Representation of the People Act, 1951 – ss.83, 123 – Failure to plead material facts in the election petition concerning alleged corrupt practice – Held: s.123 defines corrupt practices – s.83(1)(a) mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts – When the allegation is of corrupt practice, the basic facts constituting corrupt practice must be pleaded in order to comply with s.83(1)(a) – In the present case, such concise facts were not at all pleaded – Basic facts cannot be pleaded only by stating that the same find place in the documents relied upon – Failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition – As material facts regarding allegations of corrupt practice were not pleaded, the election petition does not disclose any cause of action as far as the ground of corrupt practice is concerned – Further, the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper is also not supported by material facts – In any case, the said ground is no longer relevant as the term of the appellant has already expired – No purpose will be served by keeping the Election Petition pending – Impugned judgment set aside – Applications filed by the appellant for rejection of the petition and/or for deletion of irrelevant paragraphs allowed – Election petition filed by first respondent is dismissed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – O.VI, r.16.
Representation of the People Act, 1951 – Material Facts – Requirement of stating, non-compliance with – Effect of – Held: The material facts are the primary facts which must be proved on trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action – Non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 123 of the RP Act of 1951 defines various corrupt practices for the purpose of the said enactment. The corrupt practice has to be qua the election subject matter of challenge in the Election Petition. In paragraph 5, the first respondent has relied upon the representation made by her to the Returning Officer by pointing out that the appellant and 6 th respondent have committed misconduct by suppressing the findings of the Election Commission recorded in the order date 27th May 2016. Presumably, paragraph 5 of the petition is in support of the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination papers of the appellant. However, the first respondent has not pleaded that under a particular statutory provision, the appellant and 6th respondent were under an obligation to disclose the order dated 27th May 2016 passed by the Election Commission while filing nomination papers. It is not pleaded how on the ground of the failure to disclose the said order, the appellant and 6th respondent were disqualified from contesting the election. The disqualification must be based on a statutory provision. The first respondent has not pleaded that in law it was the obligation of the appellant to disclose in the nomination paper, the earlier order of the Election Commission by which the election was postponed. The existence of no such obligation is pleaded. Therefore, averments made in paragraphs nos. 4 and 5 of the Election Petition are unnecessary, thereby, attracting clause (a) of Rule 16 of Order VI of CPC. Under clause (a) of Rule 16 of Order VI of CPC, the Court has the power to strike out a pleading which is unnecessary. [Paras 9, 11][553-G; 554-A, C-H]
1.2 Section 123 of the RP Act of 1951 defines corrupt practices. In paragraphs 6 and 7, even bare particulars of any of the corrupt practices covered by Section 123 have not been pleaded. What is the nature of corrupt practice is also not described except for making a bald allegation that in the representations mentioned in paragraph 6, the first respondent has set out electoral misconduct, corrupt practice, and bribery on the part of the appellant. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section
83 mandates that an election petition must contain a concise statement of material facts. When the allegation is of corrupt practice, the basic facts constituting corrupt practice must be pleaded in order to make compliance with Clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 83. In this case, such concise facts are not at all pleaded. Basic facts cannot be pleaded only by stating that the same find place in the documents relied upon. The first respondent has merely stated that the contents of representations may be read as a part of the petition. This does not satisfy the requirement of incorporating a concise statement of material facts. Moreover, when the allegation is of corrupt practice, the proceedings virtually become quasi-criminal. Therefore, the elected candidate must get adequate notice of what is alleged against him. That is why material facts concerning the ground of corrupt practice must be pleaded. The outcome of such a petition is very serious. It can oust a popularly elected representative of the people. Therefore, non-compliance with the requirement of stating material facts must result in the rejection of the petition at the threshold. [Para 13][556-B-F]
1.3 The failure to plead material facts concerning alleged corrupt practice is fatal to the election petition. The material facts are the primary facts which must be proved on trial by a party to establish the existence of a cause of action. In the present case, taking the averments made in the petition as it is, not a single material fact is pleaded making out an allegation of corrupt practice covered by Section 123 of the RP Act of 1951. [Para 15][558-BC] Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal v. Rajiv Gandhi
(1987) Supp SCC 93 : [1987] SCR 369; V.S.
Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC
737 : [1999] 2 SCR 99 – relied on.
1.4 Paragraphs 3 and 4 are unnecessary, which do not deal with something which happened after the election was declared. Therefore, the said paragraphs being irrelevant will have to be ordered to be deleted under Rule 16 of Order VI of CPC. Paragraph 5 is not material for the alleged cause of action. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 9 do not disclose any material facts in relation to the allegations of corrupt practices. As material facts regarding allegations of corrupt practice have not been pleaded, the election petition does not disclose any cause of action as far as the ground of corrupt practice is concerned. Therefore, even these paragraphs deserve to be deleted. The ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper is not supported by material facts. In any case, the ground of improper acceptance of the nomination paper is no longer relevant as the term of the appellant has already expired. Therefore, in view of the findings which recorded, no purpose will be served by keeping the Election Petition pending. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the applications filed by the appellant for rejection of the petition and/or for deletion of irrelevant paragraphs are allowed. [Para 21][561-F-G; 562-A-B]
M. Karunanidhi v. H.V. Hande & Ors. (1983) 2 SCC
473 : [1983] 2 SCR 629; Mulayam Singh Yadav v. Dharam Pal Yadav & Ors. (2001) 7 SCC 98 : [2001] 3 SCR 1103; Ponnala Lakshmaiah v. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Ors. (2012) 7 SCC 788 : [2012] 6 SCR 851; Balwan Singh v. Lakshmi Narain & Others [1960]
3 SCR 91 – 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.