Judgment :- 1. K. P. Raman, the defeated candidate from (No. 27 seat reserved for schedule caste) Kunnamangalam Constituency in the general election to the Kerala Assembly held in March 1987 wants to declare the election of the first respondent void on several grounds and he also wants to declare him elected. Petitioner contested as the candidate of I. U. M. L., one of the constituents of the U. D. F., his election symbol being ladder. First respondent was the candidate of C. P. I. (M), an ally of the L. D. F. Other candidates were respondents 2 and 3. Real fight was between petitioner and first respondent. Margin of success of R1 was 293 votes. 2. Grounds are (1) Nine instances of double voting (2) Names of 37 persons who did not attain the age of 21 as on 1-1-1987 were entered in the electoral rolls and they exercised franchise (3) In Polling station No. 119 wrong instrument was given by the polling staff to 38 voters and those votes were wrongly rejected as invalid (4) Wrong sorting and counting of votes polled in favour of the petitioner to the credit of other candidates mentioning the detected number in tables 16, 18, 19 and 20 as 397 (5) Counting staff did not fill up part II of form 16 as enjoined by R.56 (7) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 and hence it was filled up by Assistant Returning Officer (6) Request for rectification of miscounting by the election agent was rejected (7) P. W.12 the election agent applied for recount and also filed a second detailed application as directed by the Returning Officer. But no orders were passed and (8) certain corrupt practices as detailed below. (a) On 6-3-1987 at 6 P.M. in a meeting at Kunnamangalam in the presence of R1 a C.P.I. leader Gangadharan Nair and one Abdulkharim (a) Elamaram Kharim made inflammatory speeches characterising the petitioner as a cheruman (low caste) and a Muslim and stating that if he wins the election, temples of Hindus will be destroyed and mosques constructed in their places and Hindus will be converted into Islam, making particular reference to the Babri Masjid dispute which was characterised as an attempt by Muslims to convert Sri Rama Jenma Bhoomi into a Masjid with the leadership of Mr. Ibrahim Sulaiman Sait and Benatwala (M. Ps.), leaders of the I.U.M.L. and stating that the I.U.M.L. which is supporting the petitioner is a party conspiring against the Hindus and killing a large number of Hindus in the name of Babri Masjid dispute. It was with the knowledge and consent of the first respondent that such speeches were made in an attempt to create communal hatred of Hindus against Muslims in order to prevent Hindu votes in favour of the petitioner. (b) There were three other meetings on 15-3-1987, 20-3-1987 and 21-3-1987 at Mavoor Panchayat C.I.T.U. ground, Chittaliplakal and South Arayangode in which also S/S M.K. Kelu, N.E. Balaram and Elamaram Kharim spoke in the same manner to create feelings of disaffection among the Hindus and Muslims against the petitioner and also to promote feelings of enemity or hatred between different communities on the ground of religion and caste and (c) in the meetings held on 20-3-87 and 21-3-1987 Elamaram Kharim, with a view to infuriate the orthodox group among Sunni Muslims against the petitioner, said that if the petitioner wins he will cause the effigy of their leader A. P. Abu Baker Musaliar to be burned in public. All the grounds were denied by R1 in his written statement of objection and the following issues were raised. 1. Whether 9 electors mentioned in Para.9 of the Election Petition have their names entered in the electoral rolls in respect of more than one polling booth in the same constituency and whether they have exercised their votes by voting in more than one polling booth in the same constituency; are not the votes cast by the said 9 voters votes liable to be taken out of count? 2. Whether the 37 voters mentioned in paragraph.9 of the Election Petition have not attained the age of 21 years of 1st January, 1987; are not the said 37 persons not qualified to be enrolled as electors; are not votes cast by the said 37 electors invalid and liable to be taken out of count as invalid votes? 3. 2. Whether the 37 voters mentioned in paragraph.9 of the Election Petition have not attained the age of 21 years of 1st January, 1987; are not the said 37 persons not qualified to be enrolled as electors; are not votes cast by the said 37 electors invalid and liable to be taken out of count as invalid votes? 3. Whether the act of supplying a wrong instrument to affix the seal of 38 voters mentioned in Para.10 by the Presiding Officer at Polling Section No. 119 of the Constituency resulted in the rejection of the said votes; whether the said act of the Presiding Officer amounts to non-compliance with the rules relating to election; are not the 38 votes rejected liable to be taken into account as valid votes cast in favour of the election petitioner? 4. Whether there are miscounting at Table Nos. 16, 18, 19 and 20 at the time of the counting as alleged in Para.11 of the election petition resulting in a total number of 397 votes cast in favour of the election petitioner counted along with the votes cast in favour of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No. 2? 5. Whether the supervisors and counting assistants at Table Nos. 16, 18, 19 and 20 referred to in Para.10 of the election petition are members of the Non-gazetted Officers Union and sympathizers of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)? 