Judgment :- This is a petition filed by an elector in the 94 Palai Assembly Constituency challenging the election of the 1st respondent to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly in the election held on 19 - 3 -1977. After counting of votes the results were declared on 20 - 3 - 77 declaring the 1st respondent as duly elected as member of the Assembly. According to the petitioner the election of the 1st respondent is void being violative of Ss.123 (1), (2), (3), (4) and 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for brevity the Act). The 1st respondent, who is a member of the Catholic community, was during the relevant time a leader of the Kerala Congress and he was the Minister for Finance in the Government of Kerala. On 12 - 3 -1977 a meeting of the priests of the various Parishes of the Catholic Church within the aforesaid constituency and certain other leaders of the Catholic community was convened at the Hishop's House, Palai, at 8 p. m. In the? meeting the Hishop called upon the priests and other leaders of the community to work for the success of the 1st respondent in the interest of the Church and of the Catholic community They were also persuaded by the Hishop to use their influence among the voters for tendering votes in favour of the 1st respondent. The appeal by the Hishop was made with the consent and knowledge of the 1st respondent and his agents. The aforesaid step prejudicially affected the prospects of election of the 2nd respondent. In the same meeting one Sri Joseph Thomas, City Police Commissioner, Trivandrum, also spoke and called upon the priests and other leaders to work for the success of the 1st respondent. The aforesaid Joseph Thomas went to Palai at the instance of the 1st respondent and with his consent and knowledge for convening the meeting. The aforesaid Police Officer is known for his antipathy towards the opposition parties. By procuring his services for the furtherance of the prospects of the 1st respondent's election, a corrupt practice falling within the ambit of S.123(7) of the Act has been committed. A Malayalam Daily called "Deepika" and published from Kottayam is a newspaper to protect the interests of the Catholic community. When the 1st respondent became the Finance Minister, Rev. Fr. By procuring his services for the furtherance of the prospects of the 1st respondent's election, a corrupt practice falling within the ambit of S.123(7) of the Act has been committed. A Malayalam Daily called "Deepika" and published from Kottayam is a newspaper to protect the interests of the Catholic community. When the 1st respondent became the Finance Minister, Rev. Fr. Kolambian, the Managing Editor of Deepika placed an application for Rs. 25,00,000/-from the Kerala Financial Corporation. On the eve of the election the aforesaid loan was sanctioned with undue baste and without properly ascertaining the solvency of the applicant and obtaining proper security with reduced stamp duty. The newspaper 'Deepika' is widely read by Catholic community and that paper actually helped for the success of the 1st respondent. There was, thus violation of S.123(1) and S.123(2) of the Act. The petitioner prays for a declaration that the election of the 1st respondent is void and for a declaration that the 2nd respondent, who obtained the next highest number of votes polled, is duly elected from the concerned Assembly constituency. 2. In answer to the summons of the court only respondents 1 and 3 entered appearance. The 2nd respondent was therefore declared ex parte. The 1st respondent filed a written statement. His contentions may be briefly set out. Since the petitioner had alleged corrupt practices as a ground in the election petition this court has no jurisdiction to try the petition In view of article 192 of the Constitution as it stands after the Constitution (Forty second) Amendment Act the authority to decide the questions relating to disqualification on the basis of corrupt practice vests exclusively with the President. Ss.98 to 100 of the Act must be deemed to have been repealed by the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act. Again, the petition is not maintainable because it was not presented by the petitioner in person as enjoined by S.81 of the Act. The averment in paragraph 3 of the petition is denied. The 1st respondent denies all the allegations in paragraph 4 of the petition in respect of the meeting alleged to have taken place at the Hishop's house, Palai. No such meeting was convened at the instance of the 1st respondent or his agent or with the consent or knowledge of the 1st respondent or his agents. The 1st respondent denies all the allegations in paragraph 4 of the petition in respect of the meeting alleged to have taken place at the Hishop's house, Palai. No such meeting was convened at the instance of the 1st respondent or his agent or with the consent or knowledge of the 1st respondent or his agents. The averments in paragraph 4 of the petition are insufficient is law and tacts to attract S.123(2) and (3) of the Act. The 1st respondent does not know whether Sri Joseph Thomas attended or addressed the meeting as alleged in paragraph 5 of the election petition. The 1st respondent denies that Sri Joseph Thomas went to Palai at the instance of the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent has not obtained or procured the service of Sri Joseph Thomas for the furtherance of the prospects of the 1st respondent's election. No corrupt practice within the meaning of S.123(7) of the Act was committed. The averments in paragraph 6 of the petition are denied. Deepika" is printed and published by Deepika Printers at St. Francis Press, Kottayam. The averment that an application for loan was made when the 1st respondent became the Finance Minister is misleading, and the 1st respondent had nothing to do with the loan application filed by the Managing Editor of Deepika. The averments in the petition regarding grant of loan are denied. The Government and the Finance Minister had nothing to do with the application for sanction of bans presented before the Finance Corporation. 'Deepika' did not actively campaign for the 1st respondent. As was done by all leading newspapers in the State during the last elections, articles were being published by Deepika also assessing the respective merits of the contesting candidates in various constituencies in the State including Palai constituency. "Deepika' is read by members of all communities. The article do not attract S.123(1) and (2) of the Act. The affidavit filed along with the petition is not in conformity with the requirements of law. It is not affirmed by the deponent that any of the statements in paragraphs 3 to 6 are true to his knowledge. The affidavit cannot be acted upon and the petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a written statement generally supporting the averments contained is the election petition. The affidavit cannot be acted upon and the petition is liable to be dismissed on that short ground. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 3. The 3rd respondent has filed a written statement generally supporting the averments contained is the election petition. While admitting the averments in paragraphs 4 to 6 of the petition as substantially correct it is contended that since the petitioner has omitted to give the details of a number of other acts which amounted to corrupt practice, an adjudication on the basis of such other corrupt practices is not possible. The second prayer in the petition cannot be allowed. The 3rd respondent could have secured more votes, if the intervention of religious dignatories, police officers and the propagandas carried on by the paper Deepika in favour of the 1st respondent were not there. In the circumstances a re election is necessary. 4. After discussing with both sides the following issues were raised: 1. Whether the petition is maintainable? 2. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is vitiated by all or any of the corrupt practices as alleged in the petition? 3. Regarding costs and reliefs. 5. Issue No. 1. In paragraph 2 of the written statement the 1st respondent has raised the contention that this court has no jurisdiction to try this petition in view of the Constitution (Forty-second) Amendment Act. Towards the close of paragraph 11 of the written statement it is also pleaded that the allegations in the petition as well as the affidavit are too vague to be accepted and acted upon and that the object of the petitioner in leaving the allegations vague is to fish out the materials to fill up the lacuna later. At the time of hearing, the maintainability of this petition on the basis of the Constitution (Fortysecond) Amendment Act was not pressed, and it was conceded that the maintainability of the petition cannot be challenged on that ground. The only argument advanced regarding this issue is that the pleadings are vague and on that ground the petition is liable to b dismissed. As admitted by both sides the relevant allegations in the petition are contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition which read: "4. The first respondent is a leader of the Kerala Congress and was the Minister for Finance in the Government of Kerala at the time of Election. As admitted by both sides the relevant allegations in the petition are contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition which read: "4. The first respondent is a leader of the Kerala Congress and was the Minister for Finance in the Government of Kerala at the time of Election. He belongs to the Catholic community. On 12th March, 1977 a meeting of the priests of the various Parishes of the Catholic Church within the said Constituency and certain other leaders of the Catholic community was convened at the Hishop's House, Palai at 8 p.m. This meeting was presided over by the Hishop of Palai. In this meeting the Hishop called upon the Parish Priests and leaders of the community to work for the success of the first respondent "as his success was necessary in the interest of Church and the Catholic community". The Priests and the other leaders of the Community assembled in that meeting were exhorted by the Hishop "to persuade the members of their respective Parishes to vote for the first respondent since hit success was in the interest of the community and the Church". This appeal by the Hishop was with the consent and knowledge of the first respondent and his agents This action on the part of the Hishop of Palai is a corrupt practice falling within the ambit of section 123 (2) as well as section 123 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This exhortation by the Hishop has materially affected the prospects of the election of respondent No. 2. 