Were this an ordinary civil suit, we could have possibly applied ‘preponderance of probabilities’ which may have resulted in some leeway and latitude in favour of D. Kumar (Election Petitioner) and against A. Raja. However, as per J. Chandrasekhara Rao v. V. Jagapathi Rao, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 229 and M. Chandra v. M. Thangamuthu, (2010) 9 SCC 712, election petitions, including those wherein no allegations of corrupt practices are levelled, have to be treated akin to criminal proceedings and an Election Petitioner has to prove charges levelled ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. This enunciation of law has guided our decision-making. Appeal is allowed.
It is not possible to hold, A. Raja ‘professes’ Christianity. In present time, which is a day and age of intrusive media, including social media, where public figures, including Judges, Politicians and Bureaucrats, are under constant public gaze, it is not easy to hide one’s religion or caste. A production of some photographs or some rituals which may have been performed by A. Raja, nay, even assuming they were actually performed by A. Raja, at cost of repetition, can, in no manner, take place of evidence.
– Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, A. Raja v. D. Kumar, [Civil Appeal No. 2758 of 2023].