6. Whether there has been non-compliance with R.56(7) of the Conduct of Election Rules of 1961 by the Counting Supervisors at the four Tables in not filling up Part II of Form 16 as enjoined by the Rules? 7. Whether the election petitioner lost 397 votes polled in his favour due to the. miscounting at Table Nos. 16,17,18,19 and 20? 8. Whether the agent of the petitioner submitted in writing petitions for recounting under R.63 of the Conduct of the Election Rules of 1961 immediately after the completion of the counting but before the declaration of the results of the election and whether the returning officer passed any order on the petitions for recounting submitted by the election agent of the petitioner? 9. Whether corrupt practices alleged in Para.14, 15, 16 and 17 of the election petition are committed by persons referred to therein with the consent and knowledge of the 1st Respondent? 10. 9. Whether corrupt practices alleged in Para.14, 15, 16 and 17 of the election petition are committed by persons referred to therein with the consent and knowledge of the 1st Respondent? 10. Whether the speeches delivered by the 1st respondent and other persons with his consent at the meetings referred to in Para.15,16 and 17 of the election petition were attempts to create communal hatred between the Hindus and the Muslims in order to prevent Hindu votes in favour of the petitioner and also intended to infuriate the Orthodox Group of Sunni Muslims against the election petitioner? 11. Whether the results of the election have been materially affected by corrupt practices committed in the interest of the 1st respondent? 12. Whether the election of the 1st respondent is not liable to be declared as void? 13. Whether the petitioner is not entitled to a declaration that he is duly elected to the Kerala State Legislative Assembly from the Kunnamangalam Constituency No. 27 reserved for Scheduled Caste? 14. What should be the order as to costs?" 3. Issue (1) What is made objectionable under S.62(3) and (4) is double voting and not mere double, entry which also may have to be avoided. The votes become void only on account of the exercise of the franchise by the same person more than once and not by the entry of his name more than once. The maximum that could be accepted from the evidence of P. Ws. 16 and 17 and Exts. P2 to P8 electoral rolls proved by them even by a liberal approach is only that the names of six voters were entered twice in the rolls. On the question of double voting their testimonies do not appear convincing. They are partisan witnesses whose tendencies to have an elastic conscience to help the petitioner is clear. If their versions are accepted double voting was detected even at the stage of attempt by standing in the queue and unsuccessful steps were taken for prevention by informing the authorities. The version that those attempts did not succeed was not found appealing to me. Even without any such attempt the indelible ink in the forefinger is a safeguard by which the polling officers could prevent such attempts. There is no case that the ink was erased. The version that those attempts did not succeed was not found appealing to me. Even without any such attempt the indelible ink in the forefinger is a safeguard by which the polling officers could prevent such attempts. There is no case that the ink was erased. If the versions of these two witnesses are accepted, even at the time of polling or at least before counting started the petitioner must have been aware of all details regarding double voting including the identity of the persons, the ballot papers and the polling stations. There is nothing to show that at the time of polling or counting or even after counting when the petition for recounting was filed, any such ground was taken. Evidently the present allegation without full details is only a device for inspection of ballot papers which is otherwise not possible. P. Ws. 16 and 17 were not able to inspire confidence in me when they gave evidence regarding double voting in six cases. 4. In order to persuade the court the best available evidence ought to have been produced. The examination of the polling agents in the concerned polling stations where double voting took place and production and proof of the electoral rolls with them having the entries of voting would have been the best items of evidence instead of examining some interested persons to swear that these persons were found in the queue. Further this is an allegation coming under S.100(1) (d) (iii) or (iv) for which allegation and proof that the result of the election, in so far as it concerned the elected candidate, has been materially affected by the violation is required over and above proof of acceptance of void votes. The margin of success of the first respondent is 293 votes. Even taking for granted that there were 6 instances of double voting and all the votes were in favour of the first respondent, the total number of votes to be rejected as void from those obtained by him under S.62(3) or (4) will only be 12. It will only have the effect of reducing the margin to 281 and it cannot be said to have materially affected the result. Therefore that cause of action is not available. 