5. The same meeting was attended and addressed by Sri Joseph Thomas, IPS.. City Police Commissioner, Trivandrum. Addressing the meeting he exhorted the Parish Priests and leaders of community assembled in that meeting to work for the success of Sri K. M. Mani-1st respondent- as it was in the interest of the Church and commonly". Sri Joseph Thomas went to Palai at the instance of 1st respondent-Minister or with his consent and knowledge to assist the convening of the meeting of the Hishop and Priests for the furtherance of the prospects of the victory of the 1st respondent in the election Sri Joseph Thomas actually addressed this meeting exhorting to work for the victory of the 1st respondent. The said Joseph Thomas is a member of the Police Force and a Gazetted Officer. The said Joseph Thomas is a member of the Police Force and a Gazetted Officer. The said Police Officer is known for his antipathy towards the opposition parties. Obtaining or procuring his services for the furtherance of the prospects of the first respondent's election it a corrupt practice falling within the mischief of S.123 (7) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951". The learned counsel for the 1st respondent cited before me the decision of the Supreme Court in Hardwari Lai v. Kanwal Singh (AIR 1972 SC. 515). The averments in the petition which led to that appeal are extracted in paragraph 7 of that judgment. After referring to the substance of S.123 (7) of the Act the petitioner in that case gave the names- of six officers and alleged that the respondent in that case has written letters under his own signature to those government officers soliciting their help and assistance in furtherance of the prospects of his election. The Supreme Court held that it was not possible to understand from the petition whether the giving of vote is the assistance alleged because canvassing the vote of an officer is not a corrupt practice under S.123(7) of the Act. The Supreme Court observed as follows: "The type of assistance, the manner of assistance, the person from whom assistance is sought, are all to beset out in the petition. There is no allegation in the petition about the actual and specific assistance with which the appellant can be charged in violation of the provisions of the Act, nor is there any statement in the election petition describing (the manner in which the prospects of the election were furthered and the way in which the assistance was' grendered" 1 do not think that the position obtained in this case suffers the infirmity pointed out by the Supreme Court Paragraph 4 of the petition sets out the details regarding a meeting convened at the residence of the Hishop of Palai at 8 p.m. on 12 - 3 -1977 and which was attended by Parish Priests and leaders of the community. The object referred to is to canvass votes for the success of the 1st respondent. The petitioner has relied on S.123(2) and S.123(3) of the Act. The object referred to is to canvass votes for the success of the 1st respondent. The petitioner has relied on S.123(2) and S.123(3) of the Act. In paragraph 5 the allegation is that Sri Joseph Thomas, City Police Commissioner, Trivandrum, addressed the meeting referred to in the previous paragraph and exhorted the gathering assembled there to work for the success of the 1st respondent. It is further alleged that the police officer (who was examined as Pw. 6 in this case) went to Palai at the instance of the 1st respondent or with his consent and knowledge to assist the convening of the meeting of the Hishop and the Priests for the furtherance of the prospects of the victory of the 1st respondent in the election Reliance is placed on S.123 ("') of the Act to brand the aforementioned activities as a corrupt practice. The petition thus clearly avers the type of assistance prayed for, the manner of assistance, the time of assistance, the person from whom the assistance is sought for, etc., and it is not a case of simply mentioning the provisions in the Act without stating the materials which form the basis of the cause of action and the particulars thereof as enjoined by section 83 (1) (b) of the Act, From the written statement filed by the 1st respondent it could be seen that the main defence taken was one of denial by the 1st respondent of all sorts of connection either with the meeting alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition or the participation in that meeting by Pw. 6 as alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition. Issues were joined and then the matter went up for trial. In the withess box also the 1st respondent, who was examined as Rw.1, never put forward a case that for want of details of the corrupt practices he was not in a position to offer effective defence. In Bhagwan Datta v. Ram Ratanji (AIR. 1960 SC 200) it is held as follows: "Now there can be no doubt that the requirement of full particulars is of paramount importance, incases of this kind as in cases of the ordinary course based on allegations of fraud or undue influence. In Bhagwan Datta v. Ram Ratanji (AIR. 1960 SC 200) it is held as follows: "Now there can be no doubt that the requirement of full particulars is of paramount importance, incases of this kind as in cases of the ordinary course based on allegations of fraud or undue influence. But unlike the one in the above decision of this Court relied upon, in which the question that arose was as to the validity of an order dismissing the entire election petition on the preliminary ground of absence of particulars, the question in this case is different This is a case where notwithatanding the absence of particulars, the evidence was allowed to be given and taken. The question in such a case would not be one of absence of jurisdiction but as to whether there has been any material prejudice occasioned by the absence of particulars." The 1st respondent has no case that he was in any manner prejudiced by such omission. The further deface pointed out by the 1st respondent at the time of argument was that paragraphs 4 and 5 do not mention the tiro place and the exact directions given by the 1st respondent to Pw. 6. I think, in the circumstances of the case, it was practically impossible for the petitioner to give any detail regarding those matters. Both the 1st respondent and Pw. 6 were at Trivandrum, and if the petitioner ventures to make any allegation regarding time, place and particulars of the understanding between the 1st respondent and Pw. 6 that would normally be viewed by the court as artificial and as wholly improbable. It was also contended on behalf of the 1st respondent that some of the averments in paragraph 5 of the, petition are capable of a construction that the petitioner intended not only the meeting held at the residence of the Hishop on 12 - 3 -1977, but another meeting also. I am unable to read any such intention on reading paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition. The contention regarding the non-maintainability of the petition has, therefore, only to be rejected. I hold that the petition is maintainable. 6 Issue No 2. I am unable to read any such intention on reading paragraphs 4 and 5 of the petition. The contention regarding the non-maintainability of the petition has, therefore, only to be rejected. I hold that the petition is maintainable. 6 Issue No 2. The validity of the election of the 1st respondent is challenged on the ground of con upt practices alleged to have been indulged in through the instrumentality of the clergy and a senior police officer in the service of the State. The overt act alleged in the petition is that at the instance of the 1st respondent, on 12 - 3 -1977 at about 8 p. rn. a meeting was convened at the residence of the Senior Catholic Hishop of Palai, which was attended to by a good number of priests subordinate to the Hishop and also some prominent members of the Catholic community. The short case put forward by the petitioner is that in that meeting the Senior Catholic Hishop of Palai, who was examined as Pw. 2 in this ease directed the gathering to work actively for the success of the 1st respondent in the election. There was a general discussion in which some of the people who attended the meeting discussed about the "modus operand!" to be pursued in the election campaign under consideration. A senior Police Officer of the IPS. cadre, who was at the relevant time working as the City Police Commissioner, Trivandrum, not only participated in that meeting but also actively canvassed all assistance on behalf of the 1st respondent. The petitioner would therefore contend that the conduct of Pw.2 amounted to the violation of S.123(2) of the Act while the conduct of Pw. 6 falls within the corrupt practice set out in section 123 (7). Though the two items of corrupt practice arise out of the same set of facts and circumstances, they require independent consideration. 7. That there was a meeting at 8 p.m. or thereabout on 12-3-1977 at the residence of Pw. 2 to consider certain election matters relating to the Palai Constituency is amply proved by the evidence of Pws.1 to 8. In fact, that particular fact was not seriously disputed before me by the 1st respondent. The real dispute is regarding the purpose for which the meeting was convened by Pw. 2 and also what transpired in that meeting. According to Pw. In fact, that particular fact was not seriously disputed before me by the 1st respondent. The real dispute is regarding the purpose for which the meeting was convened by Pw. 2 and also what transpired in that meeting. According to Pw. 2 he convened the meeting for the purpose of a clarification of the policy to be pursued by the church in relation to the disputed election. Pw. 2 deposed that he received a couple of anonymous letters which suggested that the Catholic church was practically against the 1st respondent and that the immediate provocation for convening the meeting was an article found on page 7 of the English Daily 'Indian Express' dated 12-3-1977, and which was marked in the case as Ext. XI. Pw. 2 is alleged to have read one sentence from the article and explained that the church was not favouring or disfavoring any candidate and that the meeting was convened to emphasise the necessity o! directing members of the Catholic community to exercise their electoral right with discretion since that is the responsibility of every citizen Pw.4, the vicar of Ramapuram Ferona Church, Pw. 7, the Auxiliary Hishop of Palai and Pw. 8, the vicar of St. Joseph's Church, Palai, deposed that Pw. 2 did not in so many words tell the people present there to canvass votes for the 1st respon lent. Pw. 3, Sn. CherianJ. Kappan, was one of the persons who participated in the meeting. He was a member of the Parliament and also a member of the old Travancore State Assembly and that C. State Assembly, He had also functioned as the Chairman of the Palai Municipality. Pw. 3 was a leading lawyer of Palai, and the 1st respondent in this case had worked as his junior. Pw. 3 deposed that Pw.2 mentioned many things, and he started his speech after reading one sentence from Ext. XI. The speech of Pw. 2 suggested that the candidate of the United Front must be helped to win the election. Pw. 2 is also alleged to tiave mentioned that the nd respondent was acting against the interests of the Church. Pw. 8, the vicar of St. Joseph's Church, was asked the following question: "° aownlagas aiw election propaganda meeting ffl©««ncno" (Q). 