A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Dr. Y.S. Parmar v. Shri Hira Singh Paul and Another examined whether the appointment of a government servant as a polling agent constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Dr. Y.S. Parmar, a candidate for Parliament, appointed Amar Singh as his polling agent without knowing that he was a member of the armed forces. The Court analyzed whether mens rea (guilty mind) was necessary for establishing corrupt practices. The Court held that knowledge of the government service status of the polling agent was irrelevant. The appointment itself attracted statutory presumption of corrupt practice under Explanation (2) to Section 123(7), thereby disqualifying the appellant. The case significantly clarified the strict liability nature of corrupt practices in Indian election law, emphasizing that intent or knowledge is not a necessary ingredient for establishing certain corrupt practices.

Keywords: Corrupt Practice, Representation of the People Act, Polling Agent, Government Servant, Election Law, Supreme Court of India, Strict Liability.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title
Dr. Y.S. Parmar v. Shri Hira Singh Paul and Another

ii) Case Number
Civil Appeal No. 410 of 1958

iii) Judgement Date
October 17, 1958

iv) Court
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum
Venkatarama Aiyar, Gajendragadkar, and A.K. Sarkar, JJ.

vi) Author
Justice Sarkar

vii) Citation
(1959) Supp. (1) SCR 213

viii) Legal Provisions Involved
Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Sections 46 and 123(7).

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

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

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

In 1957, India conducted general elections where Dr. Y.S. Parmar contested for the Mahasu double-member constituency in Himachal Pradesh. One of the seats was reserved for Scheduled Castes. Parmar secured the general seat while Nek Ram won the reserved seat. Shri Hira Singh Paul, who polled the next highest votes, filed an election petition under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, alleging that Parmar committed a corrupt practice by appointing Amar Singh, a government servant, as his polling agent[5].

The Election Tribunal found merit in some of Paul’s allegations and declared Parmar’s election void. Parmar challenged this in the Judicial Commissioner’s Court, Himachal Pradesh, which partially reversed but upheld the invalidation of the election. Parmar then appealed to the Supreme Court under special leave.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The constituency had 606 polling stations, permitting Parmar to appoint 1818 polling agents. On April 28, 1957, Parmar signed many blank appointment forms and handed them to his supporter, Kalyan Singh. Kalyan Singh passed three forms to Kashmira Singh, inserting the polling station details. Kashmira Singh filled Amar Singh’s name and handed the form to him on polling day. Amar Singh signed and submitted the form to the presiding officer at polling station No. 13, Sheopur. He acted as polling agent for two hours before objections were raised due to his status as a member of the armed forces. Amar Singh left the polling station thereafter[5].

Neither Parmar nor his agents knew Amar Singh’s government service status during his appointment or functioning as polling agent. The Election Tribunal framed several issues and ruled against Parmar on key issues, leading to the annulment of his election.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the appointment of Amar Singh, a member of the armed forces, as polling agent constituted a corrupt practice under Section 123(7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

ii) Whether the lack of knowledge about Amar Singh’s status could absolve Parmar of liability.

iii) Whether mens rea (criminal intent) is necessary to establish corrupt practice under election law.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that:

The Advocate-General of Uttar Pradesh, appearing for Parmar, argued that Amar Singh was not properly appointed as a polling agent. Under Section 46 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, only the candidate or election agent can appoint polling agents. Since neither Parmar nor his election agent (he had none) directly appointed Amar Singh, his appointment was invalid. Therefore, Parmar could not be held liable for corrupt practice as Amar Singh never validly acted as his polling agent[5].

The appellant further contended that he had no knowledge that Amar Singh was a government servant. Without this knowledge, he could not have intended to obtain government assistance for his election. Thus, mens rea was absent, and corrupt practice could not be established[5].

The appellant relied on English authorities including Schofield’s Parliamentary Elections, which emphasized that corrupt practices under English law require proof of corrupt intent. He argued that Indian law should similarly necessitate mens rea to declare corrupt practice[5].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that:

Respondent’s counsel, Achhru Ram, countered that Parmar himself signed the blank forms authorizing the appointment of polling agents. His authorized agents merely filled the names and submitted the forms. Therefore, the appointment was valid under Section 46 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951[5].

He argued that Explanation (2) to Section 123(7) created a statutory presumption that appointing a person as polling agent, who is a government servant, constitutes obtaining assistance for election purposes. The legislature had deliberately excluded intent as a necessary element. Once Amar Singh acted as polling agent, assistance was automatically deemed to have been procured, regardless of Parmar’s knowledge[5].

Achhru Ram emphasized that the Indian statute intentionally departed from English law. He pointed out that after the 1956 amendment to the Representation of the People Act, Indian law abolished the distinction between illegal and corrupt practices. Therefore, English precedents concerning mens rea were inapplicable[5].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Representation of the People Act, 1951:

Section 46: Appointment of polling agents.
Read full text here

Section 123(7): Corrupt practices: obtaining assistance from government servants.
Read full text here

Explanation (2) to Section 123(7):
A person shall be deemed to assist if he acts as polling agent.
Read full text here

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal and Judicial Commissioner’s findings. The Court held that Parmar appointed Amar Singh as polling agent by personally signing the forms, even though others filled in names afterward. Thus, the appointment was valid under Section 46.

The Court reasoned that Explanation (2) to Section 123(7) creates an automatic presumption of assistance being procured when a person acts as polling agent. Mens rea or intention is irrelevant. The appointment of Amar Singh, a member of armed forces, directly contravened Section 123(7). Thus, Parmar was guilty of corrupt practice by operation of law[5].

The Court emphasized the strict liability nature of corrupt practice under Indian law. The legislative intent was to prevent misuse of official machinery in elections without delving into subjective intent or knowledge of candidates[5].

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed that English law distinguishes between corrupt and illegal practices, requiring intent for corrupt practices. However, Indian election law, especially after 1956 amendments, abolished this distinction. Mens rea is not required for statutory corrupt practices under Section 123(7)[5].

The Court also remarked that allowing withdrawal of concessions made by counsel in lower courts was improper in such matters. Parmar’s counsel had conceded the validity of appointment before the Judicial Commissioner[5].

c. GUIDELINES 

• Strict Liability Standard: No requirement of intent or knowledge for corrupt practices under Section 123(7).

• Valid Appointment: Signing blank forms and authorizing filling of names constitutes valid appointment under Section 46.

• Binding Concession: Concessions made in lower courts bind the parties in appeal.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Dr. Y.S. Parmar v. Shri Hira Singh Paul and Another, (1959) Supp. (1) SCR 213

b. Important Statutes Referred

[2] Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 46 and 123(7)

[3] Schofield’s Parliamentary Elections, 2nd Edition