5. It will only have the effect of reducing the margin to 281 and it cannot be said to have materially affected the result. Therefore that cause of action is not available. 5. Issue (2) Next item is inclusion of the names of 37 persons who did not attain the age of 21 as on 1-1-1987 in the electoral rolls and acceptance of their votes. There is no allegation that in violation of the prohibition contained in S.23 (3) of the 1950 Act the name of any person was entered in the electoral rolls after the last date for marking nominations. Barring that provision and Art.173 of the Constitution, the qualification of a person whose name is included in electoral rolls by the officers of the election commission cannot be questioned when he tries to cast his vote or stand for election or even after the election is over. Preparation and finalisation of the electoral rolls is the exclusive province of the Election Commission. Civil courts or tribunals dealing with election petitions have no jurisdiction in that respect. Revision of electoral rolls is a continuous process. It involves filing of objections, decisions on the objections or disposal of appeals from those orders. Sometimes it may happen that by the time an election is declared these processes are only on the way and not finalised. It may also be that the electoral rolls in force may contain errors which were not rectified. But inspite of all these factors, election will have to conducted. For that purpose it is necessary that the electoral rolls for the time being in force must hold field. Finality of electoral rolls cannot be challenged in a proceeding challenging validily of the election. Right to vote is a statutory right under the Act and hence validity of any vote could be determined only under the provisions of the Act. Entries in the electoral rolls are final and not open to challenge before a court. Whether a person is a minor and as such should not be included in the rolls is only within the powers of the Election Commission to decide and when a decision is taken and name included that also cannot be challenged in court. (See Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (AIR. 1985 SC. 1233), Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh (AIR. 1970 SC. (See Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman (AIR. 1985 SC. 1233), Kabul Singh v. Kundan Singh (AIR. 1970 SC. 340), R. Chandran v. M.V. Marappan (AIR 1973 SC 2362), and R. P. Singh v. R. B. Jha (AIR 1976 SC 2573) ). Further this is also an allegation coming under S.100 (1) (d) for which one of the conditions precedent is that the result in so far as the returned candidate is concerned must have been materially affected. Even accepting the worst condition that all these persons voted in favour of the first respondent and the votes are void, the reduction to be made is only 37 and when taken along with the 12 votes mentioned above, the total number will only be 49. Still the first respondent will have a margin of 244. But the fact remains that the cause of action in this respect was not even attempted to be proved. Therefore this cause of action also must go. 6. Issue (3); But there is some force in the contention that in polling station No. 119 the Returning Officer wrongly rejected 38 votes as invalid. It is admitted by PW6 the presiding officer that these 38 votes were marked by the concerned electors with the wrong instrument supplied by the polling officers due to a bona fide mistake. R.56(2)(b) of the Conduct of Election Rules directs the Returning Officer to reject ballot papers bearing a mark made otherwise than with the instrument supplied for that purpose. The first proviso to that sub-section gives the discretion to the Returning Officer not to reject the ballot paper merely on the ground of defect caused by mistake or failure on the part of the polling staff, in cases covered by clauses (g) and (h) to sub-section (2) alone and not in the case of clause (b). But the real question is whether there is a defect caused by a mistake or failure of the polling staff. If the marking in this case is treated as a defect caused by mistake or failure, the proviso will not permit it to be regularised and the Returning Officer may not have any option. 7. The polling staff are supplied with several instruments, one type of which alone is intended to be given to the voters for making the mark in the ballot paper to exercise choice in favour of a particular candidate. 7. The polling staff are supplied with several instruments, one type of which alone is intended to be given to the voters for making the mark in the ballot paper to exercise choice in favour of a particular candidate. In this connection the learned counsel for the first respondent relied on the decision in Hari Vishnu v. Ahmed Ishaqe (AIR 1955 SC 233) which was rendered under the prior set of rules particularly R.47 which is almost equivalent to the present R.56 with slight difference which is not material for our purpose. In that case what was involved was wrong supply of ballot paper when Assembly election and Parliament election were conducted together. Acceptances of ballot papers in which marking were made in the wrong ballot papers were held to be invalid. But Ram Autar v. Ram Gopal (AIR 1975 SC 2182) involved an identical case coming under R.56 (2) (b) where a wrong instrument was supplied. There it was held that provisions of R.38 and 56 (2) (a) and (b) are mandatory and strict compliance is required and therefore the