2 suggested that the candidate of the United Front must be helped to win the election. Pw. 2 is also alleged to tiave mentioned that the nd respondent was acting against the interests of the Church. Pw. 8, the vicar of St. Joseph's Church, was asked the following question: "° aownlagas aiw election propaganda meeting ffl©««ncno" (Q). The answer was: "Bioculsis cruocn>3 o$£joo biosbblacncsdosno0 croo(tt>o 8 it is clear that the matter discussed in the meeting was regarding the support to be rendered to the 1st respondent and not for a general discussion for instructing the members of the community to exercise their franchise. The circumstances available in the case fully support that conclusion. In Ext. R3, the pastoral letter issued by Pw. 2 earlier, there was already the advice of the religious head to the members of the community to cast their votes in the election without mentioning any particular candidate. There was hence no necessity for a regular meeting of this sort merely to emphasize the necessity for exercising the electoral right, and if no particular candidate was in contemplation another pastoral letter could have served the purpose. Again, is should be remembered that respondents 1 to 3, the three candidates who contested in the election, were all Catholics, and Pw.2 has no case that the election of anyone of them would adversely affect the Catholic community. From that angle it could very well be said that the indifference of the church in the election could not have adversely affected the interests of the community as such. Again, certain other factors cannot be ignored. Pw. 2 mentioned in the meeting that hs received two anonymous letters to the effect that the church was against the 1st respondent. Even according to Pw. 2, the immediate provocation for convening the meeting was the article in Ext. XI. The heading of that article is "Factionalism may spell Mani's Ruin". The sentence which Pw. 2 is alleged to have read in the meeting is as follows: "Another vital factor is that the Catholic church has chosen to remain silent this time". That sentence shall not be dissociated from the rest of the article. The main theme of the article is the difficulties which the 1st respondent had to face in view of the indifferent attitude of the Church. That sentence shall not be dissociated from the rest of the article. The main theme of the article is the difficulties which the 1st respondent had to face in view of the indifferent attitude of the Church. Thus by the contents of the paper report as well as the letters, the apprehension was only regarding the success of the 1st respondent. In view of these items of evidence both direct and circumstantial, I have no habilitation to bold that the meeting was convened for the purpose of assisting the 1st respondent in the election campaign, and the decision taken in the meeting was towards that end. Pws. 4 and 7 deposed that in pursuance of the decision taken in the meeting they actually spoke to the congregation in their respective churches. The question to be considered is whether the aforesaid activities of Pw. 2 constitute a corrupt practice within the meaning of section 123 (2) of the Act. 8. The preamble to the Constitution of India declares that India shall be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic. The expression 'secular' is definitely indicative of the intention to avoid theocratic forces influencing the governance of the State. The contents of the Constitution show that the Republic has adopted the parliamentary form of democracy functioning within a federal structure. Parliamentary democracy normally functions through a government controlled by the representatives elected by the people. Since the elected body is intended to implement, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, the just ideals and aspirations of the electorate the electors should have the maximum freedom in the matter of choosing their representative. Instances are not wanting where the "vofaote* generals'" of Rousseau created the "Leviathen" Hobbes apprehended, and worse still that monster developing into a Frankenstein threatening to devour its own creator. Such situations have arisen because the free-will of the elector was being clouded by ignorance or shackled by spiritual or temporal forces. Legislation by itself cannot dispel ignorance, and consequently, attempts have been made through law to avoid the evil infiuences of both spiritual and temporal forces. S.123 of the Act was enacted to protect as far as possible the free exercise of electoral right by an elector and also to ensure the purity and fairness of the election. 9. S.123 of the Act enumerates the activities that are deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act. S.123 of the Act was enacted to protect as far as possible the free exercise of electoral right by an elector and also to ensure the purity and fairness of the election. 9. S.123 of the Act enumerates the activities that are deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of the Act. In view of S.123, what I may call as the three' Ps', namely the press, police and priest, should function with due care and caution when they attempt to interfere with election propaganda. The prohibited activities in the name of religion and its satellites like caste and community are dealt with in sub-sections (2), (3) and (3A) of S.123. The petitioner did not press his case regarding sub-sections (3) and (3A) of S.123 of the Act. Sub-section (2) of S.123, with which alone we are directly concerned in this respect, is in the following terms: "123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act: - (2) Undue influence, that is to say, any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent, or of any other person with the content of the candidate or his election agent with the free exercise of any electoral right: Provided that (a) without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of this clause any such person as is referred to therein who - (i) threatens any candidate or any elector, or any person in whom a candidate or an elector Is interested, with injury of any kind including social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community; or (ii) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or an elector to believe that he. or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure, shall he deemed to interfere with the free exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of this clause; (b) a declaration of public policy, or a promise of public action, or the mere exercise of a legal right without intent to interfere with an electoral right, shall not be deemed to be interference with the meaning of this clause." Though in form, sub-section (2) does not purport to define "undue influence", the proviso to that sub-section contains in substance a sort of definition of that expression. Sub-clause (a) (i) of the proviso states that if any of the persons referred to in sub-section (2) threatens any candidate or any elector or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested, with "injury of any kind" that will be deemed to be interference with the free exercise of electoral right of such candidate or elector within the meaning of sub-section (2). That apart sub-clause (i) and (ii) of clause (a) of the proviso enumerate certain specified activities as amounting to an injury mentioned in the earlier part of clause (a)(i). The result is that threats relating to social ostracism and ex-communication or expulsion from any caste or community or the creation of a belief in the mind o* the elector that he will incur divine displeasure or spiritual censure are specific instances of infliction of an injury for the purpose of that be secuon, and if anyone of the aforesaid activities is proved in a given case exercise of undue influence is automatically established without any further proof. The injuries specifically enumerated in the proviso show that all those prohibited activities are associated with religious beliefs and practices, and normally it is a religious head or digni-tarj who can administer that kind of threats. The petitioner has no case that in the present case in the meeting held on 12 - 3 -1977 Pw. 2 administered any one of the threats specifically mentioned in the proviso. But the problem does not stop there. It shall not be inferred that as far as religious dignitaries are concerned their liability under S.123(2) is confoned to the threats specified in the proviso. 2 administered any one of the threats specifically mentioned in the proviso. But the problem does not stop there. It shall not be inferred that as far as religious dignitaries are concerned their liability under S.123(2) is confoned to the threats specified in the proviso. With respect to the other activities also they are in the same position as any other person if they threaten an elector or any person in whom a candidate or an elector is interested with "injury of any kind". The expression "injury" in the normal sense means any harm or damage. Again, the religious dignitaries are not outside the ambit of S.123(2) in the sense that any direct or indirect interference or attempt to interfere on the part of the candidate or his agent or any person with the consent of the candidate or his election agent with free exercise of an electoral right will constitute undue influence. The exercise of the rights guaranteed under articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution cannot be hit by S.123(2) of the Act. An activity though temporal in substance can, in certain cases, claim immunity from S.123(2) if it forms an essential part of a particular religion with its different facets like faith, philosophy and rituals At the same time a temporal activity unconnected with religion cannot avoid the operation of S.123(2} merely because that activity is given & spiritual garb. The real difficulty therefore lies in understanding the true nature of the activity complained of. Here again it shall not be forgotten that the position occupied by religious leaders of different religions or even with respect to leaders of different denominations in the same religion is not identical. For instance, it is well-known that the influence wielded by the clergy of the Catholic denomination ov<< its followers is wider and deeper then the influence enjoyed by the clergy of the other denominations of the Christian faith. It is not, therefore, desirable to lay down any guideline for testing the red nature of the activities of a religious dignitary for the purpose of deciding whether the activity complained of falls within the mischief of S.123(2) of the Act The conduct has to be tested on the basis of the relevant circumstances like the person, place, the manner of activity, etc. If the decisions taken in the meeting dated 12-3-1977 are to be tested on the basis of the principles mentioned above, I doubt whether any undue influence has been exercised byPw.2, In one sense, every election propaganda involves an attempt to influence an voter. Such a right cannot be denied to Pw. 2 so long as his activities are not hit by S.123(2). The utmost that could be said is that of the three candidates, who are all Catholics, Pw. 2 felt that the 1st respondent is the best for the purpose of conserving the interests of the community. The nature of the gathering as also of the discussions that took place there, as spoken to by the withesses, may raise a doubt whether the conduct of Pw. 2 has not transgressed the reasonable limits of due or legitimate infuence. But that suspicion by itself may not be sufficient to hold that undue influence within the meaning of S.123(2) has been exercised by Pw. 2 or the priests who implemented his directions. I hold that the petitioner has not succeeded in proving that the election of the 1st respondent is vitiated by undue influence exercised by Pw. 2. 10. The second item of corrupt practice alleged by the petitioner is the assistance rendered by Pw. 6 in the the matter of convening the meeting on 12-3 -1977 at the Hishop's residence and also the actual canvassing ot" votes by Pw. 6 in favour of the 1st respondent by speeches on two or three occasions. S.)23 (7) of the Act reads as follows: "123. 6 in the the matter of convening the meeting on 12-3 -1977 at the Hishop's residence and also the actual canvassing ot" votes by Pw. 6 in favour of the 1st respondent by speeches on two or three occasions. S.)23 (7) of the Act reads as follows: "123. The following shall be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of this Act: - (7) The obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure by a candidate or his agent or, by any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent, any assistance (other then the giving of vote) for the furtherance of the prospects of that candidate's election, from any person in the service of the Government and belonging to any of the following classes, namely: (a) gazetted officers; (b) stipendiary judges and magistrates; (c) members of the armed forces of the Union; (d; members of the police forces; (e) excise officers; (f) revenue officers other then village officers known as lambardars (g) such other class of persons in the service of the government as may be prescribed. X X X V" In the place of the words "any other person with the consent of a candidate or his election agent" in the sub-section, I may for brevity use the words "the third party". Similarly regarding the officers mentioned in clauses (a) to (g), I may simply refer them as "the officer". 