Vol. 17, Part I · pages 436–440

411ELECTION PETITION To, The Election Commission, New Delhi. THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE PETITIONERS ABOVE NAMED RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH : 1. That the Petitioners were candidates for election to the House of the People from Bombay City North constituency at the Elections to the House of the People held on the 3rd January, 1952. 2. That the Petitioners’ names were duly enrolled in the electoral roll and the Petitioners thus became eligible to stand as candidates from the said Constituency to the House of the People. 3. That the Petitioners duly filed their nomination papers as candidates from the Bombay City North Constituency. The Petitioners’ nominations were duly accepted on 27th November, 1951. The Respondents 1 to 9 were the other candidates to the House of the People from the same Constituency as that of the Petitioners. The Respondent Nos. 7, 8 and 9 withdrew their candidature within the time allowed for such withdrawal. 4. That the said Bombay City North Constituency, as a plural member Constituency, has a right to elect two members to the House of the People. Out of the two seats to be filled in by Election in the said Constituency, one seat is general and the second one is reserved for the Scheduled Castes. Every voter in this Constituency has subject to the restriction prescribed in Section 63 (1) of the Act, two votes as there are two members to be elected; Section 63 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act No. XLIII of 1951) expressly lays down that no elector shall give more than one vote to any one candidate. 5. That the election at the polling stations in the Bombay City North Constituency was held on the 3 rd January, 1952. 6. That the counting of votes polled by the various candidates commenced on the 7th January 1952 and the same was completed on the 11th January 1952.

412 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 7. That the result of the election of the said Parliamentary Constituency was declared by the Returning Officer on 11th January to be as follows :— (i) That the Petitioners 1 and 2 polled respectively 1,23,576 and 1,39,741 votes; (ii) That the Respondent Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 polled 96,755; 40,786; 1,49,138; 15,195; 1,38,137 and 12,560 votes respectively; (iii) That the Respondent No. 5 was elected to the reserved seat and the Respondent No. 3 was elected to the remaining seat from the said Constituency; and (iv) That it was further declared by the Returning Officer that the total number of valid votes polled in the said Constituency was 7,15,888 and that the total number of invalid votes was 74,333; 8. That the Petitioners rely on the declaration of the result made by the Returning Officer, a copy whereof is hereto annexed and marked A. 9. That the result of the said election was published in the Gazette of India (Extra ordinary) Part-I Section I, dated 26th January 1952, at page 130. The respective returns of election expenses have been duly lodged with the Returning Officer under Rule 112 of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, by the Petitioner No. 1 on 10th March 1952 and by the Petitioner No. 2 on 7th March 1952. 10. The Petitioners say that the Returning Officer has declared at the counting of the votes that the candidates who contested the election had obtained several double votes which the Returning Officer had to cancel as being null and void. The Petitioners say that

413ELECTION PETITION as a result of the inspection it was found that such invalid votes found in the ballot boxes of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5 and 6 and cancelled as being double votes, are as shown below :— Petitioner No. 1 -- 2,921 Petitioner No. 2 -- 5,597 Respondent No. 1 -- 39,165 Respondent No. 2 -- 6,634 Respondent No. 3 -- 10,881 Respondent No. 4 -- 1,168 Respondent No. 5 -- 6,892 Respondent No. 6 -- 1,025 Total -- 74,333 The Petitioners will rely on the records in proof of this statement. The Petitioners submit that in the aggregate 74,333 ballot papers had been rejected and not counted at all as being void by the Returning Officer for the aforesaid reason. 11. The Petitioners submit that at several polling stations of the aforesaid Constituency the voters to whom double voting papers were issued, did not, in thousands of cases, distribute the same as required by Section 63 (1) of the said Act, and their failure to comply with the provisions of Section 63 (1) of the said Act resulted in the said ballot papers being declared to be void and wholly worthless in respect of the election held in the said Constituency. 12. The Petitioners say that the aforesaid large number of double votes being void votes, has been the result of corrupt practice of undue influence on the part of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, at the election as set out below and that the said corrupt practice has vitiated the entire election and has rendered the same void.

