Vol. 17, Part I · pages 441–445

416 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES the non-Scheduled Castes community going unrepresented. An English translation of the said statement issued by and on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 is hereto annexed and marked E. 16. Then again the said Marathi Weekly, the Vividha Vritta, sponsoring the cause of the Respondent No. 2, published a statement under the caption ‘Ruse in Voting’, in its issue dated 30th December 1951 at page 1 column 5 wherein it is stated, inter alia, that both the votes can be dropped in the box of a Caste Hindu candidate and that voting in this manner is in no way illegal. It is further stated that voters have complete freedom to cast both their votes for one candidate alone. An English translation of statement referred to in this para is hereto annexed and marked F. 17. The Petitioners say that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in view of what is contained in the foregoing parts 13,14,15,16 of this Petition not only misled the voters but also played upon the communal feeling of the Caste Hindu voters; the Respondent No. 2 particularly raising the communal feeling of the Caste Hindu voters by creating a fear complex in them that their interest would be in jeopardy if they distributed their votes as required by law. 18. The Petitioners say that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not only did create an alarm in the mind of the Caste Hindu voters in the said Bombay City North Constituency but failed to explain the provisions of Section 54 of the Act, which prescribes how the results of election are to be determined and declared. 19. In the aforesaid manner the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 mispresented the law and misled the Caste Hindu voters into believing that in any and every circumstance it was probable for the Scheduled Castes candidates to get themselves elected to both the seats to the exclusion of Caste Hindu community candidates. 20. The Petitioners say that in the aforesaid manner the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 practised deception on the Caste Hindu voters and willfully and fraudulently induced them cast both their votes in their favour.

417ELECTION PETITION 21. The Petitioners submit that in view of what is stated in the foregoing paras, the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have by themselves their Agents and other persons acting for and on their behalf, exercised undue influence during their election campaign preceding the side election inasmuch as they actively interfered with the free exercise of the electoral right of the voters within the meaning of Section 123 (2) of the Act and that the election on that account has not been a free election within the meaning of Section 100 (i) (a) of the said Act. 22. The Petitioners further say that the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 knew that they could not derive any benefit to themselves by their propaganda to appropriate both the votes to themselves. All the same they persisted in the said propaganda because they were actuated by the malicious motive to injure the prospects of the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2. 23. The Petitioners submit that the large number of double votes cast by the voters in favour of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as herein above stated in para 10 is evidence of the fact that the undue influence exerted by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the said Constituency has extensively prevailed at the Election. 24. The Petitioners therefore say that the election has not been a free election by reason of the corrupt practices of undue influence which extensively prevailed at the election, and that hence the said election should be declared wholly void. 25. That Petitioners have deposited Rs. 1,000 with the Reserve Bank of India in favour of the Secretary of the Election Commission as security for the costs of the Petition as required by Section 117 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951. The original receipt showing that the said amount has been deposited in hereto annexed and marked G. 26. That this Petition is accompanied by a list of the particulars of the corrupt practices committed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 signed and verified as required by Section 83 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and is hereto annexed and marked H.

418 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES 27. That this Petition is being presented within the time allowed under Rule 119 (b) of the Representation of the People (Conduct of Election and Election Petitions) Rules, 1951, 11th March 1952 being the date on which the time for lodging of the return of expenses under sub-rule (1) of Rule 112 of the said Rules expired. 28. The Petitioner No. 2 craves leave to submit any other Petition on grounds other than those advanced in this Petition. Your Petitioner, therefore, pray :– (a) that an Election Tribunal be appointed for the trial of the Petition; (b) that the election to the House of the People from the Bombay City North Parliamentary Constituency held on 3rd January 1952 be declared wholly void; (c) that the Petitioners’ costs of this Petition be provided for; and (d) that Petitioners may have such further and other reliefs as the nature of the case may require and for the purpose aforesaid all such orders may be passed and directions given including scrutiny of votes as may be deemed necessary and proper. (Sd) B.R.Ambedkar (Sd) Ashoka Mehta (Petition drawn by) (Mr. N. C. N. Acharya, Advocate O. S.) (Sd) Kothare & Co. Attorneys for the Petitioners. We, (1) Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and (2) Ashoka Ranjitram Mehta of Bombay Inhabitants residing respectively at Rajgriha, Hindu Colony, Dadar, and 3, Aadyseth Street near Babulnath Temple without the Fort of Bombay do solemnly declare that what

419ELECTION PETITION is stated in paras 1 to 9 and 11 to 26 of the foregoing Petition is true to our own knowledge and that what is stated in para 10 is stated on information and belief and we believe the same to be true. Solemnly declared by ) Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar ) the Petitioner No. 1 ) above named at Bombay ) aforesaid this 21st day ) of April 1952. ) (Sd.)B.R. Ambedkar Before me S e a l (Sd.) H. K. Patel Presidency Magistrate, XI Court, Kurla, Bombay 21-4-1952. Solemnly declared by ) Ashoka Ranjitram Mehta ) the Petitioner No. 2 ) above named at Bombay ) aforesaid this 21st day ) of April 1952. ) (Sd) Ashoka Mehta Before me S e a l (Sd.) H. K. Patel Presidency Magistrate, XI Court, Kurla, Bombay 21-4-1952.”1 1: Khairmode, Vol. 10, Pp. 269-280.

420 DR. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR : WRITINGS AND SPEECHES Use of Agents at General Elections Dr. Ambedkar’s Plea. “Anything which causes a disturbing effect on the minds of voters amounts to undue influence and interference. If a candidate carries on propaganda to frighten voters then he has caused interference and obviously disturbed the minds of voters. If he conceals an important point of law from the electorate he commits a fraud on voters or brings about undue influence on them. And to tell voters to act contrary to the electoral law is corrupt practice. There were some of the points of law Dr. B. R. Ambedkar submitted to the Election Tribunal, composed of Mr. N. J. Wadia, Chairman, Mr. M. K. Lalkaka, and Mr. G. P. Murdeshwar at the resumed hearing of his petition and that of the Socialist Leader, Mr. Ashoka Mehta, complaining of malpractices at the last General Elections from the Bombay City North Constituency, on Friday. Dr. Ambedkar, who appeared in person, argued at length on the question of agency at elections and touched on propaganda some of the candidates had made through newspapers and pamphlets and went on to prove that those publications had amounted to undue influence with particular reference to Section 123 (2) of the Representation of the People’s Act. UNDUE INTERFERENCE He pointed out the difference between the English and the Indian law and said that the former particularised undue interference while the latter only used the word in a general sense. He referred to the statements published by and on behalf of Mr. S. A. Dange, the Communist candidate, and Dr. G. V. Deshmukh, the Independent candidate, and said that by asking voters to cast both their votes in favour of one candidate they had caused undue influence on them. One of the four witnesses previously examined had admitted that Mr. Dange knew that the Left United Front which supported his candidature to Parliamentary seat, had issued leaflets, but at no stage had he intervened and asked the Front to stop the issuing of the leaflets, he said. The petitioner contended that Mr. Dange was responsible for his agents’ doings. The Ugantar, a Marathi weekly, had in an