Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11, Or. XII, r.6 – Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss. 8, 33A, 33B, 81, 84, 100 – Appellant was a successful candidate in the election – The respondent preferred an election petition against appellant u/ss. 81 & 84 r/w ss. 100(1)(d)(i)(ii)(iii) & (iv) of 1951 Act alleging, inter-alia, furnishing of false information, non-disclosure of cases pending and those in which appellant was convicted – Appellant filed application u/Or. VII, r.11 of CPC for its rejection – It was contended that mandatory requirements u/ss. 81 and 81(3) were not followed and criminal cases did not fall within ss. 8 & 33A of the Act – High Court was of the opinion that taking in the overall conspectus of facts available on record did not lead to a compelling reason for rejecting petition – Accordingly, application was dismissed – On appeal, held: The alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings u/Or. VII, r.11 of CPC, or even Or. XII, r.6 of CPC – Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations has to be considered after a full trial – The admission of certain facts by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly – Judgment of High Court cannot be faulted.
Constitution of India – Right to vote – The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy – The citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise – This finds articulation in Art. 326 of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. A plain look at the election petition reveals that apart from allegations pertaining to non-disclosure of criminal cases pending against the appellant, or cases where he was convicted, other averments and allegations have been made regarding non-compliance with stipulations regarding information dissemination and the manner of dissemination through publication in newspapers, the font size, the concerned newspapers’ reach amongst the populace, etc. The alleged noncompliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined in what are essentially summary proceedings under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC. Even if the allegations regarding non-disclosure of cases where the appellant has been arrayed as an accused, are ultimately true, the effect of such allegations (in the context of provisions of law and the nondisclosure of all other particulars mandated by the Election Symbols orders) has to be considered after a full trial. The admission of certain facts (and not all) by the election petitioner cannot be sufficient for the court to reject the petition, wholly. Even in respect of the undeniable nature of the judicial record, the effect of its content, is wholly inadequate to draw a decree in part. [Para 26][1237-C-F]
2. The right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise. This finds articulation in Article 326 of the Constitution. The elector or voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate- evolved through court decisionsis an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence. Keeping this in mind, this court is of the opinion that if the appellant’s contentions were to be accepted, there would be a denial of a full-fledged trial, based on the acknowledgement that material facts were not suppressed. Whether the existence of a criminal case, where a charge has not been framed, in relation to an offence which does not possibly carry a prison sentence, or a sentence for a short spell in prison, and whether conviction in a case, where penalty was imposed, are material facts, are contested. This court would be pre-judging that issue because arguendo if the effect of withholding some such information is seen as insignificant, by itself, that would not negate the possibility of a conclusion based on the cumulative impact of withholding of facts and non-compliance with statutory stipulations (which is to be established in a trial). For these reasons, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be faulted. [Paras 27 and 28][1238-A-B; 1239-D-G]
Public Interest Foundation & Ors v Union of India (UOI) & Ors., [2018] 10 SCR 141; D. Ramachandran v. R.V. Jankiraman [1999] 1 SCR 983; Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd. [2011] 7 SCR 60; Virender Nath Gautam v Satpal Singh & Ors. 2006 Supp SCR 413 – relied on.
Saleem Bhai v. State of Maharashtra [2002] 5 Suppl. SCR 491; Mayar (H.K.) Limited v. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express [2006] 1 SCR 860; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399; Sejal Glass Ltd. vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 7 SCR 557; Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [1982] 3 SCR 318 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.