Representation of People Act, 1951 – ss. 83 and 100(1)(a) and (d)(i), 101 and 125A(i) – Appellant challenged the election of respondent no.1 by filing election petition before the High Court alleging that respondent no.1 had grossly violated several instructions issued by the Election Commission and also the provisions of the Representation of People Act – Respondent no.1, in turn, filed two applications and sought to strike out paragraphs
2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition u/Or. VI, r.16 and to dismiss the election petition in limine u/Or. VII, r.11, both of which were allowed by the High Court – Propriety of – On appeal, held: Not proper – The approach of the High Court in considering the two applications was manifestly erroneous – It had ventured into the area of analysis of the matter on merit – That was a prohibited area at that stage – High Court misdirected itself in concluding that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action with or without paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of election petition – There was discernible pleading as to what objections were taken before the Returning officer and as to why he was in error in not rejecting the nomination of respondent no.1 – The said paragraphs plainly disclosed the facts, which were material facts for adjudicating the grounds for declaring the election of respondent no.1 as being void, because of improper acceptance of his nomination form by the Returning officer – Averments made in the concerned paragraphs of the election petition were not frivolous and vexatious – The election petition would have to be examined as a whole without subtracting any portion thereform – Not possible to take a view that the same did not disclose any cause of action – Thus, applications filed by the respondent No.1 in the subject election petition rejected – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VI, r.17 and Or. VII, r.11 – Election Laws. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It is well settled that the election petition will have to be read as a whole and cannot be dissected sentencewise or paragraph-wise to rule that the same does not disclose a cause of action. Cause of action embodies a bundle of facts which may be necessary for the plaintiffs to prove in order to get a relief from the Court. The reliefs claimed by the appellant are founded on grounds inter alia ascribable to Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. Further relief has been claimed to declare the appellant as having been elected under Section 101 of the 1951 Act. The cause of action for filing the election petition, therefore, was perceptibly in reference to the material facts depicting that the nomination form of respondent No.1 was improperly accepted by the Returning Officer. [Para 21] [187-D-E]
2. The High Court misdirected itself in concluding that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action with or without paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition. Indeed, the pleadings of the election petition should be precise and clear containing all the necessary details and particulars as required by law. ‘Material facts’ would mean all the basic facts constituting the ingredients of the grounds stated in the election petition in the context of relief to declare the election to be void. It is well established that in an election petition, whether a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded, is a question which depends on the nature of the grounds relied upon and the special circumstances of the case. [Para 22] [187-G-H; 188-A-B]
3. The averments in the concerned paragraphs of the election petition, by no standard can be said to be frivolous and vexatious as such. The High Court committed manifest error in entering into the tenability of the facts and grounds urged in support thereof by the appellant on merit, as is evident from the cogitation in paragraphs 16 to 22 of the impugned judgment. [Para 29] [195-C-D]
4. The High Court has opined that the contents of paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition did not furnish “any” material facts but were only in the nature of fulminating and lampooning order of the Returning Officer for having unduly rejected the objections taken by the appellant whilst accepting the nomination form submitted by respondent No.1. The High Court broadly referred to the contents of the concerned paragraphs of the election petition, but the analysis of the High Court in that behalf is not correct. Paragraphs 2 & 9 to 11 of the election petition plainly disclose the facts, which are material facts for adjudicating the grounds for declaring the election of respondent No.1 as being void, because of improper acceptance of his nomination form by the Returning Officer (respondent No.8). [Para 30] [195-E-G]
5. The approach of the High Court in considering the two applications is manifestly erroneous, if not perverse. For, it has ventured into the arena of analysis of the matter on merit. That is a prohibited area at this stage. Since the conclusion reached by the High Court that the pleadings in paragraphs 2 and 9 to 11 of the election petition are frivolous and vexatious is untenable, it would necessarily follow that the election petition, as filed, will have to be examined as a whole without subtracting any portion therefrom. If so read, it is not possible to take a view that the same does not disclose any cause of action at all. On this finding, the application preferred by respondent no.1 for rejection of election petition in limine under Order VII Rule 11, cannot be countenanced and must also fail. [Para 33] [199-D-F]
6. In light of the above, both applications filed by respondent No.1 in the subject election petition, deserve to be rejected. Further, the Election Petition shall stand restored to the file of the High Court to its original number for being proceeded further in accordance with law. Similarly, the applications filed by the appellant shall stand restored (except the application for early hearing), to their original numbers to be decided by the High Court in accordance with law. [Para 42] [203-A-B] Mohan Rawale v. Damodar Tatyaba (1994) 2 SCC 392 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 850; Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh (2005) 13 SCC 511 : [2005] 5 Suppl. SCR 817 – relied on.
