“From the summary (of the judgment) available at the moment it may appear to many that so far-reaching a finding as the unseating of the Prime Minister is based on purely technical grounds which are not substantive and appear rather weak.”
JUNE 13, 1975
Justice Sinha’s verdict
THE SETTING ASIDE OF THE ELECTION OF THE PRIME MINISTER, Mrs. Indira Gandhi to the Lok Sabha is bound to be startling in its countrywide impact. Mr. Justice Jagmohanlal Sinha of the Allahabad High Court who delivered the judgment on Thursday in an election petition filed by Mr. Raj Narain, M.P., has also debarred Mrs. Gandhi from contesting any election under the Representation of the People Act for a period of six years, on the ground of having been guilty of corrupt practice. The staying of the operation of the judgment for 20 days, however, provides the necessary breather for all concerned to study and analyse the verdict and its consequences and take suitable action.
One would wait for the full version of the lengthy judgment to be able to assess the weighty arguments that shaped it. From the summary available at the moment, it may appear to many that so far-reaching a finding as the unseating of the Prime Minister is based on purely technical grounds which are not substantive and appear rather weak. The learned Judge has readily rejected a number of serious allegations against Mrs. Gandhi, including one of abuse of religious sentiments (by using the cow-and-calf election symbol) to influence the voters and another of obtaining the assistance of the armed forces of the Union to further her election prospects, because she had used an IAF plane to fly to Lucknow on a date related to the election. Mr. Justice Sinha has also found that the posting of police along the routes taken by the Prime Minister and at meeting places was in the normal discharge of governmental duties to maintain law and order. What is more, the security of the Prime Minister’s person is of paramount national concern and has to be ensured at all times, whether she goes about electioneering on her own behalf or in the discharge of the duties of her high office. After all this, it does appear surprising that the learned judge should deem the construction of rostrums by the UP Government officials being on a different footing”, enabling Mrs. Gandhi to address meetings “from a dominating position”, and to consider it a corrupt practice, serious enough to warrant the invalidation of the election that was won not narrowly but by a massive margin. To the people at large who have watched a succession of general elections and also the many abuses of the official machinery by the ruling parties at the time in different States, like getting officials to canvass votes directly and to hold out official favours to a particular village, town or other group of persons or even threats of official displeasure for that purpose, the technical violation involved in the erection of rostrums and supplying electricity to enable a candidate to do nothing more corrupt than talk openly to the people is bound to be amusing to say the least. It seems, according to Mr. Justice Sinha, that it is not incorrect in terms of the law for the Prime Minister to use an IAF plane at great expense for electioneering (of course on payment) and at Government cost with battalions of the State Government’s policemen providing the stipulated security arrangements at the venue but it is crucially illegal on her on her part to ascend a rostrum, albeit constructed by the officials, and address the meeting.
As unconvincing may appear the other ground on which Mrs. Gandhi’s election has been held to be vitiated, namely, her acceptance of the services of Mr. Yashpal Kapoor for her election, when he was a gazetted officer of the Central Government. From the known facts it is obvious that Mrs. Gandhi was keen that Mr. Kapoor should resign from Government service if he was equally anxious to do so and had in fact submitted his resignation. The bona fides of the Prime Minister in having Mr- Kapoor as her election agent only after he quit his Government post seem well established. Here again, it has been a technical knock-out hinging on such subtleties as the date of submission of Mr. Kapoor’s resignation and its actual acceptance and the date when Mrs. Gandhi finally made up her mind about contesting from the Rae Bareilly constituency. The intention of the Prime Minister in not permitting an official in harness to work for her in the election and the steps taken to ensure that are quite clear but apparently not good enough in law as it has been interpreted.
There has indeed been widespread concern over the abuses that have crept into the electoral process in this country, like the abuse of governmental power and of the mass media under official control, the grant of election eve largesses to sections of the public by the party in power and above all by the use of gross money power. If the election of a Prime Minister, of all legislators, had been set aside on any one of the above substantive grounds, it could be welcomed as a vindication of democracy. Since it is the content of the electoral law that makes possible a verdict such as in the present case, there is need for a careful scrutiny of the law and its revision to ensure that the real intention behind it is carried out, that as far as possible, purely technical knock-outs, are avoided and that the deliberately errant ones are penalised.
Reference:
The First 100
A Selection of Editorials, 1878-1978, THE HINDU, VOLUME I