11. Though in paragraph 5 of the petition there is an allegation that Pw. 6 assisted the convening of the meeting held on 2-3-i977 in the residence of Pw. 2, sufficient evidence is not available to substantiate that part of the petitioner's case. Hence the question (hat falls for decision is whether Pw. 6 rendered any assistance in furtherance of the election of the 1st respondent by the speeches he is alleged to have made in the meeting already referred to. The presence of Pw. 6 at the piace where the meeting took place is not disputed. Regarding the actual part played by him direct oral evidence is available. In answer to a question as to thesubject matter of the speech made by Pw. 6, From the version given by Pw. 2 it is clear that Pw. 6 said that he was prepared to give up his uniform even for the purpose of 1st respondent's success in the election. In answer to a question as to thesubject matter of the speech made by Pw. 6, From the version given by Pw. 2 it is clear that Pw. 6 said that he was prepared to give up his uniform even for the purpose of 1st respondent's success in the election. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pw. 2 in that respect. Pw. 3 Sri Cherian J. Kappan is a leading citizen of that area. As already referred to, he was a member of both the State legislature and the Parliament; he was the Chairman of the Palai Municipal Council, and the 1st respondent had worked under him as his junior. Pw. 3 was as an active member of the Indian National Congress, and it shall not be forgotten that in the disputed election Indian National Congress was one of the parthers of the Ruling Front. He deposed that the City Police Commissioner (Pw. 6) spoke 'thrice and in his speech he mentioned that to save the rubber plan (a ions made subsequent to the yea; 1964 it is necessary that the 1st respondent should win in the election so that the Christians was have settled down in Malabar may no? lost; their oronertv. According for Pw. 3. Pw. 6 also sooke as Pw. 6 spoke about some agricultural Bill which was in the anvil, and which was likely to affect the small rubber plantation owners who belonged to Palai and Meenachil and who have settled down in Malabar; most of whom are Christians and in order to safeguard their interests in view of the proposed Bill it was necessary that people like K. M. Mani are in the Assembly. According to Pw 8, Pw.6 spoke on 3 or 4 occassions. The evidence of these withesses prove beyond any doubt that Pw. 6 actively canvassed for rendering all assistance to the 1st respondent in the election. I may also in this connection examine the version given by Pw. 6 himself in the withess box. The circumstances under which Pw. 6 happened to be there will be examined in another context. At this stage I am only considering his version regarding what he stated in the meeting. According to Pw. 6 he was standing near a screen placed at the door connecting the dining hall where the meeting was held and the kitchen. The circumstances under which Pw. 6 happened to be there will be examined in another context. At this stage I am only considering his version regarding what he stated in the meeting. According to Pw. 6 he was standing near a screen placed at the door connecting the dining hall where the meeting was held and the kitchen. While he was discussing certain matters relating to a marriage with the Chancellor priest, I may in this connection refer to yet another aspect of the evidence given by Pw. 3 which may have some significance when I have to discuss another aspect of this case. Pw. 3 deposed What he saw Pw. 6 with Pw. 2 when he (Pw. 3) reached the residence of Pw. 2 between 7 and 8 p.m. on 12-3-1977 Sri. George C. Kappan is the son of Pw. 3. Pw. 3 deposed that his son was the President of the Election Commitiee formed for the election campaign of the 1st respondent. At the close of his evidence Pw. 3 was asked about his reaction when he heard the Police Officer soeakine in the meetina. His answer was Church .deposed that the Trivandrum City Ponce Commissioner also spoke in the meeting, though the withess does not mention what exactly were the words spoken to by Pw. 6. Pw. 8 is the vicar or St. Joseph's Church, Paiai, who par one of the laitees who was present in the meeting asked in a loud voice A question was asked from the court as to v/hy he answered a question from a person whom he did not identify at the time. The answer was "Casual' He added that if the question was seriously asked he couid not have answered. According to Pw.6 when he was about to go away one Iuruvinalkunnel Avira-chan who was present in the meeting observed oJOQHismaaiorroDuring the course of the examination he was asked whether it was proper on his part to have spoken in that meeting that Mani answered: serious. On the earner occasion what Pw. 6 deposed was that the question was asked by an unknown person. The subsequent, version shown above is to the effect that the question was asked by a known person. When he was confronted With this contradiction he said that on the former occasion also what ha said was that it was Curiashen who asked the question. 6 deposed was that the question was asked by an unknown person. The subsequent, version shown above is to the effect that the question was asked by a known person. When he was confronted With this contradiction he said that on the former occasion also what ha said was that it was Curiashen who asked the question. That answer apparently led to another difficult position. If the first question itself was by Kuruvinalkunnel Kurichert what was the necessity for the same gentleman ask the same question again, The hollowness of the explanation is so apparent that it needs no further elucidation. I do not think that it is necessary to deal with the evidence of Pw. 6 further in this connection. I find his version as absolutely untrue in the light of the unimpeachable evidence given by Pws .2, 3 and 8 regarding the matters spoken to by Pw. 6 in that meeting. I have no hesitation to hold that Pw.6 actively canvassed votes on behalf of the 1st respondent in the meeting held at the residence of Pw 2. 12. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the canvassing made by Pw. 6 in the meeting in favour of the 1st respondent was the result of an effort on the pan of the 1st respondent to obtain or procure his services in furtherance of the election of the 1st respondent. Considering the evidence in the case, in one sense this, perhaps, is the only real question that could be agitated by the 1st respondent. In his written statement as well as in the withess box the 1st respondent pleaded absolute ignorance of the entire meeting and let alone the participation by Pw. 6 in it. 13. I may in this connection consider one complaint of the petitioner. In the withess list the petitioner has included the priest of Lalam Church as a witness. Summons was issued from this court to that withess to appear only 1-9-1977. The summons was returned unserved. On enquiry by the petitioner he was told that the priest left for Ootty on the 16th September, 1977. A communication which went from this court to Pw. 2 seeking information regarding the whereabouts of that priest was answered on the basis that the Lalatn priest went to Ootty to meet his brother. The summons was returned unserved. On enquiry by the petitioner he was told that the priest left for Ootty on the 16th September, 1977. A communication which went from this court to Pw. 2 seeking information regarding the whereabouts of that priest was answered on the basis that the Lalatn priest went to Ootty to meet his brother. Summons was issued to Ootty, and the information received was that the priest was not at Ootty though he came there a few days back. Pw. 7 is the Auxiliary Hishop of Palai. He was questioned regarding the absconding priest. Pw. 7 admitted in the withess box that usually when a priest leaves his station for long periods it was usual for such priest to give the necessary information to the Hishop As far as Lalam priest is concerned no such communication has been received by Pw 2, and Pw. 7 admitted that the proceeding was very irregular, and that it was a very wrong step on the part of that priest not to have informed the Hishop. According to the petitioner he cited the Lalam priest to prove the exact connection between the 1st respondent and the entire proceedings in that meeting and that it was through the influence of Pw. 2 and the 1st respondent that the priest has been sent to some secret place. The learned counsel wanted me to draw an adverse inference against the 1st respondent on that basis. I too felt that the conduct of the priest of Lalam church is somewhat abnormal in view of the deposition of Pw. 7 to the effect that it was improper on the part of the absconding priest not to have given the necessary information to the Hishop. After the evidence in this case was over and final hearing started a letter dated 5 -12 -1977 was received from Pw. 7, intimating the court that the missing priest joined duty on 1-12-77 and he is in the Learn church. But since the evidence was closed, the petitioner did not insist up-.n summoning that priest as a withess. The entire episode, no doubt, creates the suspicion that somebody wanted to avoid the examination of that withess 14. Regarding the nexus between Pw. 6 and the 1st respondent there is practically no direct evidence. The question his to be decided on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available in the case. The entire episode, no doubt, creates the suspicion that somebody wanted to avoid the examination of that withess 14. Regarding the nexus between Pw. 6 and the 1st respondent there is practically no direct evidence. The question his to be decided on the basis of the circumstantial evidence available in the case. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent drew my attention to the decisions reported in Badn Narain v. Kamdeo Prasad (A1R.1961 Patna 41); Ram Phal v. Braham Parkash (AIR. 1962 Punjab 1299; 5. N. Balakrishna v. Fernandez (AIR 1969 SC. 1201); Umed v. Raj Sing (AIR. 1975 SC. 43); Om Prabha Jain v. .haran Das (AIR. 1975 SC. 1417) and Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain (AIR. 1975 SC. 2299) for explaining the nature of tie trial of corrupt practice alleged in an election petition. These decisions have held that a charge of corrupt practice is very similar to a criminal charge, and laid down the standard of proof and other essential elements regarding evidence in cases of that kind. I do not think that it is necessary to examine these decisions separately because the entire position has been elaborately considered and decided by the Supreme Court in M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy AIR 1977 SC 208). Paragraph 19 of the judgment which deals with the question may be read: "We first take up Civil Appeal 583 of 1974 filed by Rao. The principles of law governing election disputes and especially in regard to the charge of a commission of corrupt practice are well established by several decisions of this court- many of which have been noticed in the judgment of the High Court also. We do not propose to refer to any. We shall however, keep the following principles in view in relation to this appeal: (1) That the charge of commission of corrupt practice has to be proved and established beyond doubt like a criminal charge or a quasi criminal charge but not exactly in the manner of establishment of the guilt in a criminal prosecution giving the liberty to the accused to keep mum. The charge has to be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides especially by the election petitioner. (2) That the election held and results declared on the choice of the voters should not be lightly interfered with or get aside by a court of law. The charge has to be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides especially by the election petitioner. (2) That the election held and results declared on the choice of the voters should not be lightly interfered with or get aside by a court of law. After all, in the holding of a fresh election are involved numerous botherations, tremendous expenses, loss of public time and money and the uncertainty of the public representation from a particular constituency. (3) A charge of corrupt practice is easy to level but difficult to prove. If it is sought to be proved only or mainly by oral evidence without there being contemporaneous documents to support it, court should be very careful in scrutinizing the oral evidence and should not lightly accept it unless the evidence is credible, trustworthy, natural and showing beyond doubt the commission of corrupt practice, as alleged. (4) That, this court ordinarily and generally does not, as it ought not to, interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court unless there are compelling reasons for the same especially findings recorded on appreciation of oral evidence. (5) This court, however, does not approve of the finding recorded by the High Court on a misreading or wrong appreciation of the oral evidence especially when it is unsupported or runs counter to the contemporaneous documentary evidence. (6) It must always be borne in mind that the consequences of setting aside of an election on the ground of corrupt practice are very serious for the candidate concerned as well as others involved in it. A court, therefore, should reach its conclusion with care and caution taking into consideration the broad probabilities, the natural conduct of the persons involved and the special situation in which a corrupt practice is alleged to have been committed " Regarding the burden of proof as such the relevant propositions are those contained in paragraphs 1 and 3 extracted above, and it is bearing in mind those principles enunciated by the Supreme Court that I am evaluating the evidence in this case. 15.1 have already found that there is convincing evidence to prove that in the meeting held at the residence of Pw. 2, Pw. 6 actively and vehemently canvassed all assistance on behalf of the 1st respondent, and 1 have also found that the explanation given by Pw. 15.1 have already found that there is convincing evidence to prove that in the meeting held at the residence of Pw. 2, Pw. 6 actively and vehemently canvassed all assistance on behalf of the 1st respondent, and 1 have also found that the explanation given by Pw. 6 in that respect cannot be accepted. A question which normally anybody will be inclined to ask is how Pw. 6 who is working at Trivandrum happened to go to Palas on 12 - 3 -1977 and more particularly to the Hishop's Palace twice? First I may consider the explanation given by Pw. 6 for going to Palai. The father of Pw. ft, who was for a long time the legal adviser to Pw. 2, was laid up and was being treated as an inpatient in a hospital at Bharananganam for the last one and half years or so. Pw. 6 deposed that after attending a camp originally scheduled at Cannanore he reached Ernakulam by about noon on 12 - 3 -1977. He then felt that he must visit his ailing father, and so he applied for leave over phone and proceeded to bharanan-ganam from Ernakulam. In the withess box Pw. 6 did not give any indication that on 12 - 3 -1977 when he reached Ernakulam he got any information that the condition of his father has deteriorated. After evidence was closed in the case the final hearing started, during the course of which I felt that a notice shall issue against Pw. 6 under the proviso to S.99(1) of the Act. During the discussion I asked the question as to why Pw. 6 suddenly fixed up a programme to go to Bharananganam on 12 3 -1977 when he had no case in the withess box that his father got worse. In answer to that notice Pw. 6 filed an objection dated 8 -12 -1977 and in paragraph 17 he has put forward the version that while he met his brother-in-law Sri K. C. Thomas at Ernakulam he told him that the condition of his father has deteriorated. This explanation is apparently the result of an after-thought and to fill up the lacuna in the evidence, which 1 pointed out when the case was initially argued. That apart, it would appear that Pw. 6 is not very careful in stating facts before court. This explanation is apparently the result of an after-thought and to fill up the lacuna in the evidence, which 1 pointed out when the case was initially argued. That apart, it would appear that Pw. 6 is not very careful in stating facts before court. One averment in the objection dated 8-12-1977 filed by him in answer to the notice under S.99 is that sufficient time was not given to him to file objections, to paragraph 21 of his objection it is stated that he received the notice issued by the court on 3-12-1977 for appearing on 5 -12 -1977 thereby indicating that he got only a day to contact a senior lawyer at Madras for the purpose of preparing that objection. The endorsement of the process server on the summons issued from the court shows that Pw. 6 was served with notice at 11-15 a. m. on 1-12 - 1977. There is also the endorsement of Pw. 6 himself on the summons that he accepted it at 11-15 a. m. on 1-12-1977. It was suppressing that fact that he averred in paragraph 21 of his objection dated 8-12-77 that he received the notice only on 3-12-1977 apparently for lending support to his objection that sufficient opportunity was not given to him to put up his defence. At the time of the final arguments when this wrong statement was brought to the notice of the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of Pw. 6, the learned counsel pleaded that it was a mistake. I do not wish to pronounce any opinion on that. It shall not also be forgotten that Pw. 6 is now the City Commissioner of Police, Ernakulam and whose office is only 200 or 300 yards away from this court. I am not, therefore, prepared to believe the version of Pw. 6 that on 12-3-1977 he received information regarding his father's health. Further the question whether Pw. 6 had any over-anxiety regarding his father's health is not free from doubt in view of certain other matters spoken to by him in the withess box. To the question whether after 12 - 3-1977 he went to meet his father the reply given by Pw. 6 was that even though he received information that the condition of his father was serious be did not go to meet his father because he feared that there may be allegations against him. To the question whether after 12 - 3-1977 he went to meet his father the reply given by Pw. 6 was that even though he received information that the condition of his father was serious be did not go to meet his father because he feared that there may be allegations against him. I fail to understand what allegation could have been made against Pw. 6 by anybody if he went to see his ailing father whose condition was steadily deteriorating. I am unable to accept the case of Pw. 6 that on 12 - 3 -1977 he went to Palai to meet his father. Again, he was asked whether he went to his house after 12 - 3 -1977. His answer was that he went to the house only once If Pw. 6 dreaded to go to his house one can normally visualise the resentment the public there had against the activities of Pw. 6. 16 Assuming that Pw. 6 went to meet his father he has to offer proper explanation why he went to the Hishop's Palace twice. According to Pw 6 when he went to the hospital at Bharananganam to meet his father his first cousin informed him that the Chancellor priest attached to Pw. 2 wanted to negotiate a marriage proposal for Antony, the younger brother of Pw. 6. It was for the purpose of negotiating that marriage that he went from the hospital to the Hishop's residence. According to Pw. 6 he met Pw. 2, who made the usual enquiry regarding his father's health, and thereafter he discussed the marriage proposal referred to above with the Chancellor priest. Pw. 6 deposed that when he met the Chancellor priest the latter was hastily preparing to go in connection with the burial of another priest. One would then naturally wonder whether in such a situation the Chancellor priest would have thought of discussing the marriage problem with Pw. 6 and that too for the first time. Here again, ignoring that circumstance the further movements of Pw. 6 on that day, as spoken to by him, may be examined. Pw. 6 is alleged to have gone to his bouse from the Hishop's Palace round about 4 p. m. He has an elder brother and the younger brother Antony, both of whom were not present in the house. Pw. 6 on that day, as spoken to by him, may be examined. Pw. 6 is alleged to have gone to his bouse from the Hishop's Palace round about 4 p. m. He has an elder brother and the younger brother Antony, both of whom were not present in the house. Pw. 6 deposed that during conversation his mother told him that his elder brother was working against the 1st respondent and that there was some altercation between his brother and the workers of the 1st respondent. Pw. 6 in another portion of his evidence admitted that his younger brother Antony also was not in favour of the 1st respondent. Pw. 6 is alleged to have left his house after taking food and reached the Hishop's Palace the second time at about 8 p. m. in the night. The purpose of the second journey to the Hishop's residence, according to him, was to inform the Chancellor priest that the marriage proposal has to be dropped because the terms were not acceptable. In the withess box he admitted that since Antony was not in the house it was without consulting Antony that be thought of giving the negative reply to the Chancellor priest. The reason alleged by Pw. 6 was that the terms of Antony's marriage were already discussed between himself and Antony and there was no necessity to consult Antony before refusing the offer made by the Chancellor priest. Here again, the explanation offered by Pw. 6 appears to be rather strange. If the terms of" the marriage of Antony were already settled between the two brothers and if the terms put forward by the Chancellor priest were not acceptable, one fails to understand what difficulty there was on the part of Pw. 6 to refuse the marriage proposal the moment it was suggested by the Chancellor priest at 4 p. m. It is interesting in this connection to note that subsequently Antony's marriage took place, and Pw. 6 did not participate in the negotiations for that marriage. Consequently, the reason alleged by Pw. 6 for going to the residence of Pw. 2 at about 8 p. m. is also unconvincing. 17. The events subsequent to the arrival of Pw. 6 at the Hishop's Palace at about 8 p. m. also may be examined. According to Pw. 6 did not participate in the negotiations for that marriage. Consequently, the reason alleged by Pw. 6 for going to the residence of Pw. 2 at about 8 p. m. is also unconvincing. 