Azhar Hussain v. Rajiv Gandhi 1986 (Supp) SCC 315 : [1986] SCR 782; Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009)
10 SCC 541 : [2009] 14 SCR 836; Pendyala Venkata Krishna Rao v. Pothula Rama Rao 2005 (3) ALD 47; Hari Shanker jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) 8 SCC 233 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 38; Nandiesha Reddy v. Kavitha Mahesh (2011) 7 SCC 721 : [2011] 8 SCR 154; Pothula Rama Rao v. Pendyala Venkata Krishna Rao and Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 1 : [2007] 8 SCR 982; Kisan Shankar Kathore v. Arun Dattatray (2014) 14 SCC 162 : 2014
(7) SCR 258; Krishnamoorthy v. Siva Kumar and others (2015) 3 SCC 467 : [2015] 4 SCR 987; Resurgence India v. Election Commission of India (2014) 14 SCC
189 : [2013] 9 SCR 360; Duni Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 16 SCC 152; Kuldeep Singh Pathania v. Bikram Singh Jaryal (2017) 5 SCC 345; D. Ramachandran v. RV Jankiraman & Ors. (1999)
3 SCC 267 : [1999] 1 SCR 983; Asharaf Kokkur v. KV Abdul Khader & Ors. (2015) 1 SCC 129 : [2014]
7 SCR 1123; Virender Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh & Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 617 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 413; Mohd. Akbar v. Ashok Sahu & Ors. (2015) 14 SCC 519; RK Roja v. US Rayudu & Anr. (2016) 14 SCC 725; Mairembam Prithviraj v. Pukhrem Sharathchandra Singh (2017) 2 SCC 487 : [2016] 9 SCR 687; Shri Balwant Singh v. Sri Laxmi Narain AIR 1960 SC 770 : [1960] SCR 91; Samant N. Balkrishna & Anr. v. George Fernandez & Ors. 1969 (3) SCC 238 : [1969] 3 SCR 603; L.R. Shivaramagowda & Ors. v. T.M.
Chandrashekar (Dead) by LRs & Ors. (1999) 1 SCC
666 : [1998] 3 Suppl. SCR 241; , Ram Sukh v. Dinesh Aggarwal (2009) 10 SCC 541 : [2009] 14 SCR 836; Mangani Lal Mandal v. Bishnu Deo Bhandari (2012) 3 SCC 314 : [2012] 1 SCR 527; Shambhu Prasad Sharma v. Charandas Mahant & Ors. (2012) 11 SCC 390 : [2012] 6 SCR 356; Hukumdev Narain Yadav v. Lalit Narain Mishra (1974) 2 SCC 133 : [1974] 3 SCR 31; K. Venkateswara Rao & Anr. v. Bekkam Narasimha Reddi & Ors. [1969] 1 SCR 679; Harmohinder Singh Pradhan v. Ranjeet Singh Talwandi & Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 46 : [2005] 3 SCR 952; Hari Shanker Jain v. Sonia Gandhi (2001) 8 SCC 233 : [2001] 3 Suppl. SCR 38; Tek Chank v. Dile Ram (2001) 3 SCC 290 : [2001]
1 SCR 527; M. Kamalam v. V.A. Syed Mohammed (1978)
2 SCC 659 : [1978] 3 SCR 446; G.M. Siddeshwar v. Prasanna Kumar (2013) 4 SCC 776 : [2013]
4 SCR 1107; V. S. Achuthanandan v. P. J. Francis (1999) 3 SCC 737 : [1999] 2 SCR 99; Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy (2012) 7 SCC
788 : [2012] 6 SCR 851; Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez (1969) 3 SCC 238 : [1969] 3 SCR 603; Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. v. Owners and Parties Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. (2006) 3 SCC
100 : [2006] 1 SCR 860; Virendra Nath Gautam v. Satpal Singh and Ors. (2007) 3 SCC 617 : [2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 413; People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399 : [2003]
2 SCR 1136; Durai Muthuswami v. N. Nachiappan and Ors. (1973) 2 SCC 45 : [1974] 1 SCR 40; Jagjit Singh v. Dharam Pal Singh and Ors. (1995) Suppl (1) SCC 422; Vashist Narayan Sharma v. Dev Chandra & Ors. [1955] 1 SCR 509 – 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.