Returning Officer has no other go but to reject the votes even if the mistake or failure was on his part or on the part of the polling officer because as in clauses (g) and (h) he has no discretion. But at the same time para 30 of that judgment shows that even though the order of the High Court was set aside, the matter was remanded with direction to decide (1) whether the instrument which was used for marking was supplied to the voters by the Presiding Officer or any other member of the polling staff and if the finding on further evidence is in the affirmative, to decide further. (2) Whether such supply would answer the legal requirement of "instrument supplied for the purpose" in R.56 (2) (b). The Supreme Court further said: "If both these issues (1) and (2) are answered in the positive, then and then only he. may proceed to inspection and recount of these 41 votes mentioned in the petition." 8. That means the Supreme Court did not render any verdict that even in the instrument was wrongly supplied by the polling staff it will not come under "instrument supplied for that purpose" in R.56 (2) (b). may proceed to inspection and recount of these 41 votes mentioned in the petition." 8. That means the Supreme Court did not render any verdict that even in the instrument was wrongly supplied by the polling staff it will not come under "instrument supplied for that purpose" in R.56 (2) (b). If such a view was taken there was no necessity to remand the case with the above directions because whatever be the decision of the first factual question, the answer to the second question must be in the negative. The counsel were not able to inform me what happened to the case subsequently. They were also not able to point out any other decision on this point. To me it appears that the object of the provision is to prevent malpractices and not to reject an intention clearly and bonafide expressed by an elector because the object of the election is to decide on the free will of the electors as to who should govern them. In more than one decision the Supreme Court had occasion to say that if the intention is clear from the marking the ballot cannot be rejected. When the marking is not by any instrument brought by the elector or obtained by him from some other source, but by one bonafide supplied by the polling staff, though on the basis of mistake, and the ballot paper is also one supplied correctly for that purpose, ballot must be held as valid because whatever be the other provisions regarding user of instrument for marking, what R.56 (2) (b) provides is only for rejection of ballot paper bearing a mark made "otherwise than with the instrument supplied for that purpose". The provision for rejection has to be strictly applied. The wording is not'instrument that had to be supplied' but only "instrument supplied for the purpose". Therefore when it is admitted or proved beyond doubt that the marking was validly made with the instrument supplied for the purpose and the intention is clear, the ballot cannot be rejected for the simple reason that the polling staff committed a bonafide mistake which did not in any way prevent the intention of the elector being made known. 9. But this aspect is also not going to be of any help to the petitioner. 9. But this aspect is also not going to be of any help to the petitioner. This is also a cause of action coming under S.100 (1) (d) (iii) for which over and above the improper rejection of vote, the additional factor to be established is that the result of the election, so far as the returned candidate is concerned, was materially affected. Even if grounds I to 3 are taken together and these 38 votes are also taken as polled in favour of the petitioner it will only result in reducing the margin. 10. Issues 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. These issues relate to the irregularities in counting and rejection of the request for recount. The allegations in these respects are as vague as anything. There is no specific allegation or evidence that any particular member of the counting staff are members of the N. G. O. Union or sympathisers of C. P. I (M) or they committed any irregularity. Irregularities are alleged only in tables 16, 18,19 and 20. P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, and 5 are counting assistants in those tables. They denied the allegations of irregularities or complaints from any source. P. Ws. 8 to 11 are counting agents of the petitioner in those tables. All of them are partisan witnesses who made it abundantly clear by their evidence that they were swearing with an elastic conscience. Though these witnesses said that altogether 397 votes. (95 in table 18, 85 in table 16, 97 in table 20 and 120 in table 19) in favour of the petitioner were wrongly sorted and counted in favour of the first respondent, Ext.R1 petition for recount was silent in these respects. Admittedly there was an observer and no complaint was made to him P. W. 4 is the returning officer and though the witnesses spoke about irregularities and complaints, P. W. 4 said that everything was smooth and nobody had any complaint. 