17. The events subsequent to the arrival of Pw. 6 at the Hishop's Palace at about 8 p. m. also may be examined. According to Pw. 6 when he reached the Palace a waiter told him that the Chancellor priest was in the dining hall. So Pw. 6 went to the dining hall where he found a meeting going on. He saw the Chancellor priest standing near the door connecting the kitchen and the dining hall. According to Pw. 6 he went to the place where the Chancellor priest was standing, and there was a screen near the door. It was while speaking to the Chancellor priest that he answered a querry from an unascertained person regarding the election Pw. 6 is alleged to have remained in the hall only for about 5 or 10 minutes. In an earlier portion of his deposition Pw. 6 stated that he left the Hishop's Palace at 8.45 p. m. So in view of his subsequent version that he remained in the dining hall for only 5 or 10 minutes a question will arise as for what ha did during the remaining 30 or 40 minutes because he reached the Hishop's Palace as early as 8 p.m. Pw. 6 was asked a pointed question whether in the deposition of the previous day his statement that he left the Hishop's palace at 8.45 p.m. was false. His answer was Even more curious is the version given by him regarding the reaction he had when he saw the gathering in the dining hall. From the discussion going on there he knew that it was an election meeting. Still he never wanted to go away because he had to meet the Chancellor priest to inform him regarding the dropping of the marriage proposal. Pw. 6 deposed that he was perplexed and confused, for what purpose I am unable to understand. The evidence of Pw. 8 shows that Pw. 6 was, as a matter of fact, sitting behind Pw. 8 on his left side; and I have already found that the version given by Pw. 6 regarding the actual words he spoke during the discussion is wholly untrustworthy. The evidence of Pw. 8 shows that Pw. 6 was, as a matter of fact, sitting behind Pw. 8 on his left side; and I have already found that the version given by Pw. 6 regarding the actual words he spoke during the discussion is wholly untrustworthy. I may in this connect ion repeat the evidence furnished by Pw. 3 to the effect that on that day when Pw. 3 reached the Hishop's Palace between 7 and 8 p.m. he saw Pw. 6 with Pw. 2. That certainly was before the meeting commenced. There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Pw. 3 and Pw. 8, whose evidence has been elaborately discussed by me on an earlier occasion. From the foregoing discussion it follows that it is very difficult to accept the explanation of Pw. 6 regarding his sudden decision to go to Palai and also to be present at the residence of Pw. 2 twice on 12 - 3 -1977. What then is the legitimate inference that can be drawn from the incidents relating to the activities of Pw. 6? Here is a police officer working at Trivandrum going to the Hishop's Palace at Palai on 12-3-1977, addressing a meeting held there and openly canvassing votes for the 1st respondent, who was at the relevant time a Minister. Pws. 6 is the seniormost Superintendent of Police. One cannot presume that he acted in ignorance of law. Under S.129(2) of the Act the conduct of Pw. 6 amounts to an electoral offence even if he acted without the direction or consent of the 1st respondent. In other words, in attending the meeting and making speeches there in support of the 1st respondent, Pw. 6 was taking a great risk, and from the evidence of Pws. 2 and 3 it is seen that even during that meeting Pw. 6 declared that he was prepared to suffer even the loss of his job. In the objection dated 8-12-1977 filed by Pw. 6 in answer to the notice under S.99 of the Act Pw. 6 did not offer any explanation, and it was represented before me by the learned counsel appearing for Pw. 6 that he does not propose to cross-examine any of the withesses already examined in the case or tender any other evidence. In other words, Pw. 6 in answer to the notice under S.99 of the Act Pw. 6 did not offer any explanation, and it was represented before me by the learned counsel appearing for Pw. 6 that he does not propose to cross-examine any of the withesses already examined in the case or tender any other evidence. In other words, Pw. 6 has to give only the explanation which he gave in the withess box, and which I found to be wholly unacceptable. The normal conclusion that could be drawn from these circumstances is that in all probability Pw. 6 faced the risk out of fear or favour, and either of which could have emanated only from the 1st respondent because it was the 1st respondent alone who was benefited by the impugned activities of Pw. 6. 18. It may not be out of place to consider in this connection the activities of the 1st respondent on 12-3-1977. It is admitted by the 1st respondent when he was examined as Rw.1 that on 12-3-1977 he was at Palai in connection with his election campaign. Notices were published regarding the meetings he had to address on 12-3-1977. One meeting was scheduled at 8.00 p.m. The version given by Rw.1 is that at 7.00 p.m. he went to Kottayam to attend some official work and then came back to Palai at about 10.00 p.m. That would mean that during the period when the meeting was going on in the residence of Pw. 2 the 1st respondent wanted to make it cut that he was at Kottayam. As correctly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, if the personal staff of the 1st respondent could go upto Kottayam nothing prevented them from going to Palai to get the official papers cleared by the 1st respondent if there was any urgency to clear the official work. The 1st respondent has the further case that the same night after addressing a meeting at 10.30 or so at Palai he again went back to Kottayam round about 12.00 in the night. That version will naturally give rise to another question. The 1st respondent has the further case that the same night after addressing a meeting at 10.30 or so at Palai he again went back to Kottayam round about 12.00 in the night. That version will naturally give rise to another question. If the programme of the 1st respondent was to camp at Kottayam in the night there was no necessity for him to adjourn the meeting originally scheduled to be held at 8.00 p.m. He could have addressed that meeting and conveniently gone to Kottayam because his staff were already waiting there, and there is nothing in the case to indicate that the clearance of the file at about 8 or 8-30 p.m. was absolutely essential. The suggestion of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this version of the 1st respondent regarding his departure to Kottayam from Palai and subsequent return to Palai is only a story invented for the purpose of suggesting that at the time when the meeting was going on in the residence of Pw. 2 the 1st respondent was not in station. There is reason to doubt the version of Rw.1 that he was absent from Palai between 7.00 p. m. and 10 or 10.30 p, m. Pw. 5 is the driver of one Cholikkara Mathei. Cholikkara Mathei was one of the laymen who attended the meeting held on 12-3-1977 at the residence of Pw. 2, and according to Pw. 5, Mathei and himself reached at the Hishop's residence at about 8.00 p. m. Pw. 5 deposed that on 12-3-1977 he saw the 1st respondent at the courtyard on the left side of the Hishop's residence. According to him he saw 1st respondent only going inside the building and did not see 1st respondent returning from that place. At the time of his examination as a withess Pw. 5 bad left the services of Cholikkara Matheiand for the last five months he was working as a driver in Malabar. In the cross-examination suggestions were made that he is connected with the 2nd respondent who also belongs to Ramapuram. But that by itself will not be a ground for totally disregarding the evidence of Pw. 5. 1 think, the version of Pw. 5 that he saw the 1st respondent in the night going to the Hishop's house is quite probable. In the cross-examination suggestions were made that he is connected with the 2nd respondent who also belongs to Ramapuram. But that by itself will not be a ground for totally disregarding the evidence of Pw. 5. 1 think, the version of Pw. 5 that he saw the 1st respondent in the night going to the Hishop's house is quite probable. Assuming that the 1st respondent left Palai at 7.00 p. m. or so, that does not improve his case because during the day time he was at Palai and there was absolutely no difficulty for him to contact whomsoever he wanted in connection with the meeting The presence of the 1st respondent at Palai on 12-3-1977, according to me, is a strong circumstance indicating that the sudden decision of Pw. 6 to take leave and go to Palai on the 12th was not a mere coincidence. 19. There was a suggestion by the 1st respondent that there was no necessity for him to procure the assistance of either Pw. 2 or Pw. 6. That indeed is a factor which has to be seriously considered. I am tempted in this connection to consider in some detail the circumstances connected with the election in dispute. It is true that in the election the 1st respondent has won by a substantial majority of 14857 votes. But the circumstances obtained before the election are not to be adjudged on the basis of the actual result. What is relevant is the state of affairs as obtained when the candidates and their political affiliations were known and the election campaigns were launched by the contesting candidates. The 1st respondent was contesting from this constituency from 1965 onwards. He won the election by a margin of nearly 10000 votes in 1965. In the 1967 election he won by a margin of approximately 3000 votes. In the 1970 election he won by a margin of only 364 votes. The political alignments on each occasion, no doubt, differed. But it would appear that in the last election the margin was comparatively small. Rw.1 deposed that in the 1970 election while he was contesting as a candidate of the Kerala Congress all other parties united and opposed him. It is again admitted by Rw 1 that, of the individual political parties, Kerala Congress was the strongest party in his constituency. Rw.1 deposed that in the 1970 election while he was contesting as a candidate of the Kerala Congress all other parties united and opposed him. It is again admitted by Rw 1 that, of the individual political parties, Kerala Congress was the strongest party in his constituency. Kerala Congress split into two dependent groups sometime in 19761st respondent headed one group, while the rival group known as 'Pillai group' was headed by Sri R. Balakrishna Pillai Petitioner in this case was the 'Mandalam' president of the Kerala Congress, and after the split in the party he joined the 'Pillai group'. There was no trial of strength as between the 1st respondent's group on the one part and the Pillai group on the other in order to ascertain the following each group had among the party's former members. So before the poll it was not possible to believe that the Kerala Congress was entirely behind the 1st respondent. The answer of the 1st respondent to that aspect is that in the present election he contested as a candidate of the ruling front because the Kerala Congress headed by him has joined the ministry even before this election. So, it is argued that even if there was a split in the Kerala Congress at the time of this election, the 1st respondent had the support of the Congress, CPI and the other United Front groups. It has come out from the evidence of Rw. that the Marxist party invariably got round about 9000 votes in the previous elections when they put up their candidates. The 2nd respondent who was the main rival to the 1st respondent in this election was in the Indian National Congress, and it was after resigning from Congress that he gave nomination in this election as an independent candidate, and he had the support of the Marxist party, Pillai group of the Kerala Congress and other minor groups. The 2nd respondent was also the President of the Ramapuram Panchayat, and though he resigned from the Congress