A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Raja Bahadur K.C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra & Ors. dealt with a significant electoral dispute under Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The matter revolved around the definition and ambit of corrupt practices, specifically whether the assistance of a Sarpanch under the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 in elections amounts to corrupt practice. The High Court had set aside the election, holding the Sarpanch to be a person in service of the government. The Supreme Court, however, meticulously dissected the statutory framework, emphasized the distinction between “serving under the Government” and “in the service of the Government,” and ruled that a Sarpanch was neither a revenue officer nor a village accountant as described under Section 123(7)(f). The Court held that there was no master-servant relationship between the Government and the Sarpanch. Therefore, obtaining the assistance of a Sarpanch did not constitute corrupt practice under the Act. This case remains a landmark on statutory interpretation, election law, and administrative law principles.

Keywords: Electoral Corrupt Practices, Representation of People Act, Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, Master-Servant Relationship, Sarpanch’s Status.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Raja Bahadur K.C. Deo Bhanj v. Raghunath Misra & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 480 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date:
December 18-19, 1958

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justices Syed Jaffer Imam, S.K. Das, and J.L. Kapur

vi) Author:
Justice Imam

vii) Citation:
[1959] Supp. 1 SCR 952

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:
Section 123(7)(f) of Representation of the People Act, 1951;
Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XV of 1948)

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Election Law, Administrative Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case emanated from the general election for the Orissa Legislative Assembly in 1957. The appellant, Raja Bahadur K.C. Deo Bhanj, secured 17,700 votes and was declared elected. Respondent No. 1, Raghunath Misra, who secured 15,568 votes, filed an election petition. His petition challenged the election on multiple grounds, particularly emphasizing the appellant’s alleged corrupt practices under Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. He claimed that the appellant obtained assistance from Sarpanches of several Grama Panchayats in furthering his electoral prospects.

The Election Tribunal dismissed the petition, but the Orissa High Court reversed the decision, setting aside the election. The High Court held that Sarpanches fell within the meaning of “persons in the service of the government” and thus their assistance constituted a corrupt practice under the Act.

The Supreme Court’s examination of this dispute involved interpreting whether a Sarpanch falls within the meaning of “person in the service of the Government” under the Act.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant and Respondent No. 1 contested the general category seat from Daspalla double-member constituency. After securing the highest number of votes, the appellant was declared elected. The respondent filed an election petition on grounds including improper acceptance of nominations, bribery, defamatory pamphlets, and procuring assistance of Sarpanches.

The Orissa High Court determined that even if other allegations failed, procuring assistance from Sarpanches, who allegedly held positions “in service of the government,” amounted to corrupt practice under Section 123(7)(f).

The High Court reasoned that while Sarpanches were not formally appointed by the Government, they exercised significant governmental functions and were removable by the Government under Section 16 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948. This led to the conclusion that their assistance breached electoral law provisions.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether a Sarpanch of a Grama Panchayat constituted under the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 is a person in the service of the Government.

ii) Whether obtaining assistance from such a Sarpanch constitutes a corrupt practice under Section 123(7)(f) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The appellant contended that the High Court erred in classifying Sarpanches as persons in the service of the Government. They emphasized that Section 123(7)(f) required two cumulative conditions: being in the service of the Government and belonging to specified categories like revenue officers or village accountants.

They argued that the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 treats Grama Panchayats as autonomous corporate bodies. Under Section 4, Gram Sabhas elect the Grama Panchayat members, who in turn elect the Sarpanch under Section 10. The State Government neither appoints nor remunerates them. Removal powers under Section 16 are limited to specific grounds like inefficiency or misconduct.

The appellant distinguished between “serving under the Government” and “being in service of the Government,” relying on the definition offered by Batt in The Law of Master and Servant and citing State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta AIR 1967 SC 884, where the master-servant relationship and the element of control were central to the definition of “service.”

The appellant argued that Sarpanches were not subject to day-to-day governmental control. Instead, their functioning resembled autonomous local self-governments like municipalities, as observed in Hari Shanker Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 465, which underlined the principle of autonomous administrative bodies functioning independently despite being regulated by statutory frameworks.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

Respondent No. 1 argued that the Sarpanch performs several governmental functions like collection of taxes under Section 31, supervising boundary marks under Section 21(r), and maintaining law and order under Section 17, subject to supervision by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

The respondent argued that while Sarpanches are elected, their functions, control, and supervision reflect governmental service. They emphasized that provisions like Sections 97, 98, and 99 of the Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 empower District Magistrates with control over their operations.

Respondent’s counsel contended that remuneration or appointment are not decisive. They argued that the wide control and statutory functions signify that the Sarpanch operates as an arm of the State. In this regard, they invoked a broad interpretation of “in service of the Government,” citing principles found in T.N. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR 1962 SC 104.

The respondent also argued for a purposive interpretation, stating that excluding such influential village officers from Section 123(7)(f) would defeat the legislative intent of curbing undue electoral influence, especially in rural India where Sarpanches wield considerable clout.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Representation of the People Act, 1951:

• Section 123(7)(f) – Defines corrupt practices involving assistance from persons in Government service.

ii) Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XV of 1948):

• Section 4, 10, 16, 17, 21, 22, 31, 36, 97, 98, 99, 117A

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that two conditions must coexist under Section 123(7)(f):

• The person must be in the service of the Government.

• The person must belong to the enumerated class of officers such as revenue officers or village accountants.

The Court distinguished between “serving under the Government” and “being in service of the Government,” relying on the master-servant doctrine elaborated by Batt in The Law of Master and Servant. The Court noted that neither appointment by the State nor remuneration from it existed for Sarpanches.

The powers of supervision exercised by Government authorities over Grama Panchayats under the Orissa Act were administrative, not contractual or hierarchical. The Court emphasized that even if Grama Panchayats performed governmental functions, this did not convert Sarpanches into Government servants.

Furthermore, the Court ruled that Sarpanches are not revenue officers or village accountants, as required under Section 123(7)(f). Therefore, obtaining assistance from them did not amount to corrupt practice.

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court opined that even if statutory control exists, it does not automatically imply master-servant relationships. The increasing regulation of private and public bodies does not convert them into Government servants.

The Court also indicated that legislative amendments narrowing the scope of Section 123(7) after 1956 reflected legislative intent to exclude many such local office holders.

c. GUIDELINES

The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:

• Distinction between statutory control and employment service.

• Cumulative satisfaction of both limbs under Section 123(7)(f) is mandatory.

• Functional autonomy of statutory bodies like Grama Panchayats excludes them from being classified as Government servants.

• Purposive construction cannot override plain legislative text.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) Hari Shanker Bagla v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1954 SC 465
ii) State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta AIR 1967 SC 884
iii) T.N. Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Madras AIR 1962 SC 104

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Representation of the People Act, 1951
ii) Orissa Grama Panchayats Act, 1948 (Orissa Act XV of 1948)
iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 161)
iv) Indian Companies Act, 1956 (Sections 259, 269, 408, 409)