11. P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on 22-9-1987. P. W. 3 was the counting assistant in table 19: He said that counting in his table started only by 10 AM No specific question regarding any incident in table 18 which resulted in delayed starting of counting in table 19 was alleged in the petition or put to P. Ws.1 to 5 in cross examination. P. Ws. 8 to 11 were examined only on 24-9-1987. P. Ws. 8 to 11 were examined only on 24-9-1987. By that time these witnesses found out a new story of some confusion in table 18 as the reason for delayed starting of counting in table 19. This shows to what extent these partisan witnesses are prepared to go without the prick of conscience. The only allegations in Ext. R1 petition for recount are the rejection of 38 votes with marks by wrong instrument and a doubt "whether votes were exercised in wrong columns". Now new developments come and these witnesses are prepared to support it. Though it is alleged that after filing the original of Ext. R1 a detailed petition for recount was made as directed by P. W. 4, such a version was denied by P. W. 4 and the evidence of the petitioner as P. W.19 in this respect was not at all capable of inspiring confidence in me. From his evidence and demeanour I was led to form the opinion that he could go to any extent to win his cause. If actually another petition was filed after Ext. R1 for recount as alleged by the petitioner and spoken to by him as P. W.19 he could have applied for a copy of the same and produced it. His evidence shows that questions in this connection were being conveniently evaded by him. His election agent was only echoing "his master's voice" in a fishing expedition without his "conscience being least allowed to be pricked" though he was also prepared to go to any extent in helping the petitioner. I think it is better to discard the allegations and evidence in these respects without a further detailed discussion. 12. Non compliance of R.56 (7) of the Conduct of Election R.1961 was raised on the basis of a mistaken statement made by P. W. 4, the Returning Officer, that signing of form 20 and declaration of result was simultaneous. Rale 56 (7) (a) directs the counting supervisor to fill in and sign part II result of counting inform 16 and sub-rule (b) provides that the Returning Officer shall make the entries in a result sheet in form 20. R.63 (6) says that after completing and signing the result sheet in form 20 no application for recount shall be entertained. Rale 56 (7) (a) directs the counting supervisor to fill in and sign part II result of counting inform 16 and sub-rule (b) provides that the Returning Officer shall make the entries in a result sheet in form 20. R.63 (6) says that after completing and signing the result sheet in form 20 no application for recount shall be entertained. But the proviso to that sub-rule says that no step under that sub-rule shall be taken without giving a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to apply for recount under R.63 (2). For that purpose after declaring the number of valid votes of each candidate and before signing form 20 the returning officer has to wait for some time. In this connection the evidence of P. W. 4 has to be read as a whole. In spite of the wrong admission he has made it clear in so many words that he complied with this provision by waiting and giving an opportunity. It has to be remembered that there is no allegation in the petition that no such opportunity was given. What is now attempted is only a trial to take advantage of the mistake. Assuming that P. W. 4 did not comply with the above provisions it is not by itself a ground for allowing inspection or recount unless other grounds are established. 13. Inspection or recount cannot be ordered for the mere asking based on blunt and bald allegations. It must be based on concrete facts supported by details and evidence in support of it. The results of election announced by returning officers are the foundations for formation of stable governments. Such results cannot be allowed to be jeopardised by a whimsical request made for that purposes based on suspicions, however strong they may be. If counting of ballots are interfered on such grounds it will not only result in violation of the secrecy of ballot but also will amount to judicial relaxation of the rules enabling fortune hunters to try their luck especially when the margin is low. That may lead to disastrous results making the result of election subject to judicial review more often than needed under provisions of the Act. That may lead to disastrous results making the result of election subject to judicial review more often than needed under provisions of the Act. On the materials alleged and proved the court must be satisfied that there are prima facie grounds for opening the papers which could be opened only as per orders of court and that too only where is absolutely necessary on concrete and material facts to do justice between the parties in a given case. In this case none of these guidelines are satisfied and hence these issues are found against the petitioner and in favour of the first respondent. 