414 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 13. The Petitioners say that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 during their election campaign carried on a fierce, virulent and malicious propaganda by leaflets, handbills and press statements and by speeches at public meetings held in the constituency and induced and illegally exhorted the voters to cast both their votes in favour of each of them in direct contravention of the provisions of Section 63 (1) of the Act. The Petitioners say that due to the aforesaid propaganda carried on by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. amongst the voters in the Constituency, the electors were falsely induced to give more than one votes to the same candidate by placing both the ballot papers issued to them in the same ballot box and thereby contravening the said section of the said Act and defeating the purpose and policy underlying it. 14. (i) In a printed Marathi pamphlet addressed to and distributed amongst the voters in the said Bombay City North Constituency at the instance of the Respondent No. 1 or his agents and/or supporters, the Respondent No. 1 was described as the most capable leader of all, to lead the People’s Front in the House of the People. The voters were exhorted therefore, to cast both their votes in favour of the said Respondent No. 1 avoiding to tell the voters whether voting in the manner suggested would benefit Respondent No. 1. A copy of the English translation of the relevant portion of the said handbill is annexed hereto the marked B. (ii) A Marathi weekly paper entitled ‘Yugantar’ printed at Bombay gave instructions to the Bombay voters in its issue dated 29th December 1951 at page 4, columns 1, 2 and 3 whereby the voters receiving two ballot papers were, inter alia, falsely instructed and exhorted to drop both the ballot papers in the box with picture of the Engine pasted on it i.e. into the ballot box of the Respondent No. 1 again avoiding to tell the voters whether voting in the manner suggested would benefit Respondent No. 1. The Yugantar is an organ of the Communist Party of which the Respondent No. 1 was a nominee for the Parliamentary seal. A copy of the English translation of the said instructions is annexed hereto and marked C. (iii) Similarly in leaflet in Marathi issued over the signature of the Respondent No. 1 described as the United Front of the Leftist

415ELECTION PETITION candidate for the House of the People from the said Bombay City North Constituency. It was stated, inter alia, that if the voters wanted their candidate to be elected they should cast both their votes for the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 stated further that the waste of one of the two votes did not in any way violate democracy because according to the Respondent No. 1 giving of a vote by the non-Scheduled Castes voters to a candidate for the seat reserved for the Scheduled Castes is itself against the interests of democracy of the Scheduled Caste voters. Then referring particularly to the Petitioner No. 1 the Respondent No. 1 stated in the said pamphlet that as the Petitioner No. 1 as a Scheduled Caste candidate, was according to the Respondent- entitled to contest both the seats, it was desirable that the Respondent No. 1 must take both the votes for himself and that all those who wanted to make United Front of Leftist nomination successful, should give both their votes to the ‘Engine’ (the symbol of the Party on whose ticket the Respondent No. 1 stood for election). A copy of the English translation of the said leaflet is annexed hereto and marked D. 15. In a press statement published by the Respondent No. 2 in the Marathi Weekly in Bombay entitled Vividh Vritta, in its issue of the 30th December 1951 under the caption, ‘Bombay City North Constituency Parliamentary Election Trap’, ‘Warning to the Voters’ the Respondent No. 2 warned the voters in this Constituency, where a reserved seat for the Scheduled Castes is provided, that a virtual trap to enable the two Scheduled Castes candidates to capture both the seats had been laid by the Petitioner No. 1, who beings to the Scheculed Castes. The Respondent No. 2 further stated in the said statement that in order to escape the trap, the voter should cast his votes as he himself wanted to without paying any heed to any party or pact and completely disregarding, what he conveys, “the influence of self seeking leaders.” He still further added that “that alone would be his duty”, meaning thereby that the voters should cast both their votes to a candidate other than the Petitioner No. 1 if they wanted to avoid the Petitioner No. 1, who belonged to Scheduled Caste being elected with the Respondent No. 5 who also belonged to the Scheduled Castes, and thereby the Scheduled Castes candidates carrying both the seats and