. The controversy in this appeal relates to the validity of election to the Lok Sabha from the Sadar Parliamentary Constituency in the Union Territory of Delhi. Eleven candidates originally offered themselves for election from this constituency but out of them six withdrew their candidature with the result that only five remained in the field as contesting candidates. They were the petitioner and respondents Nos. 1 to 4. The petitioner was put up as a candidate by the Jan Sangh, while the candidature of the first respondent was sponsored by the Congress, which at that time, on account of the split in the organisation, was known as the ruling Congress or the new Congress. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 were independent candidates. Though there were nominally five candidates, the real contest was between the petitioner and the first respondent. The polling took place on 5th March, 1971 and the result of the poll was declared on 11th March, 1971. The petitioner secured 55305 votes, while the first respondent polled 98108 votes. The first respondent thus won by a large majority and was declared elected. The petitioner thereupon filed an election petition challenging the validity of the election of the first respondent on various grounds. The election petition was contested by the first respondent and, as the voluminous mass of record shows, it was fought out to a bitter and with great industry and thoroughness on both sides. Mr. Justice Andley of the Delhi High Court, who heard the election petition, found in an elaborate judgment that none of the grounds on which the election was sought to be invalidated was established and he accordingly dismissed the election petition with costs. The present appeal preferred by the petitioner impugns this judgment of Mr. Justice Andley.

2. The election petition was based on numerous grounds which were summarised in paragraphs and subsequently elaborated in paragraphs 12, 14, 18 to 21 and 24 to 26. The ground set out in paragraph 12 was that the elector rolls, on the basis of which the election had been held, were imperfect and defective, and that vitiated the election. Paragraph 14 alleged the invalidity of the amendment in Rule 56 of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 and paragraphs 18 and 19 challenged the validity of the election on the ground that about a lac or more ballot papers, which had been chemically treated, were fraudulently introduced and that had materially affected the result of the election. The charge in paragraphs 20 and 21 was that the first respondent was guilty of corrupt practice, in that the first respondent, his election agent and other parsons with his consent, including the first respondent, had printed and published a handbill and a poster containing statements in relation to the personal character or conduct of the petitioner which were false and which the first respondent did not believe to be true, and which were reasonably calculated to prejudice the prospects of the petitioner's election. Paragraph 24 also charged a similar corrupt practice on the allegation that these statements were repeated by the first and the fifth respondents in public meetings as also during the course of canvassing. And lastly, it was alleged in paragraphs 25 and 26 that the first respondent had incurred or authorised expenditure in excess of the prescribed limit of Rs. 10,000 in contravention of Section 77 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. These were broadly the grounds on which the ele........