14. Issues 9 to 11:- This allegation is made under S.123 (3A) in connection with speeches in four meetings. The witnesses examined to prove the speeches are pws.12,13,14,15 and 18. The meetings are at Kunnamangalam on 6-3-1987 at 6 p.m., at Mavoor on 15-3-1987, at Chittaliplakalam on 20-3-1987 and at South Arayankode on 21-3-1987. Allegations are that the petitioner was described as a low caste Hindu who is favouring the Muslims, and that if he wins the election all temples will be destroyed and mosques erected and that Hindus will be converted into Islam. Other similar allegations are also there. As held in the decision in K. M. Mani v. P. J. Antony (1978 KLT 673: AIR 1979 SC 234) the petitioner will have to make available by averments in the petition, annexure or schedule, the transcripts of the speeches or a contemporaneous record of the points or at least the substance of the speeches. That was not done. What is alleged in the petition is only the general trend of the speeches in one meeting with a further statement that the same pattern was followed in other meetings. No sensible man will make the speeches in the form alleged or in the manner spoken to by the witnesses at least for the reason that those are impossible contingencies for any elector to believe. How is it possible for the petitioner, if he wins, to destroy temples, convert into mosques, or convert all Hindus into Islam in a country where the rule of law prevails. 15. In the affidavit in support of the corrupt practice Pws.13 and 16 and some other persons were mentioned as those intended to prove the speeches. But pw.16 did not give evidence regarding any speech, but spoke only regarding double voting. 15. In the affidavit in support of the corrupt practice Pws.13 and 16 and some other persons were mentioned as those intended to prove the speeches. But pw.16 did not give evidence regarding any speech, but spoke only regarding double voting. Though Pw.15 was intended to prove the speech at Chittaliplakkal his evidence was regarding the speech at South Arayankode. Though two witnesses (Nos. 32 and 33) were intended to prove the speeches at South Arayankode they were not examined. Though two witnesses were examined (Nos. 28 and 29 in the schedule) to prove the speech at Mavoor they were not mentioned in the affidavit as persons intended to prove that speech. All the witnesses examined are interested persons who claimed to have given evidence from memory without any script of the speeches. Those speeches were not reported in any papers and there is no case that anybody took down even notes of the speeches. 16. A corrupt practice is more in the nature of a criminal charge which involves not only setting at naught the result of the election and disqualification of the elected candidate, but the entire choice of the electorate is toppled. Strict proof beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case is required and preponderance of probabilities will not suffice. When a single corrupt practice is alleged and proved, irrespective of the question whether it has materially affected the result of the election, the choice of the electorate goes. Ext. R2 report in Deshabhimani shows that the allegations and evidence of the petitioner that in the first meeting one K. Gangadharan Nair of the C. P. I. presided is not correct and that the President was one Gangadharan Nair of the Janatha Party. pw.12 only attempted to evade the issue. The version of pw.12 is different from that in the petition. If such evidence from partisan witnesses given solely from memory is accepted without any contemporaneous record in the form of written extracts from the speeches any political party could challenge the election of the opponent with the help of such interested witnesses. Going by the guidelines given in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1986 SC 1253), Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577) and various other decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it is really unsafe to accept the allegations and evidence regarding the corrupt practice. Going by the guidelines given in Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1986 SC 1253), Dhartipakar v. Rajiv Gandhi (AIR 1987 SC 1577) and various other decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it is really unsafe to accept the allegations and evidence regarding the corrupt practice. From the evidence adduced by the petitioner the impression that I gathered was that when the petition was filed the petitioner was not sure of the allegations or the source through which they could be proved. Anyhow he had at his disposal a boast of partisan witnesses ready near the green room to take up any role according to the exigencies of the situation at short notice, requiring only a little bit of rehearsal. The alleged substance of the speeches are highly improbable and unworthy of being believed by any member of the audience. The allegation regarding burning of the effigy of a sunni leader is all the more ridiculous. 17. What is required to be stated in the petition is not only the time, date and places of the speeches as well as names of persons who made the speeches, but also the extracts from the speeches along with the manner and method by which consent was given if the speeches were not made by the candidate or his election agent. So also it must be established that the speeches were made for the furtherance of the prospects of election. The other essential ingredients are promotion of or attempt to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes. None of these aspects are satisfactorily established by the vague and general allegations or the interested and biased evidence. 18. Issue 12 and 13:- It naturally follows that these reliefs cannot be allowed. The petition is without any merits and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the first respondent which I quantify at Rs. 2,000/ Dismissed.