ANVAR P.V V .P.K.BASHEER,
SUPREME COURT, CIVIL APPEAL NO.. 4226 OF 2012
FACTS
- The case revolves around an election petition filed by an independent candidate supported by the Leftist Communist party, contesting the election results for the Eranad Legislative Assembly Constituency.
- The successful candidate, supported by the Indian National Congress and other parties of the United Democratic Front, was alleged to have benefitted from a defamatory article published by a member of the United Democratic Front.
- The petitioner sought the annulment of the respondent's election, citing violations under Sections 100(1)(b), 123(2)(ii), and 123(4) of the Representation of the People Act.
- The High Court of Kerala dismissed the election petition, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court of India.
ISSUES
- Whether the actions of the respondent, as alleged by the petitioner, constituted electoral malpractice under the relevant provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
- Whether the evidence presented by the appellant satisfies the legal requirements for admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act.
- Whether there exists sufficient proof of the respondent's consent to the defamatory publication, as required by law.
CONTENTIONS
Appellant's Argument :
The respondent's actions, including the publication of defamatory material, amounted to corrupt practices warranting the annulment of the election results. The publication of Annexure A, allegedly supported by the respondent, constituted electoral malpractice, justifying the petitioner's appeal.
- Respondent's Argument :
The evidence presented by the appellant failed to meet the legal standards for admissibility under the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Section 65B. There was no conclusive proof demonstrating the respondent's consent to the defamatory publication, as required by law.
COURT REASONING (RATIO)
- Electronic records are considered documentary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which was amended by the Information Technology Act, 2000.
- Section 65B of the Evidence Act governs the admissibility of electronic records. This section requires a certificate detailing the production and authenticity of the electronic record.
- The Court observed that the electronic evidence tendered by the appellant did not adhere to the statutory provisions outlined in Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible.
- Additionally, the Court noted the absence of concrete proof regarding the respondent's consent to the defamatory publication, undermining the petitioner's claim of electoral misconduct.
- Based on the lack of compelling evidence, the Court found no grounds to set aside the election results under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act.
- The Supreme Court held that electronic records without the required certification under Section 65B are inadmissible as secondary evidence.
- The court clarified that Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act, which generally govern secondary evidence, do not apply to electronic records.
- This ruling overruled the earlier decision in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru, where electronic records were admitted without strict compliance with Section 65B.
JUDGEMENT
- The CDs submitted as evidence by the appellant were not accompanied by the necessary certificate under Section 65B, rendering them inadmissible.
- Consequently, the appellant's claims based on these electronic records were dismissed.
- The court affirmed that charges of corrupt practice in elections require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, similar to criminal charges.The Court concluded that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations of electoral malpractice against the respondent, and therefore, the election results could not be annulled under Section 100(1)(b) of the Representation of the People Act.
- The appeal was dismissed by the honorable Supreme Court due to lack of reliable evidence.