some of his old Congress colleagues were supporting him. To add to the confusion there was another significant development as far as the Catholic community was concerned. It appears that the Central Government sometime back took a decision that the Pope could appoint Catholic Hishops in India only with the concurrence of the Central Government. To add to the confusion there was another significant development as far as the Catholic community was concerned. It appears that the Central Government sometime back took a decision that the Pope could appoint Catholic Hishops in India only with the concurrence of the Central Government. That created some resentment in the mind of the Catholic community as a whole against the Central Government and the Indian National Congress. Rw.l himself was prepared to admit that the community did not like the interference by State and that personally he also felt that the restriction imposed by the Central Government was unnecessary. It was under such circumstances that an analysis of the situation was made in an article in the English Daily ' Indian Express' dated 12 - 3 -1977, which was marked as Ext. XI in this case. Ext. P2 is a copy of an issue of the 'Indian Express' dated 11- 3 -1977. The front page of the paper contains an article with the heading "O Lord! We pray to Thee ". The article deals with the attitude of the church regarding the election. It refers to the resentment felt by the Church regarding the restriction imposed by the Central Government in the matter of Hishopss' appointment by the Pope. Some of the Hishops are stated to have apprised the Prime Minister of the position. The article inter alia states as follows: "With the advent of the Kerala Congress the bulk of the Catholic votes used to go to its men. Now the Kerala Congress itself is split. The community is politically so divided to-day that any writ from the Church will have no meaning and will not run everywhere." Ext. P2 was followed by Ext. XI, which is the issue of the same paper dated 12-3-1977. Ext. XI article bears the heading "Factionalism may spell Mani's Ruin". An attempt is made in the article to analyse the respective positions of respondents 1 and 2 in this case. The advantage which the 1st respondent has and the disadvantages he has to face are dealt with in some detail. The sentence which Pw. 2 read in the meeting from Ext. An attempt is made in the article to analyse the respective positions of respondents 1 and 2 in this case. The advantage which the 1st respondent has and the disadvantages he has to face are dealt with in some detail. The sentence which Pw. 2 read in the meeting from Ext. XI is as follows: "Another vital factor is that the Catholic Church has chosen to remain silent this time." That sentence was followed by the sentence: "Probably they do not want to interfere in a fight between two Catholics Though Joseph is backed by the entire Opposition he cannot be dubbed as a Communist " Pw. 2 has deposed that it was because of Ext. XI article as well as the anonymous letters he received to the effect that the Church is against the 1st respondent that the meeting on 12-3-1977 was convened. The 1st respondent admitted that the electorate in his constituency were highly politically conscious and educated and that Indian Express has good circulation. Consequently, Exts P2 and XI and the other circumstances mentioned above show that the situation that prevailed in the constituency was fluid and unpredictable. It may be remembered, in this connection that Rw.1 was contesting for the fourth time from the very same constituency, and it is almost certain that he is familiar to the concerned electorate. Nevertheless, it has emerged from the evidence of Rw.1 that this time there was intensive campaign and that he went for house to house campaign even. That apparently shows the state of affairs in the constituency at that time. Therefore, it is difficult to presume that the 1st respondent was not aware of the situation and did not entertain an apprehension. The uncertainty regarding the strength of the Kerala Congress supporting him, the lethergy shown by the Church as reported in Exts P2 and XI, the influence the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent have in their individual capacity, etc., are factors which had to be reckoned with when the election campaign was going on. The press reports further show that even though the 2nd respondent resigned from the Indian National Congress and gave nomination as an independent candidate, a section at least of the Congress and especially its youth wing were still supporting the 2nd respondent. The press reports further show that even though the 2nd respondent resigned from the Indian National Congress and gave nomination as an independent candidate, a section at least of the Congress and especially its youth wing were still supporting the 2nd respondent. From the evidence of Pw 6 it is seen that his elder brother was openly opposing the 1st respondent, and in fact there was some altercation between him and the workers of the 1st respondent Antony, the younger brother of Pw. 6, who was an Advocate, also was not supporting the 1st respondent. It cannot, therefore, be said that the 1st respondent could have entertained any reasonable certainty regarding his success. The fact that the press reports created some doubt in the mind of even people like Pw. 2 is indicative of the circumstance that doubts could have been raised in the minds of many ordinary voters. Such being the situation, the 1st respondent had to device more effective means of election propaganda. One step which the 1st respondent could normally take was to get the support of the Church, and to silence the other opponents by some other means. It should be remembered that despite some relaxation the emergency was still in force. The police were then the most dreaded weapon in the armoury of the executive. The 1st respondent was, during the election period, a Minister, though he was handling the portfolio of Finance Considering the situation in the constituency and his own position, the twin forces which the 1st respondent could effectively use were the church and the police. Pw. 6 belonged to Edamat-tom, which is in the constituency of the 1st respondent. Again, to silence the brothers of Pw. 6 the main weapon the 1st respondent could use was Pw. 6. It is in this background that the meeting at the Hishop's Palace on 12- - 3 -1977 and the strong canvassing made by Pw. 6 in that meeting in favour of the 1st respondent are to be appreciated. To repeat, the meeting was attended by a large number of priests and some prominent citizens of the locality who welded influence. Canvassing by Pw.2 and the canvassing by Pw. 6 would necessarily create the impression in the minds of the people that the spiritual as well as the temporal forces were actively supporting the 1st respondent. To repeat, the meeting was attended by a large number of priests and some prominent citizens of the locality who welded influence. Canvassing by Pw.2 and the canvassing by Pw. 6 would necessarily create the impression in the minds of the people that the spiritual as well as the temporal forces were actively supporting the 1st respondent. 20 I feel that there is another circumstance which shall not be overlooked. In the meeting convened by Pw. 2 persons were particularly invited. Pw. 6 was not invited even according to Pw. 2. Anyone will be tempted to ask the question how in such a meeting Pw. 2 permitted Pw. 6 not only to participate but also to speak on three or four occasions unless the whole thing was a clearly pre-arranged plan. 21. The conduct of the 1st respondent after the election also is a relevant circumstance to be taken into consideration. In the written statement as well as in the withess box the; position taken up by the 1st respondent was a complete denial of his association with both the meeting on '2-3 -1977 and the canvassing by Pw. 6. According to Rw.1 he was completely ignorant of the entire episode. He admitted that after the election he had occasion to meet Pw. 2 and the latter asked him about the election petition According to Rw.1 he refused to discuss the matter further because this petition was pending. If the 1st respondent knew about the meeting only after this petition, one would normally expect from a person of his position to make some enquiry as to what transpired in that meeting so that he can place the entire material before court. Stranger still is his conduct in relation to Pw 6. The 1st respondent became the Home Minister. It is admitted by Rw.1 that though he received representations for initiating appropriate action against Pw. 6 he kept silence because of the legal advice given to him to the effect that it is not advisable to do anything when the election petition is pending before this court. I do not find fault with the 1st respondent for abiding by the legal opinion he received. But my doubt is not in that area. The police department is under the control of the 1st respondent when he became the Minister of the Home Department. I do not find fault with the 1st respondent for abiding by the legal opinion he received. But my doubt is not in that area. The police department is under the control of the 1st respondent when he became the Minister of the Home Department. If the 1st respondent was wholly ignorant of the part played by Pw. 6 he could have, after filing this election petition, at least ascertained from Pw. 6 whether that police officer participated and canvassed votes as alleged in the petition, not for the purpose of initiating any regular action but to give some explanation to this court regarding the conduct of that officer. The situation now obtained is that the 1st respondent has no explanation to give regarding the conduct of either Pw. 2 in the matter of convening the meeting or of Pw. 6 participating in that meeting. As already referred to, except his version in the withess box which I disbelieved for the reasons already stated, Pw. 6 also does not give any explanation. The 1st respondent was a practising lawyer, and his attitude appears to be that his position is just like the accused in a criminal case and that he can keep mum. I may repeat the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venata Reddy (AIR 1977 SC 208): "That the charge of commission of corrupt practice has to be proved and established beyond doubt like a criminal charge or a quasi-criminal charge but not exactly in the manner of establishment of the guilt in a criminal prosecution giving the liberty to the accused to keep mum The charge has to be proved on appraisal of the evidence adduced by both sides especially by the election petitioner;" The attitude of the 1st respondent almost approximates to the instance of an accused in a criminal proceeding taking the liberty to keep mum. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that even if the well-known tests available in criminal cases like motive, opportunity, incident, subsequent conduct, etc., should be there to prove the guilt by circumstantial evidence, such evidence is abundant in this case. Regarding the opportunity of the 1st respondent to procure or obtain the services of Pw. 6 there was no difficulty because the 1st respondent was a Minister and Pw. 6 was a police officer working at Trivandrum. Regarding the opportunity of the 1st respondent to procure or obtain the services of Pw. 6 there was no difficulty because the 1st respondent was a Minister and Pw. 6 was a police officer working at Trivandrum. The motive of the 1st respondent in securing the help of the church and Pw. 6 has already been explained by me on the basis of the uncertainties obtained in the constituency during the election period. Regarding the event, at the risk of repetition I may say that the conduct of Pw. 6 in participating and speaking in the meeting on 12-3-1977 at grave risk can only be attributed to fear or favour emanating from the 1st respondent, who alone was benefited by that activity. Regarding subsequent conduct there is the absence of any explanation by the 1st respondent regarding the activities of Pw. 2 and Pw. 6 Again, the presence of the 1st respondent at Palai on the crucial date is not a mere coincidence. The evidence in the case, according to me is credible, trustworthy, natural and showing beyond any doubt the Commission of corrupt practice as alleged, and thereby satisfying the guideline given by the Supreme Court in M. Narayana Rao v. G. Venkata Reddy (AIR. 1977 SC. 208). In P. R Belagani v. B. D. Jatti (AIR. 1971 SC. 1348) it was held as follows: "Free and fair elections are the very foundation of democratic institutions and just as it is said that justice must not only be done but must also seem to be done, similarly elections should not only be fairly and properly held but should also seem to be so conducted as to inspire confidence in the minds of the electors that everything has been above board and has been done to ensure free elections. The police and the government officers should not create even an impression that they are interfering for the benefit of one or the other candidate. This is particularly so if a candidate is holding an important position or assignment like a Minister in the State." I need not emphasise that the above dictum applies with full force to the facts of this case considering the position of the 1st respondent and Pw. 6. Hence on a careful analysis of the evidence in the case I am satisfied that the 1st respondent obtained and procured the services of Pw. 6. Hence on a careful analysis of the evidence in the case I am satisfied that the 1st respondent obtained and procured the services of Pw. 6, a police officer, in furtherance of the prospects of the election of the 1st respondent, and the corrupt practice set out in sub-section (7) of S.123 of the Act has been established beyond any doubt. 23. After closing the evidence in this case the petition was heard by me on 29 -11-1977, and after hearing both sides I felt that a notice must be issued to Pw. 6 under the proviso to S. 99 (1) of the Act to show cause why be should not be named as a person guilty of corrupt practice when final orders are to be passed under Ss.98 and 99 of the Act. A notice was consequently issued to Pw. 6 to appear before this court on 5 -12 -1977 to show cause why he should not be named as a person guilty of corrupt practice under S.123 (7) of the Act. Pw. 6 filled a review petition dated 7-12-1977 (No. 158/ 1977) challenging the order issuing notice. That petition was dismissed by me by order dated 7-12-1977, Along with the review petition Pw. 6 also moved C.M.P. No. 18993/77 praying time to file objections, and I granted a day's time. On 8 -12 -1977 Pw. 6 filed an objection substantially on the lines of the grounds stated in the review petition. In the objection Pw. 6 inter alia contended that no corrupt practice under S.123(7) of the Act has been proved in this case, and that alternatively even if the corrupt practice is proved the 1st respondent alone is liable to be named as guilty of corrupt practice. Pw. 6 submitted to the court that he does not propose to cross-examine any of the withesses examined and that he has no other evidence to give. Consequently his objection were heard on merits along with the final hearing of the election petition. Regarding the question whether corrupt practice under S.123(7) or the Act has been proved, I have already entered the finding answering that question in the affirmative. 24. The only point urged by Pw. Consequently his objection were heard on merits along with the final hearing of the election petition. Regarding the question whether corrupt practice under S.123(7) or the Act has been proved, I have already entered the finding answering that question in the affirmative. 24. The only point urged by Pw. 6 is that he does not fall within the three categories of persons mentioned in S.123(7) of the Act, namely, candidate, his election agent or any other person with the consent and knowledge of the candidate or his agent. There is no allegation in the petition that Pw. 6 himself obtained the assistances of any of the officers mentioned in S.123(7). In view of these facts and circumstance Pw. 6 would contend that his name cannot be mentioned in the order as a person guilty of the corrupt practice under S.123(7) of the Act. 25. It is true that there is no allegation that Pw. 6 obtained the assistance of any of the officers mentioned in S.123(7) and that he does not fall under the three categories, namely, candidate, his election agent or third party. For a proper appreciation of this contention it is necessary to analyse briefly the contents and scope of S.123 of the Act. S.123 of the Act contains 7 subsections and excluding sub-section (6) the other sub-sections follow more or less the same drafting pattern. Sub-section (1) deals with bribery. Sub-section (2) deals with undue influence. Sub-section (3) is concerned with the appeal by the candidate or his agent, etc., to vote or retrain from voting for any person on the ground of his religion, race, caste, community or language. Sub-section (3A; relates to promotion of feelings of enmity or haired between different classes of the citizens of India on grounds of religion, race, caste, community, or language. Sub-section (4) is directed against attacks against the personal character or conduct of any candidate. Sub-section (5) prohibits the hiring or procuring of any vehicle or vessel for the free conveyance of any elector. Sub-section (o) relates to incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of S.77. The corrupt practice provided for in sub-section (7) is the obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure any assistance from the officers mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of that sub-section. Sub-section (o) relates to incurring or authorising of expenditure in contravention of S.77. The corrupt practice provided for in sub-section (7) is the obtaining or procuring or abetting or attempting to obtain or procure any assistance from the officers mentioned in clauses (a) to (g) of that sub-section. Apart from enumerating the activities that are considered as corrupt practice for the purposes of the Act, S. 123 does not specifically mention as to the person who can be held as guilty of corrupt practice. The expression "corrupt" normally means 'Mained with vice" and the term "practice" necessarily pre-supposes some positive act. The acts prohibited by the various sub-sections of S.123 can be done only by some person, and excluding sub-section (6) in all other sub-sections the persons named are the candidate, his agent, or a third party. Each one of sub-sections (1) to (5) deals with separate individual acts. If the person named in any one of the sub-sections is involved in any activity prohibited under that sub-section, he is guilty of corrupt practice under the relevant sub-section. In other words, the person guilty of corrupt practice is the "doer" of the act prohibited by the various sub-sections of S.123. It is not disputed by Pw. 6 that as tar as subsections (1) to (5) are concerned if any act prohibited by any of those sub-sections is done by a candidate, his agent or a third party, the doer is guilty of corrupt practice. The question now is whether sub-section () stands on a different footing in that respect. Sub-sections (2) and (3A) include the attempt to do the prohibited act also as a corrupt practice. As already referred to above, sub-section (6) stands on an entirely different footing; and a consideration of the stop of that provision is not necessary in this context. Sub-section (7) may now be examined bearing in mind the observations made by me relating to subsections (1) to (5). As already referred to above, sub-section (6) stands on an entirely different footing; and a consideration of the stop of that provision is not necessary in this context. Sub-section (7) may now be examined bearing in mind the observations made by me relating to subsections (1) to (5). A reading of sub-section (7) shows that it is wider in amplitude then sub-sections (i) to (5) in two respects: firstly, not only the commission or attempt to commit but even an abetment by the persons named in the sub-section will attract that provision, and secondly, while sub-sections (1) to (S) deal with individual acts, the expression used in sub section (7) is 'any assistance" The reading of sub-section (7) would further show that the object of the legislature was to prohibit the officers mentioned in that sub-section from rendering "any assistance". The prohibited act in the sub-section is rendering of "any assistance" by the office is mentioned m that sub-section. thus, the doer of the act is the officer and not the candidate or his agent or the third party as in sub-sections (1) to (5). In sub-sections (1) to (5) the candidate,. his agent, or the third party, as the case may be, himself does the act prohibited. But as far as sub-section) is concerned, the part played by the candidate, agent or the third party is to obtain or procure any assistance of the officer. So the real doer of the prohibited act is the officer who renders the assistance alleged in the petition. If for the purpose of sub-sections (1) to (5) it is the doer of the Act who is guilty of the corrupt practice, it will be illogical to say that under sub-section (7) the officer, who is the doer of the act (by rendering any assistance) is not guilty of corrupt practice. On the other hand, in view of the wide amplitude of sub-section (7) there is all the more the reason to hold that the officer who renders any assistance is undoubtedly guilty of corrupt practice. I have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the contention of Pw. 6 that he is not guilty of the corrupt practice under S.123(7) and that his name should not be mentioned in the order under S.99 of the Act as a person guilty of corrupt practice. A separate order under S.99 of the Act is simultaneously passed. 26. I have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the contention of Pw. 6 that he is not guilty of the corrupt practice under S.123(7) and that his name should not be mentioned in the order under S.99 of the Act as a person guilty of corrupt practice. A separate order under S.99 of the Act is simultaneously passed. 26. Issue Ao. 3. Since the corrupt practice specified in S.123(7) of the Act has been committed by the 1st respondent in the disputed election, the election cannot be sustained, and has only to be set aside The prayer of the petitioner to declare the 2nd respondent as elected cannot be allowed for obvious reasons, and that prayer has only to be rejected. In the result, the election of the 1st respondent to the Legislative Assembly of Kerala from 94 Palai Assembly Constituency is hereby set aside, and the election is declared as void. The prayer of the petitioner to declare the 2nd respondent as elected is rejected. The election petition is allowed as above. The petitioner will get his costs from the 1st respondent, and advocate's fee is fixed at Rs 1,500/e The petitioner is also entitled to recover costs from Pw. 6, and the advocate's fee is determined at Rs. 500/-. The Office will communicate the substance of this decision to the Election Commission and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Kerala. It shall also send an authenticated copy of this decision to the Election Commission, as soon as it is ready, as provided in S.103 of the Act.